Artwork
iconShare
 
Manage episode 521508865 series 2858396
Content provided by Mark Carey. All podcast content including episodes, graphics, and podcast descriptions are uploaded and provided directly by Mark Carey or their podcast platform partner. If you believe someone is using your copyrighted work without your permission, you can follow the process outlined here https://staging.podcastplayer.com/legal.

Comment on the Show by Sending Mark a Text Message.

This episode is part of my initiative to provide access to important court decisions impacting employees in an easy to understand conversational format using AI. The speakers in the episode are AI generated and frankly sound great to listen to. Enjoy!

A top performer with a life-threatening migraine condition built a 15-year career, earned awards, and worked remotely with a documented accommodation—until a post-merger culture shift demanded office presence and everything changed. We walk you through the allegation-filled timeline: the hot leads routed to younger men in the New York office, the confrontation that preceded a stroke doctors tied to job stress, and the series of decisions that, the complaint says, turned a medical safeguard into a career liability.
We dig into the mechanics of discrimination and retaliation claims: how account assignments can become tools of pretext, why a disputed Citadel loss matters years later, and what it means when a PIP leans on contested narratives despite recent high performance. You’ll hear how the continuing violations doctrine can bridge older incidents into a timely hostile environment claim, and why plausibility at the motion-to-dismiss stage hinges on a minimal inference—not courtroom proof. The distinction between granting an ADA accommodation and honoring it in practice sits at the core: resources withheld for remote staff, an ultimatum to attend training in person despite written permission, and the message that office presence equals opportunity.
We also examine leadership statements that allegedly acknowledged past bias, rapid promotions for younger male colleagues, and the juxtaposition of a 2023 sales excellence award with a 2024 PIP. The legal stakes are high: timeliness defenses, comparator debates, and whether penalizing a stroke survivor’s accommodation can be seen as extreme and outrageous conduct. Ultimately, we ask a broader question many workplaces face now: when office-first culture collides with health, is performance enough to protect an employee whose life depends on remote work?
If this deep dive helped you see the issues more clearly, follow the show, share this episode with a colleague, and leave a quick review telling us where you stand on accommodations versus culture. Your take might shape a future mailbag.

If you enjoyed this episode of the Employee Survival Guide please like us on Facebook, Twitter and LinkedIn. We would really appreciate if you could leave a review of this podcast on your favorite podcast player such as Apple Podcasts. Leaving a review will inform other listeners you found the content on this podcast is important in the area of employment law in the United States.
For more information, please contact our employment attorneys at Carey & Associates, P.C. at 203-255-4150, www.capclaw.com.
Disclaimer: For educational use only, not intended to be legal advice.

  continue reading

Chapters

1. Walsh v. Fitch Solutions: When Culture Collides With Disability Rights (00:00:00)

2. Case Overview And Stakes (00:00:55)

3. Plaintiff’s Background And Disability (00:03:04)

4. Remote Accommodation And Commuting Risks (00:06:19)

5. Acquisition And Cultural Shift (00:10:15)

6. Alleged Gender Bias Under New Manager (00:12:41)

7. Health Crisis And Employer Response (00:18:19)

8. Management Changes And Threats To Accommodation (00:21:51)

9. Daily Penalties For Remote Work (00:25:33)

150 episodes