I have an employee (in our large nonprofit, based in CA) who has gone out on a worker's compensation claim for stress, anxiety and panic attacks.  The employee initially took a few days off for anxiety attack(s) which she provided a doctor's note, detailing that she was out for 'stress'.  When she asked for another consecutive day off for personal matters, the supervisor did not want to approve.  She then submitted a worker's compensation claim and the medical provider indicated modified duty without the two specific supervisors (this was a WC MD through our insurance carrier).  Also, she has pre-existing conditions with panic attacks and anxiety for which she is on medication which she disclosed to the worker's comp. physician. 

Background on employee is that she had received satisfactory evaluations from previous supervisors.  The program lost funding and she was laid off.  She was hired again as a contractor through another funding source and when funds became available, she was again hired for the same position.  At this point she was under a new supervisor who required a more satisfactory performance.  Her absence for stress and anxiety occureed directly after she received her annual evaluation which did not provide her a merit increase, her previous 6 month was not satisfactory also with needed improvements identified.

 We are, of course, questionning the claim, but has anyone out there have experience in a similar situation?  We have identified a temporary supervisor for her, which will allow her to return to work, until the claim investigation is completed.  Any advice? 

I don't know a lot about CA WC laws...but I would be careful of ADA claims. That is if you allow for an accommodation of a  temporary supervisior, could this employee come back later and argue under ADA (assuming the stress/anxiety rises to the level of disability under ADA) that it would be a reasonable accommodation to keep that same supervisor?  I know that ADA does not require employers to change supervisors.  And I suspect that WC does not either.  Just because the medical doctor suggested changing supervisors, does NOT mean that the employer must accommodate it.  However if you do not return her to modified duty, she would probably get lost wages (which would increase the claim and experience modifier).

"Modifying Supervisory Methods. Simple modifications of supervisory methods may include communicating assignments in writing rather than orally for someone whose disability limits concentration or providing additional day-to-day guidance or feedback. An employer is not required, however, to change someone's supervisor. " from http://www.eeoc.gov/ada/adahandbook.html

So my real question is ....do you want to set this precedent? I wouldn't. To me, it is the tail wagging the dog.

My only other thought is to make sure that the current supervisor is not being too hard/unfair and does not retaliate.

I agree completely with HRforME.

Thank you HRforME and TXHRguy.  You both consistently have great responses.  I was also concerned about precedent setting; but this appears to be the only way we can continue to have the work completed while the WC investigation continue (which can take up to 90 days).  I have minimal experience with ADA issues but I would think that this 'condition' would ultimately not be considered a disability with respect to being able to perform the work.  Also, providing an alternative supervisor could provide more weight to the poor performance issue, but if the investigation can be completed soon, it may make better sense to wait it out and deal with the outcome at that point. 

I also didn't think that WC stress claims were often approved, but I may be wrong as to current practice.  

 

To my knowledge, CA is one of the few states that allows for stress claims to fall under WC.

If you have to temporarily change supervisors for business needs,  I would document well -- both internally and to the employee that this supervisory relationship is temporary to meet current business needs. I would put an end date on it also....probably no later than the 90 day mark.  I would state that at that point the company will re-evaluate the situation.  I would try to use "undue hardship" without stating it blatantly.  Basically that at the end of the 90 day period, business needs will require that this employee move back under her prior supervisor.