Employee Cancer Leave: Suzanne Lucas Questions Corporate Response

In a recent LinkedIn post, Suzanne Lucas discusses a critical situation involving an employee with cancer and their eligibility for FMLA and ADA protections, questioning the alleged actions of United Airlines and the role of HR in such sensitive matters.

Suzanne Lucas highlights a scenario where an employee, after 51 weeks of service, is nearing FMLA eligibility. The core of the discussion revolves around how employers should handle such situations, particularly when an employee is undergoing cancer treatment.

“An employee with cancer has worked for you for 51 weeks and will be eligible for FMLA next week. Do you… Fire them now before FMLA kicks in?”

Lucas presents three potential courses of action for an employer in this delicate circumstance. The first, and most alarming, option posed is immediate termination before FMLA protections become active. This option immediately raises ethical and legal red flags, which Lucas implicitly questions.

The Interactive Process and Reasonable Accommodation

Suzanne Lucas then directs attention to the legal framework that should guide employer actions in such cases, specifically mentioning the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the concept of reasonable accommodation. As Suzanne Lucas notes:

“Go through the interactive process and consider if intermittent leave for Chemo is a reasonable accommodation under ADA?”

This option, according to Lucas, represents a legally compliant and ethically sound approach. The ADA mandates that employers engage in an interactive process with employees with disabilities to determine if reasonable accommodations can be made, allowing the employee to perform the essential functions of their job. Intermittent leave for treatments like chemotherapy is often considered a reasonable accommodation.

Empathy and Support in the Workplace

The third option presented by Suzanne Lucas emphasizes a human-centric approach, prioritizing employee well-being and support. This option suggests a compassionate response that acknowledges the employee’s situation and offers assistance proactively.

“Say, ‘Oh how awful. I know you’re not eligible for FMLA until next week, but we will work this out. How can we support you?'”

This approach, as highlighted by Lucas, fosters a supportive work environment and demonstrates an employer’s commitment to its staff beyond mere legal obligations. It prioritizes open communication and collaborative problem-solving.

Questioning Corporate Response and HR’s Role

Suzanne Lucas uses the hypothetical scenario to question the alleged actions of United Airlines, while also cautioning that the information comes from a lawsuit and represents only one side of the story. The post then pivots to a crucial question about internal corporate processes.

According to Suzanne Lucas, the situation raises significant questions about the internal oversight and procedures within the company. As Suzanne Lucas pointedly asks:

“But it brings up another question for me: Where was HR in this? Are managers allowed terminate employees without consulting with HR?”

In Suzanne Lucas’s view, this highlights the indispensable role of Human Resources in navigating complex employee situations, especially those involving potential legal protections and sensitive personal circumstances. The implication is that HR should be integral to such decision-making processes to ensure compliance, ethical treatment, and consistent application of company policy.

Lucas’s analysis serves as a vital reminder for businesses to have robust policies and training in place to handle employee health issues with both legal compliance and human compassion.