Worker with Bipolar Disorder to Receive $91,000 in Disability Discrimination Case Settled by EEOC
Employer’s Motion to Dismiss Lawsuit Rejected by Court in Rare EEOC Litigation on Issue of Psychiatric Disability
DALLAS – The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) announced today (2003) the settlement of a disability discrimination lawsuit against Lincoln, Nebraska-based Voss Electric Company (Voss) for $91,250 on behalf of a former worker with bipolar disorder. Voss is a distributor of commercial lighting products, with 12 branches and 16 sales locations located throughout the central United States.
In its lawsuit, case number CIV-02-92-C in U.S. District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma in Oklahoma City, the EEOC charged Voss with violating the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA) by terminating a long-time employee of its Oklahoma City facility who needed in-patient care due to bipolar disorder, a psychiatric disability. Rather than allow the employee the additional time off recommended by his physicians, Voss fired him by taping a termination letter to the front door of his home, the EEOC said in the suit.
Voss had filed a motion requesting the Court to dismiss the EEOC’s lawsuit, but the Court ordered that the case be tried. On February 28, 2003, the Court, in a detailed 17-page opinion, ruled against Voss on all arguments raised against the EEOC, and held that the EEOC’s claims should be submitted to a jury for trial.
The Court ruled that the EEOC had submitted evidence that the former employee’s mental illness, at the time of his termination, severely impaired a number of his major life activities, including thinking, interacting with others, communicating with others, and the ability to take care of himself. Voss then argued that, at the time of his termination, the former employee was unable to perform the essential functions of his job.
The Court, however, ruled that a jury should determine whether the employee was entitled to a reasonable medical leave to enable him to recover sufficiently to return to his former position. After the Court’s ruling, the parties reached an agreement embodied in a Consent Decree approved and signed by the Court.
“For years I did a good job for this company, but soon after I became ill they discarded me as I was trying to get well, which just compounded my struggles,” the fired employee said. “I am thankful to the EEOC for standing up for me and obtaining a fair settlement.”
Robert A. Canino, Regional Attorney of the EEOC’s Dallas District Office, said, “We should credit the sound legal analysis by the Court in this case. This is a difficult area of law to enforce due to interpretational issues challenging the courts, but the EEOC will not shrink from the task of educating the public about the ADA through the pursuit of civil actions when necessary. Decisions like this one which allow a jury to apply the law to specific facts can give victims of disability discrimination confidence that their voice will be heard.”
The EEOC filed suit after exhausting its conciliation efforts to reach a voluntary pre-litigation settlement. The Consent Decree settling the suit provides monetary and prospective non-monetary relief, including training of all Voss employees, officers, managers, and supervisors on the requirements of the ADA, and the posting of a notice informing employees of their rights under federal law at all of its locations.
“Mentally disabled employees are protected under the ADA just as those who are physically disabled,” said Sidney B. Chesnin, lead trial counsel for the EEOC. “Disabled employees are entitled to consideration of a reasonable accommodation for their disability. By simply giving a worker a reasonable period of leave to adjust to a medical condition related to a disability, the employer can often pave the way for the return of a productive employee.”
In addition to enforcing Title I of the ADA, which prohibits employment discrimination against people with disabilities in the private sector and state and local governments, the EEOC enforces Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex (including sexual harassment or pregnancy) or national origin and protects employees who complain about such offenses from retaliation; the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, which protects workers age 40 and older from discrimination based on age; the Equal Pay Act of 1963, which prohibits gender-based wage discrimination; the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, which prohibits employment discrimination against people with disabilities in the federal sector; and sections of the Civil Rights Act of 1991. Further information about the Commission is available on the agency’s web site at www.eeoc.gov.
I just came across this piece which is a letter written to the Financial times. Makes for interesting reading given that people who are suffering with an unpleasant and unpredictable boss put it down to a variety of causes including Bipolar, drugs, personality, environment, culture etc. Great to read all the different perceptions….
http://blogs.ft.com/dearlucy/2007/07/i-think-my-bosshtml/
‘I think my boss may be bipolar’
July 10, 2007
I think my boss may be bipolar. He has two different modies: he’s either charging round, full of energy, making bold decisions or he’s paranoid, negative and bullying. In the “up” moods he’s stimulating, though it’s exhausting trying to keep up. The rest of the time he is paranoid and hostile. I’ve worked for him for two years and though I admire his talent and charisma I find his mood swings increasingly stressful. A couple of weeks ago I tried to broach the matter, but he looked as if he was about to have a coronary, so I shut up. Is there anything I can do? And if not, how can I insulate myself from the worst of his rages?
Investment banker, male, 36
July 10th, 2007 in Uncategorised | Permalink
19 Responses to “‘I think my boss may be bipolar’”
Comments
They say people join companies and leave managers – it is quite true. I am a victim of a similar situation, and the only way I have managed to survive is by telling myself that you cannot change a person – especially your boss – you can only change your reaction to him. Try being objective, impersonal, and to-the-point. Maintain a steady unfluctuating disposition, that should lessen the blow of the mood swings. But if despite all this you feel you cant be happy working this way, the world is big and it is full of opportunities
Posted by: Anonymous | July 10th, 2007 at 2:53 pm | Report this comment
I had a boss who was very similar – she ended up driving me into depression. The situation may not get any better and this can have an impact on you.
The lack of rationality that you have to cope with can put enough mental pressure on you that it causes you to question your judgement and eventually you follow the mood swings.
That’s good for no-one.
It’s also worth condsidering your boss may have a drugs problem, this can have similar effects to mental illness.
Posted by: Aaron | July 10th, 2007 at 4:34 pm | Report this comment
If your boss is really bipolar then he will exhibit those two different modes when dealing with senior colleagues and potential clients, as well as when dealing with a junior colleague. It doesn’t seem very likely that he would have lasted even two years in his job if he were paranoid and hostile with clients and his boss. It is perhaps more likely that he suffers from “kicking the dog” syndrome, bouts of which could be triggered by business disappointments. You are working in a deal driven organisation. Every mandate won or lost, every issue floated or pulled and every time that market prices do or don’t perform near expectations affect reputations, remuneration and prospects. Every potential deal is a one-off opportunity from which to wring every penny of fees and every nuance of status and ranking. It is not an environment where anyone is likely to appreciate a good loser so either be just as bad a loser as your boss or try to move to a longer term client relationship position.
Posted by: Ironybrew, 57, Retired, Male | July 10th, 2007 at 5:15 pm | Report this comment
Insight meditation is the answer. I used to have an extremely nasty boss – the owner of a small company who would appear charming and charismatic to potential clients, yet would treat his employees with total contempt.
Insight meditation (vipassana meditation) is a practice that literally changes the way your brain functions so as you are no longer hurt or upset by the actions of others. The practice takes a couple of months until you see a clear benefit, but trust me, it really works.
Not only are you better able to deal with difficult people, you will also increase your concentration by a huge amount and therefore perform better at work, and enjoy your life more overall.
You will find over the course of a few months that everyday life becomes increasingly pleasurable as you become more open to experience and less reactive to changing moods.
The power it gives you to sit calmly smiling whilst some ego-maniac shouts at you, and see them unable to understand why you are totally unaffected by them is reason enough to do it, but actually, the greater strength will come from not even needing to.
Posted by: Anonymous | July 11th, 2007 at 10:00 am | Report this comment
I’m in a similar position, and I find that the manager’s moods are affecting me in a very negative way. In fact, his behavior is making me depressed and that is spilling over into my family life. My family and friends are highly aware of the change in me, as well as the cause, and they have urged me to quit the job in order to be away from this negative influence. I’m in the process of doing that right now, as there is no way to change that person or to tolerate his abusive persona much longer.
Posted by: Fed Up | July 11th, 2007 at 3:51 pm | Report this comment
It’s not your responsibility to change your boss, except in the sense of finding a new one! Let the market decide the fate of dysfunctional supervisors…
Posted by: Vince Woodward | July 11th, 2007 at 6:32 pm | Report this comment
Sounds like a coke problem to me. Bipolar people aren’t paranoid and bullying in their down phases – they’re usually apathetic and totally non-functional. Take comfort by confiding in your colleagues – you can gain strength by having a laugh behind his back. Also be secure in the knowledge that in a couple more years he’ll crash and burn in a blaze of septum-ruptured glory – leaving you, the survivor, to the spoils.
Posted by: Female, PR, 25 | July 12th, 2007 at 8:19 am | Report this comment
Do we have the same boss? My tuppence worth from the City trenches: try to keep out of his way, try only to report success and watch the sits-vac ads.
Posted by: Craigoh | July 12th, 2007 at 12:36 pm | Report this comment
I have also been in this situation – only afterwards did we realise it was cocaine abuse.
I gave away so much of my internal energy to a complete idiot – never again. I would now instantly switch off and cease to care if someone attempted to treat me like that.
Try alerting whoever is ultimately in charge to what is going on and that it may be drug-related.
Posted by: Lulu | July 12th, 2007 at 1:11 pm | Report this comment
Worse if the boss is a woman. There are so many dysfunctional people in the City these days, that it is almost impossible to find the normal ones among us.
The best remedy is to find a new job and leave that “boss” to rot in his own mess…unless of course, you are a certified psychiatrist.
Posted by: Connie | July 12th, 2007 at 1:51 pm | Report this comment
In my experience you may wish to consider notifying HR or go to Occupational Health. Don’t sit back and do nothing
This is more and more common in the city. Drugs and stress play a part in many cases.
Your boss may want to consider an assesment at Life Works , a treatment facility in Duke Street that runs an Intensive Evening Program for Impaired Professionals. I know Professionals who have had their lives turned around by this course.
Life Works is now regarded as the best treatment facility of its kind in the UK for getting high achievers back on the path.
They also have a residential facility in Surrey that is very highly regarded.
Posted by: Marco | July 12th, 2007 at 2:28 pm | Report this comment
It is not just confined to the City. I experienced something similar in the public sector. It wasn’t drugs – my female boss simply had appalling inter-personal skills. Eventually (after I had left, her behaviour being a principle reason) she was moved to a different position where she wasn’t allowed to manage anyone. If you are confident your HR department will respond in an impartial manner, I’d speak to them.
Posted by: Kate | July 12th, 2007 at 4:22 pm | Report this comment
I had a similar situation with two male bosses simultaneously. The most senior of the two was an unfortunate combination of huge ego and massive insecurity; and was a divisive bully. It was so obvious to all members of my team, that our way of handling this was to bond over our derision and simply tolerate him.
The second of the two was my immediate boss and not as conspicuous. He was aggressive, and frequently phoned me out of hours or when I was on holiday to shout abuse at me because something hadn’t gone to plan, or he’d made a mistake and was seeking to pass blame. Just as my confidence was hitting rock bottom and I was thinking about quitting, I was headhunted and snapped up a much better offer at a better company. In my exit interview, I gave HR a no-holds-barred account of their behaviour. Shortly after I left, I bumped into my ex-immediate boss at a social event. He told me he was in AA and apologised for his treatment of me.
I agree with the comments already posted; it sounds as if your boss has a problem with substance abuse, or at least needs to seek help for a mental health issue. Speak to HR and keep your eye on the job market. Life is too short to tread on eggshells because of your boss’s inability to address his personal problems.
Posted by: Emma | July 12th, 2007 at 5:26 pm | Report this comment
I am battling the same issue. My boss is at least open minded enough that I have discussed the problem with her – which helped.
She blames the mood swings on a physical illness she suffers with, I am sure that is true to an extent but is not a full explanation.
I manage the problem by: (1) just accepting that her poor interpersonal skills mean mean she will never really understand why her unpredictable moods are a problem for us; and (2) in my head she lives in a ‘box’ and I only allow her out of that box in office hours – this has stopped me stressing about her out of office hours so makes the problem manageable. Interestingly this method was given to me by her boss who faces the same problem with her!
John, Banker
Posted by: John | July 14th, 2007 at 1:20 pm | Report this comment
I had a boss like this once. We observed that on days when he was rushed and grabbed a few donuts and coffee from the catering cart, he was nasty as a bear, but on days when he’d had breakfast at home, he was the kindest, smartest boss one could have. After charting this for a couple of weeks, we asked him if he might perhaps have a blood sugar problem. It turned out that he was diabetic! With diet, exercise and insulin, he’s much more even-keeled most times.
Posted by: Jean Mansen | July 16th, 2007 at 6:24 am | Report this comment
Dear Lucy
My problem concerns a columnist on my daily newspaper. She is really funny and sends everything up very cleverly. But a couple of weeks ago, she started referring to people who behave strangely as “nutters”. I think this is a very unkind and dismissive way to talk about people who struggle courageously with bipolar disorder and/or mental illness. I’m worried that if I tell her what I think, she’ll dismiss me as politically correct or a member of the green ink brigade. I’m worried that she’ll start calling people poofs or darkies next. What should I do?
Yours sincerely
HR Consultant (I know! I know!)
Female 59
Posted by: Sally Phillips | August 3rd, 2007 at 9:16 am | Report this comment
I strongly suggest you leave your boss as quickly as possible. I worked for someone like that, too. The best thing he ever did was tell me that I’d been declared redundant. I left him have never looked back.
Seriously, life is far too short to work for a boss like yours. I’m sure you have enough to worry about and complete every day. The last thing you need is a boss suffering from a neurosis you cannot control — and he won’t either.
Posted by: Doug | August 10th, 2007 at 3:53 pm | Report this comment
This sounds very familiar. I’m in a similar situation, and having always wondered why people got sick leave for “stress” (being a strong-minded individual) I now understand completely as I’m hating my own boss (who sounds like yours) and only staying here till I find something else. However, this might not be the best time to be looking for a job as an investment banker! Good luck – you’ll never change him, though, so unless you can somehow get rid of him you’ll have to put up with it or leave.
Posted by: analyst, female, 32 | August 14th, 2007 at 9:58 am | Report this comment
I just quit a job like yours. My boss has been diagnosed with bipolar disorder for 20+ yrs. I believe he uses his illness as a crutch for saying and doing whatever he feels at the time. He forgets half of what he says, he expects me to find his lost items and makes false accusations consistently. I know he drinks alcohol on occassion and doesn’t always take his meds. He doesn’t hesitate to ask if someone wore their stupid hat that day. One time I thought he was going to hit our receptionist. When he is up, he’s fun and full of spunk, when he’s down, he doesn’t care who’s way he get’s in. I’ve even heard him “yell” at his banker for using the work “closing” rather than the word “refinance”. He utilized my time for “lectures” and got mad when the work didn’t get done. I will never accept another position of this nature. I ended up on Paxil while I was there just to cope, my doctor advised I quit working for this man, which I eventually did.
I have been conducting research into legal cases involving people with Bipolar and have found this one regarding an employee who was dismissed for having a breakdown at work….
For details see the Disability Rights Commission website (UK organisation) http://83.137.212.42/sitearchive/drc/the_law/drc_legal_cases/impairment/mental_health_service_users_an/dismissal_of_person_with_bipol.html
Dismissal of person with bipolar affective disorder for alleged gross misconduct DRC00020
Summary: The client was diagnosed with Bipolar Affective Disorder. Her condition is adequately stabilised with medication. In April 2000 the client was dismissed from her employment for what her employer described as ‘gross misconduct’ after she had a mental breakdown at work and was admitted to hospital. The client considers that her employer discriminated against her by terminating her employment for a reason relating to her disability (i.e. dismissing her when she broke down at work) and failing to make reasonable adjustments to accommodate her particular needs.
Interest: The case highlights the issue of retention of a disabled person’s employment through the provision of reasonable adjustments rather than proceeding straight towards dismissal.
Outcome: ET held that client had been unlawfully treated less favourably because of her disability but did not rule that it was an appropriate case for the Respondent to make reasonable adjustments. At the Remedies Hearing on 23 July 2001 the Respondent was ordered to pay the total sum of £23,069.80 including an award of £8,000 (plus interest) for injury to feelings.
US Court ruling “Bipolar Disorder is physical disorder and not a mental illness” :
Implications for discrimination by insurers against mental health problem
(Article from Equilibrium website) http://www.bipolar-foundation.org/index.aspx?o=1354
This case revolves around the increasing and incontrovertible evidence from various areas of research that bipolar disorder is not ‘merely’ a ‘psychological disorder
It has reluctantly been accepted by individuals suffering from bipolar disorder (manic-depressive illness) and other mental health disorders that they face problems with regard to insurance of all types. Life insurance, personal income insurance and motor insurance are all affected by history of pre-existing ill health of any type but some policies specifically exclude cover for the de-novo development of ‘mental illness’ during the term of the policy, treating it differently from ‘physical disorders”, as well as imposing larger premiums or imposing other limitations on people with known mental health problems.
A court ruling on this issue in the US which is of considerable significance in this area has not been picked up at all by the popular media or the professional literature either within or outside of the US. Although not of direct legal impact outside of the US, we believe this case raises important issues about the way both employers and insurers deal with claims arising from the development of mental health problems. It also raises more general issues regarding differential stigma of ‘mental’ versus ‘physical’ ill health. This case revolves around the increasing and incontrovertible evidence from various areas of research that bipolar disorder is not ‘merely’ a ‘psychological disorder’.
The Case: Fitts v. Fannie Mae[1]
The ruling by the United States District Court for the District of Columbia involves an employee of a major mortgage company who developed bipolar disorder and whose employee disability insurance provider stopped paying disability benefits after 24 months on the grounds of bipolar disorder being a ‘mental illness’. The policy provided cover until the age of 65 for physical disability. Ms. Fitts had worked for the company for 13 years before she was first diagnosed with bipolar disorder in 1995. The employee- Ms. Jane Fitts, successfully brought a case against both the employer and the insurer arguing that bipolar disorder did not clearly fall in the category “mental, emotional or nervous diseases or disorders of any type”. The court awarded “prejudgment interest on all sums due her and the costs of this action “.
Three pieces of evidence were presented to back this argument, and two expert witnesses, including Miss. Fitts’ own psychiatrist, provided evidence:
1. Ms. Fitts’ father and brother showed symptoms of the disorder and so a hereditary predisposition coupled with having the disorder showed the genetic nature of the disorder, which must therefore have a physical basis.
2. Brain scans of Ms. Fitts showed excessive age-controlled atrophy of the left parietal lobe and abnormal wave activity on the left side of the brain.
3. Ms. Fitts suffered from physical symptoms such as headaches, chest pains, and insomnia that were ascribed to bipolar disorder.
Prof. Frederick T. Goodwin from the George Washington School of Medicine stated: “bipolar disorder is a physical illness because it is a neurobiological disorder that affects the physical and chemical structure of the brain”. He supported the claims listed above, also making the point that susceptibility to pharmacological therapy suggest a physical cause. Ms.Fitts’ psychiatrist maintained that while the clinical features of the disorder are mainly behavioural and emotional, they are due to physical changes in the brain.
Ms.Fitts’ psychiatrist maintained that while the clinical features of the disorder are mainly behavioural and emotional, they are due to physical changes in the brain.
The defence team argued that bipolar disorder clearly falls within the “mental illness” category because previous judgments had ruled it to be such on the manifestation of the symptoms and because it appears in DSM-IV.
This case was an appeal on a previous judgement against Ms. Fitts’s claim. The first filing of the suit focussed on violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the District of Columbia Human Rights Act (DCHRA), and breached certain contractual and common law duties. This court dismissed all of Ms. Fitts’ claims except her Employment Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) claim. ERISA requires all policies to be written in unambiguous language and given that bipolar disorder did not clearly fall within the definition of mental illness in the insurance policy, the court was bound by the doctrine of contra preferentem, which has been applied as federal common law to ERISA. The doctrine states that in ambiguous definitions the ruling should be against the drafter of the contract.
Other cases
Another case ongoing in North America illustrates the unfortunate consequences of stigmatisation of bipolar disorder leading to an understandable reluctance by those affected to openly disclose to employers a history of pre-existing mental illness. The Canadian insurers of the television series The Dead Zone filed a suit against star Anthony Michael Hall to recoup more than $612,000 for failure to disclose he suffered from bipolar disorder, AP reports. The suit claimed production of the series, shot in Vancouver, was halted from May to August 2001 when Hall was treated for “bipolar affective disorder depression with psychotic features” for which the production company submitted a claim and received money. The case is waiting to be heard at The Supreme Court of British Columbia. (Source: Vancouver Sun)
In a case in New York, which does not have parity legislation, a court ruled that a disability insurance policy is not discriminatory because it provided only 24 months of cover for disability due to unipolar depression, rather than cover to the age of 65 years as it would have done for disability due to physical injury. The appellant, a Charlene Polon, continued to suffer with unipolar depression and has not been able to claim disability allowance under her policy from 1996. The case was made under the Insurance Law, and the court ruled that the law only protected from discrimination “with regard to her eligibility for and access to insurance” and not within the terms of the policy[2]. This case demonstrates that many instances of discrimination continue to occur and that even the covering statutes are unclear
For the rest of the article, follow this link:http://www.bipolar-foundation.org/index.aspx?o=1354
Research shows that people with mental health illnesses are more likely to be the victims of violence than the general population. (Graham Thornicroft – Shunned). One study showed that people with mental illness were two and a half times more likely to be the victims of violent crime than the general population (8.2% compared to 3.1%). There are many, many studies trying to determine which category of people are most likely to be violent and these studies vary in their conclusions. The role of alcohol or drug use appears to be a stronger predictor for violence than does having a diagnosis of a severe mental illness. As Prof Thornicroft points out, there aren’t studies of the prevalence of violence amonst “the physically ill”….
However, there are many studies which point to the prevalence of domestic violence perpetrated against the mentally ill. Some might say that living with a person with a mental health problem “causes” them to become angry/frustrated/fed up with the sufferer and that they are “pushed” into becoming violent towards them or that they are “defending” themselves against the mentally ill person’s “attack” (verbal or physical). The huge problem with domestic violence is seeing through the issue of “who started it” much like a parent has to see through which child hit the other first or which child started the argument. What is obvious, however, (and supported by a lot of research) is that many sufferers of depression and anxiety have such low self esteem that it is very easy for them to become victims of bullying, intimidation, harrassment, ill-treatment etc as they find it very difficult to stand up for themselves or to believe in themselves sufficiently well to be assertive with those around them. People with mental ill health are often told that they have “lost their reason or judgement” and they therefore doubt themselves when their spouse is telling them that they are wrong/stupid/unreasonable/selfish/uncaring/lazy/irresponsible etc etc. They lack the certainty that their own perceptions and judgements are correct as they are constantly reminded that they are “ill”. This makes it very easy for an abuser to get to the core of their victim and succesfully abuse them, hold power over them and undermine them to the point of cruelty. The “mind games” that a spouse can play over their mentally ill partner can be devastating.
This has been my own experience. My ex husband played with my mind in exactly this manner. I now see this and can compare it directly with my experience with my partner of the last 3 years. My partner plays none of these games, nor does he try and control, manipulate, bully or abuse me in any way. I am fortunate enough to have formed such a close bond with another person to enable me to make these comparisons.
Researching the link between mental ill health and domestic violence has been hugely helpful to me in making my recovery. I can distinguish between those behaviours of mine which were destructive and those behaviours which resulted from being abused by my ex husband. Reading the profiles of an abuser helps to recognise a pattern of behaviour or dynamic in a domestic violence relationship. As a result, a person can disentangle those behaviours which are attributable to their own personality and those which resulted from being abused.
One such piece of research is an article from Mr Lundy Bancroft. This article rings so true for me as it is so close to the truth of my own experience. I have highlighted in bold those sentences which are exactly like my ex spouses behaviour. Read the entire article by clicking on the following link or by visiting the Justice for Mothers website:
Here is an except from Mr. Bancroft’s article:
An abuser’s desire for control intensifies as he senses the relationship slipping way from him. He focuses on the debt he feels his victim owes him, and his outrage at her growing independence. (This dynamic is often misread as evidence that batterers have an inordinate “fear of abandonment.”) He is likely to increase his level of intimidation and manipulation at this point; he may, for example, promise to change while simultaneously frightening his victim, including using threats to take custody of the children legally or by kidnapping. Those abusers who accept the end of the relationship can still be dangerous to their victims and children, because of their determination to maintain control over their children and to punish their victims for perceived transgressions. They are also, as we will see later, much more likely than non-batterers to be abusive physically, sexually, and psychologically to their children.
The propensity of a batterer to see his partner as a personal possession commonly extends to his children, helping to explain the overlap between battering and child abuse. He tends, for example, to have an exaggerated reaction when his ex-partner begins a new relationship, refusing to accept that a new man is going to develop a bond with “his” children; this theme is a common one in batterer groups. (Marie: My ex took out a Prohibited Steps Order against my new partner claiming that he was a danger to my children simply becuase he suffered from Bipolar too). He may threaten or attack the new partner, make unfounded accusations that the new partner is abusing the children, (Marie: there were numerous threatening letters sent to my new partner accusing him of all kinds of behaviour), cut off child support, or file abruptly for custody in order to protect his sole province over his children.
A batterer who does file for custody will frequently win, as he has numerous advantages over his partner in custody litigation. These include, 1) his typical ability to afford better representation (often while simultaneously insisting that he has no money with which to pay child support), (Marie: my ex spent earns over £450k pa but maintains that he cannot afford to pay maintenance to me). 2) his marked advantage over his victim in psychological testing, since she is the one who has been traumatized by the abuse, 3) his ability to manipulate custody evaluators to be sympathetic to him, and 4) his ability to manipulate and intimidate the children regarding their statements to the custody evaluator.
There is also evidence that gender bias in family courts works to the batterer’s advantage. (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court Gender Bias Study) Even if the batterer does not win custody, his attempt can be among the most intimidating acts possible from the victim’s perspective, and can lead to financial ruin for her and her children.
I am still living in my brother’s spare room, 18 months after being ordered to leave the matrimonial home whilst he remains in our 7 bedroomed house. This means that the children’s home with me is still my brother’s spare room where we all share a bed. I have no car of my own ( I have to borrow my boyfriend’s) whilst he has just bought a new BMW people carrier. I have been awarded 12% of his income whilst he keeps the rest. I am over £450k in debt.
Would this happen if I were not “mentally ill”? If I had been strong enough to stand up for myself, and/or didn’t have a set of medical records and a condition that would be used against me in court, would I be in the situation I’m in? I don’t think so. Many of my readers have given similar accounts of how they have been abused by their spouses due to their own lack of self esteem arising from their mental health problems. There are many articles, comments, forum chats where people have said the same thing ie that they have been abused by their partners because they have suffered from a mental health problem which their spouse has used against them to take control, intimidate, manipulate and ultimately punish by taking their children away from them.
Any similar stories out there? Anyone who disagrees with this perception/research? As usual, any feedback gratefully received….
This case is just so horrible to read. Of course, I am the first to say that I haven’t read the details of the case as I won’t be able to find them given the confidentiality/secrecy of the courts, but I am inclined to believe many of the facts of this case. Equally I appreciate that this account is one-sided – I have not heard the father’s story and we all know that there are 2 sides to every story. So please read on bearing that in mind….
Essentially, a mother has lost custody of her children to a man with a vast number of criminal convictions (including sexual abuse) who is dying from AIDS. The father claimed that the mother was discriminating against him on the basis of his AIDS/HIV and the courts agreed with him. The fact that he is dying from his illness raises questions of how well he can parent the child in the mean time. He’s been given 7 years to live and the child is only 7. Her daughter is only allowed supervised visits with her mum despite having reported that the daughter is being sexually assaulted in her father’s house.
This is an interesting dilemma. I fundamentally believe that no-one should be discriminated against and I find discrimination against HIV sufferers to be totally inhumane. I have watched a dying man in an AIDS hospice and felt nothing but profound sympathy for those sufferers. There is no doubt that a parent can parent regardless of AIDS. However, there comes a time when the effect of an illness on a person’s ability to provide care for a child becomes an issue of concern. If a person has become so ill that they can no longer function properly, then how can they be capable of parenting? If they are no longer capable, then surely the other parent should step in in preference to some other carer UNLESS that other parent is deemed incapable.
So what are the comparables between this case and a case involving a parent with a mental illness? A mental illness, if properly controlled, means a parent can live a normal life. They won’t die from their illness and it won’t deteriorate unless the sufferer refuses medication. Someone dying from AIDS is highly likely to suffer from depression, anxiety and stress and be unable to hold down a job once the illness becomes severe.
Yet to refuse an AIDS sufferer parenting on the basis of their illness was held by this court to be discriminatory and yet the judge in my case was able to decide that I couldn’t be the full time carer due to my Bipolar illness.
Can anyone help me to see this differently? Am I missing a point here? These questions are not sarcastic – I genuinely would like to hear other peoples views on this…
The mother claims that her troubles have arisen from challenging the court system – the more she has challenged them, the more they put their foot down and refuse to help protect the child.
When does a parent’s determination to protect their child, turn into “trouble making” in the eyes of the Court (or a “vexacious litigant” in our English court speak). She has been told that she is simply refusing to accept the court’s decision and therefore she should go and get help with coming to terms with the decision.
I often wonder whether any of the family court judges have lost custody of their own children. If they have, I doubt very much that they would maintain that a parent should be critised for “refusing to accept” a decision which the parent knows goes against the well-being of their child. The fundamental parental instinct is to protect your child from any harm, including psychological and emotional harm. If a parent believes that their child is suffering from the result of not seeing them (which has been proven many times in research), then they will fight, argue and refuse to give up until they know their child is being looked after properly.
Surely, the Judges realise that this is simply a fundamental human response to their child’s distress? Do they honestly think that a parent will give up?
If the Judges themselves could talk from personal experience of how they came to terms with having their children taken away, then their assertions about a parent needing to accept a decision may become more credible.
Until such a time, I am inclined to think that every parent will continue to fight for what they believe is the right solution for their child. They will put their child’s wishes paramount to a judges disapproval.
Do read the following account from this mother – it’s heart rending….
http://www.aic.gov.au/conferences/2003-abuse/abuse.pdf
Private mental health clinic states rising demand for services from stressed out city types. How will the stress of these people get passed on to their families, especially their children? Does the stress “fallout” from these people amount to the same kind of “fallout” from people who are already suffering from mental health problems and, if so, is their own parenting brought into question? I very much doubt it. Do they fall into a different category somehow because their symptoms are caused by external events rather than internal chemistry? Probably. People will see these people as sufferers of the financial crises and, rightly in my view, feel sorry for them as they face losing everything they’ve worked so hard to achieve. (I don’t personally subsrcribe to the seemingly widely-held view that these people deserve everything they’re getting because it was their own fault somehow for being “greedy”. You simply cannot tar them all with the same brush.) Whatever your view on whether they deserve to lose out or not, their children don’t deserve to have this visited on them yet they will often bear the brunt of the fallout whilst they feel the strain and stress at home.
Yet, I think it highly unlikely that social services or CAFCASS or any judge would hold that these people are “incapable” of looking after their children as a result of any depression or anxiety resulting from these job losses. This depression and anxiety is likely to be looked on sympathetically by those people in total contrast to how they would perceive someone with a mental health diagnosis such as Bipolar who suffers from the same level of depression and anxiety. Would this then be discrimination?
Is this fair? What do you think is the difference between the effect of a depressive illness brought on by job loss compared to a depressive episode in Bipolar? Should they be treated as resulting in an inability to parent their children? If not, why not? If so, why? Your views and perceptions would be gratefully received.
Link: http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2008/oct/08/mental.health.financial.crisis
The text of the Guardian Article:
An independent mental health hospital located near London’s banking district has identified a new disorder sweeping through the devastated ranks of City bankers and hedge fund managers.
The clinic says it is seeing more and more cases of “square mile syndrome”, a term it is using to describe stress-related mental health problems faced by City workers as the credit crunch chews through the financial sector, leaving a trail of redundancies in its wake.
Capio Nightingale Hospital, a private clinic, says it has witnessed a 33% increase in the number of City workers seeking advice for anxiety, depression and stress since July, and a 30% rise in patients seeking help for drugs and alcohol addiction – often the result, says the clinic’s medical director, of recreational drug use tipping into full-blown dependence during times of stress. There has also been a 27% rise in inquiries about its eating disorders programmes.
“We’re seeing 25-year-old bankers waking up with acute anxiety and stress, and realising that the job they thought they had for life and the bonuses they had come to rely on had literally disappeared overnight,” says Capio Nightingale’s medical director, William Shanahan, who is quick to point out that “square mile syndrome” is not a medical or diagnostic definition.
“Hopefully, we can encourage more people to come and get help,” he says. “We can draw worrying comparisons with the Black Wednesday days of the 1990s, when we saw a sudden spike in the number of City workers who suffered mental health problems after the bottom fell out of the market. We want to try to avoid this happening again.”
Shanahan says there is still not enough recognition of the mental health problems faced by employees in high-pressure jobs. The clinic is offering a deal where patients who can produce a P45 issued after September 1 can pay for their treatment once they find work.
“Things have got better, but there can be a reluctance to admit you have a problem when you’re in a high-flying job where you are expected to deal with stress day after day,” Shanahan says. “If we don’t watch out, square mile syndrome could be a timebomb.”
On World Mental Health Day 2008 the latest research* we have commissioned reveals that a staggering 49.3% of us wouldn’t feel happy to disclose a mental health condition such as depression at work, rising to almost 54% amongst manual unskilled workers.
The research found that only 18.3% of people would reveal a mental health condition to their HR department, however, 34% of people would discuss their condition with their line manager. Younger workers (16 – 24 year olds) and older workers (over 55’s) were least likely to be happy to discuss their mental health conditions. With 57% of younger workers saying they would not discuss it at all and only 12% of over 55’s saying they would be happy to talk to their HR department.
Respondents from Edinburgh and Leeds were least happy to discuss their mental health at all (67% and 63% respectively). 39% of the respondents from Edinburgh cited shame and embarrassment as their main reason for not wanting to disclose a mental health condition, whereas, 26% of respondents from Leeds cited fears that their employers would not be sympathetic as the reason for not feeling happy to discuss their mental health.
“Despite the office of National Statistics estimate that one in six people may experience a mental health condition at any one time, our research illustrates that people are still very reluctant to reveal their conditions and show any signs of perceived weakness.
However, we know from our work that people with mental health conditions are perfectly capable of managing a job and their condition with the right support from their employers and therefore feel it is vital that such misconceptions are laid to rest”.
Tim Cooper, Managing Director, Shaw Trust
The stigma attached to mental ill health was more of a concern than the fear of possibly hampering career progression among 25 – 44 year olds, with 37% of people in this age group citing shame as their main reason for not feeling happy to talk about a mental health condition.
Those respondents in graduate entry level jobs were the most confident that a mental health condition does not affect their ability to do their jobs, with 29% of the people in this group citing this as the main reason they wouldn’t discuss their mental health.
Respondents in professional sales, media and marketing were most concerned amongst all industry sectors about being treated differently if they were to disclose their mental health condition (31%) compared to just 4% of people within the professional finance industry who cited this as a concern.
Professional Finance also came out at the biggest industry group to cite that a mental health condition didn’t affect their ability to do their jobs as their main reason for not wishing to discuss it.
Overall 54% of people felt that they would receive more support at work for a physical disability than a mental health condition (rising to 58 % amongst the senior Manager / Professional group) compared to only 6.9% who believed they would receive more support for a mental health condition.
” People have become more comfortable talking about physical illnesses over the years, however, there is still a huge stigma associated with having a mental health condition. Dealing with such a problem often leaves people feeling awkward and a culture of secrecy seems to have emerged in which people are frightened to confide in others”.
Professor Cary L Cooper, CBE, Professor of Organisational Psychology and Health at Lancaster University
“There is a clear need for more structure and education on how to support employees with mental health issues, businesses need to create an environment in which people not only feel confident enough to discuss a mental health condition with a line manager or member of the HR team but in which they can also receive the support they need to continue making a valuable contribution. We see the effect that being out of work and coping with a mental health condition can have on people’s lives and we are urging employers to use this website to find out how to make a difference in the workplace”.
Tim Cooper, Managing Director, Shaw Trust
*All figures unless otherwise stated are from a Tickbox survey. Total sample size was 1070 workers. Fieldwork was undertaken between 18th – 24th September 2008. The survey was carried out online.
Alasdair Campbell told Tony Blair that he suffered from repeated bouts of depression and had had a drink problem. Blair had responded “I’m not worried if you’re not worried”. Campbell had had a breakdown, had taken to drink and had suffered from severe depression. Yet the Prime Minister asked him to work for him. Regardless of whether you think Alasdair did a good job or not, it says a great deal about Blair that he is willing to encourage Campbell to take on the role that he did.
Or does it? It is highly likely that Blair already knew that a relatively high proportion of MPs suffer with mental health difficulties and he was simply accepting of the fact. According to research, published on the Stand to Reason website, One in Five MPs experience mental ill health and are forced to hide their problems…..http://www.standtoreason.org.uk/goals
The report published on 16 July 2008 by Stand to Reason in conjunction with the All Party Parliamentary Group on Mental Health, with support from the Royal College of Psychiatrists, Mind and Rethink has shown that one in five MPs surveyed has experience of a mental health problem but fears disclosing this because of the stigma and discrimination associated with mental health issues.
An anonymous questionnaire completed by 94 MPs, 100 Lords and 151 parliamentary staff has revealed that:
- 19% of MPs had personal experience of a mental health problem (17% of Peers, 45% of staff)
- 94% had family or friends who have experienced a mental health problem
- 86% of MPs said their job was stressful
- 1 in 3 said work-based stigma and the expectation of a hostile reaction from the media and public prevented them from being open about mental health issues.
The report shows that despite significant numbers of people working in Parliament experiencing mental distress, over half of MPs did not think they had sufficient understanding of the Disability Discrimination Act to make reasonable adjustments for a staff member with mental health problems and only 17% had received any mental health awareness training.
President of the Royal College of Psychiatrists Dinesh Bhugra said: “Sadly, stigma is still widely prevalent. Mental illness comes in many forms across the age span, and is everyone’s business. Mental health and physical health cannot be parted. We applaud this effort to start talking more openly about mental illness. MPs occupy a privileged position in the public eye, and greater openness has the potential to lead to a better public understanding of mental health issues.”
I am strangely comforted by the high number of MPs who have or are suffering from mental health problems as it gives me hope that they may be prepared to challenge the legislation and case law governing custody issues where a parent suffers from a mental health problems as presumably, some of these MPs are parents themselves. If the legislation was handed over to them to change, where would they draw the line in terms of assessing someone’s ability to parent? If changes to legislation were handed over to those within Parliament and the legislature who had direct experience of mental health, I wonder how they would chose to re-draft or re-frame some of the legislation governing mental health issues. If their own parenting was being scrutinised with the threat of their own children being taken away from them due to their mental health problems, would they seek to re-draft the legislation?
My guess is that they probably would. My next piece of research is going to be to try and find out some more about who these MPs are and whether or not they have children. I wonder how many of these MPs may have been diagnosed with Bipolar rather than depression. I think I shall attempt to find out the same with the Judiciary. However, I know that people with mental health problems are not permitted to be magistrates, so I now need to determine whether Judges can be Judges if they have mental health problems. If MPs have to step down having been sectioned, I wonder if the Judiciary have to too? If there are MPs and Judges who have retained custody of their children and yet suffer with a mental health problem, it begs the question of the test that is being applied to determine who is a “fit” parent and who isn’t. I’m sure there must be some method in their madness…..I just need to establish what it is….
For the relevant articles, see the links below:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7508128.stm
The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE CONTACT: SIDNEY B. CHESNIN
March 18, 2003 SR. TRIAL ATTORNEY
(214) 655-3330
HOLLY COLE
SR. TRIAL ATTORNEY
(405) 231-5853
TTY: (214) 655-3363
Worker with Bipolar Disorder to Receive $91,000
in Disability Discrimination Case Settled by EEOC
Employer’s Motion to Dismiss Lawsuit Rejected by Court in Rare EEOC Litigation on Issue of Psychiatric Disability
DALLAS – The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) announced today the settlement of a disability discrimination lawsuit against Lincoln, Nebraska-based Voss Electric Company (Voss) for $91,250 on behalf of a former worker with bipolar disorder. Voss is a distributor of commercial lighting products, with 12 branches and 16 sales locations located throughout the central United States.
In its lawsuit, case number CIV-02-92-C in U.S. District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma in Oklahoma City, the EEOC charged Voss with violating the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA) by terminating a long-time employee of its Oklahoma City facility who needed in-patient care due to bipolar disorder, a psychiatric disability. Rather than allow the employee the additional time off recommended by his physicians, Voss fired him by taping a termination letter to the front door of his home, the EEOC said in the suit.
Voss had filed a motion requesting the Court to dismiss the EEOC’s lawsuit, but the Court ordered that the case be tried. On February 28, 2003, the Court, in a detailed 17-page opinion, ruled against Voss on all arguments raised against the EEOC, and held that the EEOC’s claims should be submitted to a jury for trial.
The Court ruled that the EEOC had submitted evidence that the former employee’s mental illness, at the time of his termination, severely impaired a number of his major life activities, including thinking, interacting with others, communicating with others, and the ability to take care of himself. Voss then argued that, at the time of his termination, the former employee was unable to perform the essential functions of his job.
The Court, however, ruled that a jury should determine whether the employee was entitled to a reasonable medical leave to enable him to recover sufficiently to return to his former position. After the Court’s ruling, the parties reached an agreement embodied in a Consent Decree approved and signed by the Court.
“For years I did a good job for this company, but soon after I became ill they discarded me as I was trying to get well, which just compounded my struggles,” the fired employee said. “I am thankful to the EEOC for standing up for me and obtaining a fair settlement.”
Robert A. Canino, Regional Attorney of the EEOC’s Dallas District Office, said, “We should credit the sound legal analysis by the Court in this case. This is a difficult area of law to enforce due to interpretational issues challenging the courts, but the EEOC will not shrink from the task of educating the public about the ADA through the pursuit of civil actions when necessary. Decisions like this one which allow a jury to apply the law to specific facts can give victims of disability discrimination confidence that their voice will be heard.”
The EEOC filed suit after exhausting its conciliation efforts to reach a voluntary pre-litigation settlement. The Consent Decree settling the suit provides monetary and prospective non-monetary relief, including training of all Voss employees, officers, managers, and supervisors on the requirements of the ADA, and the posting of a notice informing employees of their rights under federal law at all of its locations.
“Mentally disabled employees are protected under the ADA just as those who are physically disabled,” said Sidney B. Chesnin, lead trial counsel for the EEOC. “Disabled employees are entitled to consideration of a reasonable accommodation for their disability. By simply giving a worker a reasonable period of leave to adjust to a medical condition related to a disability, the employer can often pave the way for the return of a productive employee.”
In addition to enforcing Title I of the ADA, which prohibits employment discrimination against people with disabilities in the private sector and state and local governments, the EEOC enforces Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex (including sexual harassment or pregnancy) or national origin and protects employees who complain about such offenses from retaliation; the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, which protects workers age 40 and older from discrimination based on age; the Equal Pay Act of 1963, which prohibits gender-based wage discrimination; the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, which prohibits employment discrimination against people with disabilities in the federal sector; and sections of the Civil Rights Act of 1991. Further information about the Commission is available on the agency’s web site at www.eeoc.gov.
