> It feels like it is fine to do that if the employee had a mental health problem but not, for example, cancer or a broken hip.
It most certainly isn't. No idea where the guy in the article is, but anywhere civilized a verifiabley sick employee, regardless of the nature of the problem, that's fired should have some legal recourse.
I think the same, but I suspect in the most (all?) of the USA sick employee have no recourse when fired. I remember something about that (what to say to a sick employee you're "involuntary separating with") in a course I had in "Change Management" (what a polite thing to say instead of "Bloody Restructuring") during my tenure as manager in a US multi-national company.
Which side of the "anywhere civilized" this places USA is a different problem, open to debate, that seems most of US people don't think is something they should fix (it's our business, btw, I'm not an US citizen, nor living in the USA).
Even if you are employed at-will, if you are fired for any of a number of predefined reasons (age, sex, disability status, etc.), you have legal recourse.
Many states have their own protections as well - a common one is sexual orientation.
>Many states have their own protections as well - a common one is sexual orientation.
Sexual orientation is protected federally as well.
In 2011 and 2012, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ruled that job discrimination against Lesbians, Gays, Bisexuals and Transgender individuals classified as a form of sex discrimination and thus violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
"The EEOC has held that discrimination against an individual because that person is transgender (also known as gender identity discrimination) is discrimination because of sex and therefore is covered under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. See Macy v. Department of Justice, EEOC Appeal No. 0120120821 (April 20, 2012), http://www.eeoc.gov/decisions/0120120821%20Macy%20v%20DOJ%20.... The Commission has also found that claims by lesbian, gay, and bisexual individuals alleging sex-stereotyping state a sex discrimination claim under Title VII. See Veretto v. U.S. Postal Service, EEOC Appeal No. 0120110873 (July 1, 2011); Castello v. U.S. Postal Service, EEOC Request No. 0520110649 (Dec. 20, 2011), http://www.eeoc.gov/decisions/0520110649.txt."
I think you and the grandparent overlooked something: the article mentions "a few threatening phone calls", and from the description of how the employee behaved, those likely were phone calls where he threatened the company or management.
Even though that was obviously a symptom of his mental illness, it's probably sufficient to make the firing legal.
Threatening phonecalls are obviously very serious. And it's possible that those threats were not a result of mental illness but just anger and stress. But still, maybe they were a symptom of illness and while legal it'd be better if companies could work with employees who have mental illness. "Fire fast" is popular mantra but there doesn't seem to be much investigation on the effects of employee churn.
Imagine you are an employee. You find out that another employee has made threats of violence. He's coming into work today. What do you do?
It really really sucks for the mentally ill guy, but it's not on the other employees to tolerate it. A violent coworker is just as violent whether it's due to a chemical imbalance, him being a deliberately violently person, or him being justifiably angry with the boss.
I say "hi", I ask about the meds he's on, I ask about his time in hospital.
Maybe it's because I've seen inside different forensic units (medium secure and low secure) and a variety of different mental health wards that I can appreciate the difference between people who make threats of violence (which are not acceptable) and people who have been violent.
> I say "hi", I ask about the meds he's on, I ask about his time in hospital.
Good God, that is awfully rude. Let the man have privacy. Do you want all your coworkers asking about your medical problems, in detail? Do you share your medical history and current medications with all your coworkers?
It most certainly isn't. No idea where the guy in the article is, but anywhere civilized a verifiabley sick employee, regardless of the nature of the problem, that's fired should have some legal recourse.