No photo
Asker
Posted over 1 year ago.

Thanks Neil, that was very helpful.

What if the employee has an unknown, but documented

No photo
Asker
Posted over 1 year ago.

Hi again Neil. The mobile version of the site isn't conducive to quick posts.

Does it matter if the employee's medical condition is know, or are symptoms that interfere with work sufficient to establish some sort of temporarily disabling condition even if the exact condition isn't known?

In terms of the employer establishing a hardship, I'm assuming the type of work matters substantially. If an employee's work is fairly well commoditized, and their reduced capacity is equivalent to what an employer could expect if several employees were out due to a common periodic sickness (the flu or some other cold virus), is that employee generally protected because their drop in productivity would result in a situation that the employer would likely see independent of that employee having health problems?

Along the same lines, is there a general standard for what an undue hardship is or isn't, or does that vary by employer? For instance, if employer A says, "We lay off anyone who has more than 1 day of sick time.", and they have records to show it, could they reasonably fire an employee who is sick for more than 1 day, while an employer who only terminates employees after 10 sick days can't all other things being equal (eg the employee isn't critical and their responsibilities can be managed by other employees)