Submitted by s16016wb t3_10a0era in RhodeIsland
[deleted] t1_j41ohfu wrote
I am not a lawyer but am trained as a manager in state and federal nondiscrimination law.
Immunocompromise is a protected disability under state and federal law. Employers are required to make reasonable accommodations for the needs of disabled employees, and allowing an employee to wear a mask to avoid contracting a virus that could severely injure or kill them is almost certainly a reasonable accommodation.
I believe the employer in question is setting themselves up for enormous fines as well as needing to make significant payments to the impacted employee.
Disability Rights Rhode Island can provide additional help and answer questions: https://drri.org/reasonable-accommodations-at-work/
newtoRI22 t1_j429kif wrote
Federal law may not apply here:
> Businesses with fewer than 15 employees are not covered by the employment provisions of the ADA.
See https://www.dol.gov/agencies/odep/publications/fact-sheets/americans-with-disabilities-act
There may be some practical considerations: - Does the employer know this individual immunocompromised? Even if ADA does apply, the employer still needs to know an accommodation is being requested and they would go through an interactive process.
- Please know that the protection afforded by most masks is negligible. (A proper fitting respirator is different from most of the masks you see around. Also, people who are sick should know that their masks generally don’t protect others. If you have a fever stay home!) If this person’s medical condition is serious enough that getting infected with flu (it’s flu season!) or other illness is of concern, a customer facing job is going to continue to have risks.
[deleted] t1_j42a2jo wrote
Two quick observations:
-
An N95 mask, properly fitted, is highly effective against SARS-COV2.
-
DRRI is Congressionally funded and can help with questions around disability rights and federal law. Their hotline is listed and they can answer questions and make referrals regarding issues of state law as well.
newtoRI22 t1_j430y3c wrote
That was my point - most people aren’t wearing respirators (N95s are respirators). People who are wearing respirators likely do not have a proper fit. Properly worn respirators create a tight seal and are often very uncomfortable for a full day of wear.
[deleted] t1_j431ssc wrote
A decently fitted N95 is an option, and in the case of a risky situation can make the difference between being able to work or not.
orm518 t1_j430fd9 wrote
> Please know that the protection afforded by most masks is negligible. (A proper fitting respirator is different from most of the masks you see around. Also, people who are sick should know that their masks generally don’t protect others. If you have a fever stay home!) If this person’s medical condition is serious enough that getting infected with flu (it’s flu season!) or other illness is of concern, a customer facing job is going to continue to have risks.
[Citation needed.]
Masks work, and better masks work better: link
newtoRI22 t1_j438iq3 wrote
Theoretically, an N95 respirator should work well.
In practice, the benefit of wearing masks to mitigate respiratory illness is not detectable at meaningful levels in randomized clinical trials. Prepandemic, this was studied widely for flu. During the pandemic there were unfortunately very few robust studies.
This article gives a good overview: https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2021/12/mask-guidelines-cdc-walensky/621035/
nuttmegganarchist t1_j43nwlu wrote
https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abi9069 this study in the article you shared says other wise when it comes to medical masks.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments