4 ms·

I want to know more. This quote is really strange: > As an employer who puts our employee safety first, we have a zero-tolerance policy and we stand by our dec

I want to know more. This quote is really strange: > As an employer who puts our employee safety first, we have a zero-tolerance policy and we stand by our decision to terminate the plaintiff for his violation of our workplace violence policy Did the man really react violently? Or is Gravity Diagnostics not willing to admit that they handled the situation incorrectly?

phreack 5y ago
That would certainly change things. Did they fire him pettily because they felt he didn't appreciate the party enough since he left? Or did his panic attack cause him to, say, punch someone in the face? There's so little detail in the article that one could imagine a scenario where firing the employee doesn't sound like a 100% asshole move.
- pseudalopex 5y ago
  Harder to imagine a scenario where firing the employee wasn't a 100% asshole move and the jury ruled in his favor though.
- moate 5y ago
  If someone says "do not do this no job-function related thing, it will be bad for me" and you do that, there's very few reactions that I feel would not still be the company's fault. Someone wanted cake and some goof off time and was using this man's birthday to meet that want in spite of it causing him distress. Everything after that is because of this cause. "This guy physically attacked me after I chose, against warning, to put him in a panic state" is an admission of guilt not a deflection of blame in my mind. Pretty classic neuro-typical behavior tbh.
  - spacemanmatt 5y ago
    He didn't physically attack anyone. No violence was alleged nor evidenced.
astura 5y ago
It's really strange... If you read the linked article (where that quote came from) it explains it further. This article is just reporting on the linked article. He had a second panic attack the next day when he was confronted about it in a conference room. Rather than leave the conference room and go to the car like the previous day he self soothed by hugging himself (?) which apparently cased the other employees to think he was going to become violent. Not sure why... other than it was "weird" behavior? So they escorted him out of the building and wouldn't let him back in, which was apparently the policy.
mikeryan 5y ago
If I give Gravity Diagnostics the benefit of the doubt then I’m guessing that the panic attack caused him to react in a “violent outburst” that wouldn’t be appropriate in a professional environment leading to his dismissal. That doesn’t absolve them of an ADA complaint. A birthday party is not a required work event and this was preventable on their part.
- spacemanmatt 5y ago
  It's awfully generous to give them the benefit of the doubt considering Gravity Diagnostics did not allege violence.
LordDragonfang 5y ago
Someone further down posted a link with more details, but to summarize: >“They way [the Gravity Diagnostics employees] say it, they believed he was enraged and possibly about to get violent,” [his attorney] Bucher said. >Berling has never demonstrated any violence, Bucher said, and someone who is suffering a panic attack becomes almost paralyzed with fear; they don’t often lash out. >“Basically what the argument was is he was fired for having a panic attack,” Bucher said. “They made assumptions that he was dangerous based off of his disability and not off of any evidence that he was violent.” https://linknky.com/news/2022/04/14/man-awarded-450k-after-firing-over-birthday-party-at-gravity-diagnostics/ https://linknky.com/news/2022/04/14/man-awarded-450k-after-f...
- gwbas1c 5y ago
  That was a much better article, thanks.
wtallis 5y ago
The phrase "zero tolerance" is often abused as an attempt to abdicate all responsibility for being reasonable, while making it sound like willful blindness is a virtue. It's a common enough usage that the phrase has become a red flag indicating the possible presence of an out of control bureaucracy. And in this case, it certainly appears that the company is trying to use a stupidly simplistic policy to reframe callous behavior as not only good but required. Or, to put it another way: a "zero tolerance" policy should not be a "shoot first, ask questions never" policy.
- robonerd 5y ago
  "Zero tolerance" is a bureaucratic euphemism for 'zero nuance'.
plorkyeran 5y ago
If he had actually reacted in a way that justified firing him, they would have said what he did rather than hiding behind their zero tolerance policy.

phreack 5y ago

That would certainly change things. Did they fire him pettily because they felt he didn't appreciate the party enough since he left? Or did his panic attack cause him to, say, punch someone in the face? There's so little detail in the article that one could imagine a scenario where firing the employee doesn't sound like a 100% asshole move.

pseudalopex 5y ago
Harder to imagine a scenario where firing the employee wasn't a 100% asshole move and the jury ruled in his favor though.
moate 5y ago
If someone says "do not do this no job-function related thing, it will be bad for me" and you do that, there's very few reactions that I feel would not still be the company's fault. Someone wanted cake and some goof off time and was using this man's birthday to meet that want in spite of it causing him distress. Everything after that is because of this cause. "This guy physically attacked me after I chose, against warning, to put him in a panic state" is an admission of guilt not a deflection of blame in my mind. Pretty classic neuro-typical behavior tbh.
- spacemanmatt 5y ago
  He didn't physically attack anyone. No violence was alleged nor evidenced.

astura 5y ago

It's really strange... If you read the linked article (where that quote came from) it explains it further. This article is just reporting on the linked article. He had a second panic attack the next day when he was confronted about it in a conference room. Rather than leave the conference room and go to the car like the previous day he self soothed by hugging himself (?) which apparently cased the other employees to think he was going to become violent. Not sure why... other than it was "weird" behavior? So they escorted him out of the building and wouldn't let him back in, which was apparently the policy.

mikeryan 5y ago

If I give Gravity Diagnostics the benefit of the doubt then I’m guessing that the panic attack caused him to react in a “violent outburst” that wouldn’t be appropriate in a professional environment leading to his dismissal. That doesn’t absolve them of an ADA complaint. A birthday party is not a required work event and this was preventable on their part.

spacemanmatt 5y ago
It's awfully generous to give them the benefit of the doubt considering Gravity Diagnostics did not allege violence.

LordDragonfang 5y ago

Someone further down posted a link with more details, but to summarize: >“They way [the Gravity Diagnostics employees] say it, they believed he was enraged and possibly about to get violent,” [his attorney] Bucher said. >Berling has never demonstrated any violence, Bucher said, and someone who is suffering a panic attack becomes almost paralyzed with fear; they don’t often lash out. >“Basically what the argument was is he was fired for having a panic attack,” Bucher said. “They made assumptions that he was dangerous based off of his disability and not off of any evidence that he was violent.” https://linknky.com/news/2022/04/14/man-awarded-450k-after-firing-over-birthday-party-at-gravity-diagnostics/ https://linknky.com/news/2022/04/14/man-awarded-450k-after-f...

gwbas1c 5y ago
That was a much better article, thanks.

wtallis 5y ago

The phrase "zero tolerance" is often abused as an attempt to abdicate all responsibility for being reasonable, while making it sound like willful blindness is a virtue. It's a common enough usage that the phrase has become a red flag indicating the possible presence of an out of control bureaucracy. And in this case, it certainly appears that the company is trying to use a stupidly simplistic policy to reframe callous behavior as not only good but required. Or, to put it another way: a "zero tolerance" policy should not be a "shoot first, ask questions never" policy.

robonerd 5y ago
"Zero tolerance" is a bureaucratic euphemism for 'zero nuance'.

plorkyeran 5y ago

If he had actually reacted in a way that justified firing him, they would have said what he did rather than hiding behind their zero tolerance policy.