employee won’t come back unless her coworker is fired

by Alison Green on April 5, 2017

This letter was originally part of a five-short-answers column, but it’s getting enough interest that I’m making it its own post. The other four letters that were originally bundled with it are now here. (Keep in mind that that’s also why my answer here is short and not as comprehensive as it might otherwise be.)

A reader writes:

I’m a manager. I’m having an issue with a two of my staff, Liz and Jack. They were returning from an off-site meeting and had parked in front of our building. According to Liz and other witnesses, there was a bird on the sidewalk and when it flew away Jack ran. Liz was less than a step ahead of him and he pushed her out of the way when he was running. Liz fell off the curb and got hit by a car that was parking. She ended up covered in bruises and breaking both bones in one forearm. Liz had to be taken to the hospital in an ambulance. The breaks were in the middle of her forearm and were so bad that Liz had surgery on her arm the next day and required a total hospital stay of four days.

Jack didn’t try to help Liz after it happened. He stood far away and came into our building as soon as the ambulance arrived. Jack told me, my boss and HR he has a phobia of birds and later produced a letter from his therapist stating he has been in therapy and treatment for ornithophobia and anxiety for over two years. He explained it was why he tried to run from the bird and said he didn’t help Liz after she got hit because the bird landed on the ground close to her. Understandably Liz is angry. She wants Jack to be fired. HR was wary of firing Jack when he has had no previous trouble and has a phobia and mental illness that rise to the level of needing treatment, and so am I.

When Liz found out that Jack wasn’t going to be fired, she quit. Liz was working on a few projects, and without her the could be delays and extra costs incurred. We have tried to get her to come back, but she refuses unless Jack is fired. Jack called her with HR present to apologize but she didn’t accept and yelled at him. With Jack’s permission, his phobia and mental health issues were explained to Liz but she says she doesn’t care. What should I do? I don’t feel comfortable firing Jack or recommending it given what he disclosed. I’m not sure where to go from here.

This sucks for everyone involved, most of all Liz, but it sounds like the resolution here is that Liz quit. You can’t make someone come back who doesn’t want to come back and — while Liz is absolutely entitled to be upset and angry and to refuse to continue working with Jack — you can’t let an employee dictate that another employee be fired.

And while reasonable people can certainly disagree on this, I think you’re right not to fire Jack, who apparently has a documented phobia that he’s in treatment for and who presumably didn’t intend to push Liz as he ran by her. (I should note that I’m reading your letter as saying that he was pushing past her to get away, not that he deliberately pushed her.)

I get that Liz’s resignation is causing problems for the projects she was involved on, but that would be the case if she quit for normal reasons too. That’s part of doing business — employees will sometimes leave at inconvenient times, and you cobble together a solution as best as you can. (In this case, that solution should presumably include ensuring that Liz’s medical bills are covered and a plan to ensure that Jack’s phobia doesn’t endanger anyone again.)

Read updates to this letter here and here.

You may also like:
{ 2,229 comments }

{ 2,229 comments… read them below }

  1. my name is Rory*

    OP #1, that you for being patient and understanding with Jack and his mental health issue. I wish more bosses were asunderstanding as you are.

    I’m wondering how Liz could answer the “why did you leave your last job” question in future job interviews. There is no way for her to really do it without making herself look bad.

    1. Leah*

      She could say that her coworker pushed her into the path of a moving car and then received no disciplinary action.

      1. Mb13*

        Or “sadly because of an incident my coworker pushed me in front of a car and my arm was severely damaged. Returning to an office with that coworker was just too upsetting, and knowing that management didn’t disciplined him in any way didn’t help”. (Also the letter didn’t mention if Jack has apologized at all)

        1. Artemesia*

          He phoned in an apology from the HR office, as I read it. Sounds like a kid dragged by his ear to say ‘sorry.’

          1. Reba*

            I didn’t read it as a forced apology, but rather that the call was done with HR present because the whole situation was so sensitive.

            To me it makes more sense to have the apology call as a business thing rather than a personal call from Jack–though it sounds like Liz probably wouldn’t have responded calmly either way (understandably).

            1. Zoe Karvounopsina*

              Even so, it came pretty late in the process. He could have made a call with HR listening earlier on.

              1. JS*

                I disagree. This case is so sensitive I believe needs to be dictated by HR every step of the way. I would not want the employee to apologize without a witness either. More of routine policy than ear dragging, Liz yelled so obviously the conversation didn’t go smoothly and in order not to escalate further it’s good to have HR there.

                1. Gadfly*

                  Sounds like HR really screwed up by not having a conversation with Liz about what she wanted first, instead of presenting Jake like all that was needed was an apology…

                2. Chaordic One*

                  Yeah, I think HR screwed up. Even if they were well-meaning and not just trying to cover their butts, if Liz were to sue, I think she’d have a good case.

              2. Loose Seal*

                Was it late in the process? The OP didn’t indicate how long it was before the call took place. She was in the hospital for days and likely on pain medications that may have affected her mood and thoughts. If I were HR in this situation, I’d ask her manager to check on her a couple of times while she was in the hospital but I’d save Jack’s mea culpas until she was at home, resting more comfortably.

                No matter what HR and Jack did in this situation, though, would be seen as correct from 100% of us. If he goes to the hospital immediately, someone would say he did it to try to save himself from being fired. If he sent her a card, someone would say he was being a jerk because she couldn’t open envelopes given her broken arm. If Jack was fired, someone would say that the company is just trying to avoid being sued by Liz.

                This situation is so far outside common politeness and civility that no one would be able to “practice” how to handle it in advance. I’m sure Liz and Jack both are dealing with this the best way they know how.

                1. Amy*

                  I think this is one of the best and even headed responses I’ve ever seen. Especially the last part: “This situation is so far outside common politeness and civility that no one would be able to “practice” how to handle it in advance. I’m sure Liz and Jack both are dealing with this the best way they know how.”

                2. Brrrrr!*

                  @Amy: I agree. The amount of conjecturing on this topic that is happening is staggering.

                  “HR was with Jack when he apologized, so they must have forced him to do it!”

                  “Liz was able to get help right away, so obviously it wasn’t terrible and she is overreacting!”

                  A lot of what we are basing our evidence of blame off of is being presented to us by a third party who was not present during the event, and only has what was reported to them to relate in order to get advice on a crazy situation. But a lot of people in the comments seem to be using their own subjective experiences to point fingers at either of the people involved. So, I agree with Seal that they and the company are trying to deal with this situation as best as they can.

                  Liz has a right to be angry about what happened, but this is not a criminal court where we pass judgment on the accused. We are simply trying to help the poor manager who wrote in figure out what to do – and hopefully Liz and Jack can work the rest out between them, whatever they do.

        2. Snorlax*

          The letter mentions that Jack called her with HR to apologize but she didn’t accept the apology .

          1. Anna*

            I just want to note that no one is entitled to their apology being accepted. Jack apologised (begrudgingly it sounds like) for his part but Liz is not obligated to accept.

            1. Leigh*

              Why do you say begrudgingly? There was nothing in the letter to insinuate that he was forced to apologize. He went in and told his manager and HR what happened immediately after the ambulance arrived. Doesn’t it make more sense that HR advised and asked him to wait to reach out Liz? That they insisted upon being present for the call (which makes sense and protects everyone involved) I’m presenting this an option, of course it could have happened either way, but I wasn’t there and neither were you. So why immediately assume the worse? Just makes you sound biased

              NO one is saying that she had to accept the apology, but unless you know for sure how it happened, please don’t assume.

              1. Serahfim*

                It’s hard to tell the tone of a message in text form. For example, I hear this tone above as chastising and condescending instead of politely making a point, because instead of saying “I,” it repeatedly says “You”.

                1. J-nonymous*

                  It’s not altogether unwarranted if that is Leigh’s tone. Anna made a huge assumption and projected intent onto what was a single sentence from the letter writer. Some call outs are needed.

                2. Assistant Village Idiot*

                  I have run across the I/You distinction as informing politeness, but don’t find it persuasive. It seems to impose an artificial standard that doesn’t quite fit usage. I realise that this was a popular thing to teach in work trainings 10-20 years ago, but I don’t accept it.

        3. KHB*

          If the worry is that going into that much detail in a job interview would be too weird or distracting, could she say something like “I sustained an injury on the premises and didn’t feel safe working there any longer”?

          2. a big fish in a small pond*

            I like this too, but as an interviewer I would have follow up questions about what OP did to address and/or resolve the safety issues (because typically it would be OSHA issues, not a freak accident).

            1. a big fish in a small pond*

              (so OP should be prepared to answer that kind of follow up question)

              1. KHB*

                Sure. I was just thinking about how to give a good 10-second summary that didn’t require launching into the whole “Well, I had this coworker who was afraid of birds…” story from the start.

                But even if it was an OSHA issue (that the employer refused to resolve), that would also be a good reason to quit, wouldn’t it?

            2. Alli525*

              I would completely refuse to answer that question if posed to me by an interviewer, other than to say that the injury was in no way my fault, so nothing could have been done to address or resolve the issue. It’s not the average employee’s job to make sure that OSHA regulations are followed.

      2. Artemesia*

        This. I am pretty horrified that there is any excuse for pushing someone in front of a moving car and then ignoring them. If it was a kid and the kid was dead, would it still be fine, because ‘scared’? Heck, what if the co-worker were paralyzed for life. Running. Screaming. Hiding his head under his coat. All understandable. But pushing a co-worker under a moving car with no consequences. I hope the injured co-worker gets a great job.

        1. Mike C.*

          Working in an industrial manufacturing facility, this question absolutely horrifies me. I’m not trying to make light of a genuine mental health issue here (plenty within my own familiy) but there’s a line that’s crossed when you become a danger to others.

          Yeah, ultimately the OP shouldn’t fire the guy, but Liz isn’t wrong or unprofessional for making that demand. I hope the workplace paid for her entire care. I wonder if there is any physical therapy needed for such an injury, or even some issues arising from the mental/emotional trauma of the event.

          1. Mookie*

            even some issues arising from the mental/emotional trauma of the event.

            Seriously. The way this played out, it couldn’t really be predicted or properly managed, but it’s like textbook nightmare scenario and I feel for everyone involved. I hope Liz is doing well. Jack sounds like he’s been looked after properly, which is good.

            1. Josiah*

              Seriously. The way this played out, it couldn’t really be predicted or properly managed, but it’s like textbook nightmare scenario and I feel for everyone involved.

              That’s how I see it too. It’s a nightmare scenario and I hope that the company is doing everything they can to support Liz.

        2. Anonymous for mental illness*

          I completely agree. I say this as someone with a severe anxiety disorder and with a phobia, and I’ve definitely done strange things because of my mental illness. I don’t want to be callous or inconsiderate of his phobia. But that’s just shocking.

          You do not push someone in front of a moving car without consequences for it.

          1. JB (not in Houston)*

            To be fair, I don’t think he pushed her in front of a moving car. Because he pushed her, she fell off a curb and into the path of the car. Still bad, but not quite as bad as how you described it.

                4. AMG*

                  Because he pushed her. If he hadn’t, she would not have been hit by a car. Splitting hairs. I wouldn’t be surprised if Liz sues him. And I wouldn’t blame her.

                5. Melissophoebea*

                  Ultimately, his actions caused it. Having the intent would undoubtably make it worse, but he still owns the action.

                6. Not Rebee*

                  Yes, I agree. “Pushed her in front of a moving car” implies a deliberate intent for her to have ended up in the path of a moving vehicle – it seems like here there wasn’t even intent to knock into her, let alone knock her off the curb, or knock her into the path of a moving car.

                  Back in my college days (admittedly not too long ago), I worked in Residence Life as a Residence Assistant and I had a roommate dispute scenario that reminds me a lot of this. As part of my job, I was responsible for handling all roommate disputes – anyone requesting to be moved to a different room had to at least talk to me about the issue first. The issue at hand in this particular scenario? Freshman Girl claimed that her roommate (Other Freshman Girl) had thrown a mini-fridge door at her. Obviously, I was appalled… who on earth throws a mini fridge door at someone and (perhaps not less importantly) how did you even separate the door from the fridge so it could be thrown. Turns out that what really happened is that the fridge door fell off, an argument arose while OFG was trying to re-attach the door, and the door was angrily placed off to the side (in a way that probably was a small toss) to sit against the foot of FG’s bed, where she was currently sitting. Given that, clearly OFG did not throw a fridge door at her roommate…

                  While I am sure that Liz in OP’s post is telling this story like Jack pushed her in front of a moving car, there was no deliberate intent to do so from Jack (or so it seems). You therefore can’t treat this as something that needs disciplinary action – there was no malicious intent or general carelessness, and in any event this was outside of work. This scenario honestly just seems like an unpredictable accident from hell for all involved – and while OP doesn’t make it seem like it, Jack is likely quite distressed by events.

                  I think Alison nailed it here. Liz has quit, and since the event was an accident you really can’t allow her to hold your company hostage by requiring that someone else be fired before she comes back. The fact that she quit first and made demands later definitely doesn’t make it seem like she’s inclined to come back, and while yes this leaves OP’s company in the lurch, this is how it works sometimes in business. OP’s company – do what you can to help her out, do what you can to prepare better for scenarios like this, and then move on. Liz already has.

              1. JB (not in Houston)*

                It would not take much force to push me enough to knock me off balance so that I fall off a curb, which is what the OP said happened.

                2. a big fish in a small pond*

                  and it was unexpected, so the intensity of the force applied wouldn’t really need to be all that much…

          2. Amber T*

            I’m arachnophobic. Not documented like Jack’s phobia, but if I see a spider, reactions can be crazy. I have (accidentally of course) knocked into a coworker when jumping aside from a spider. Now I am tiny, and the coworker I crashed into was a big guy. It would take considerable force for me to knock him over. But if it was reversed? If he had been the one surprised over something and knocked into me? I would have gone down, and quickly.

            I didn’t read this as Jack running up to Liz and pushing her with his two hands, I read this as he was scared and running away, and accidentally bumping into Liz (as did Alison). It sounds like an awful accident.

            1. SadieMae*

              Yes, it all depends on exactly what OP meant by “pushed.” Did he shove her because she was in his way? Or did he just run blindly and bump into her? Especially if it’s the former…oof. I see why Liz is so upset. But panicked people don’t think clearly, and it sounds like Jack is mortified by his actions.

              I think I would still approach it as this company has – documenting that Jack is in active treatment, making sure he apologizes to Liz, and keeping him on with the understanding that he’ll continue in treatment and with plans in place to ensure nothing like this will happen again. And if Liz chooses not to return, that’s her decision. (I agree the company should make sure her medical bills are covered!)

              (And now I’m giggling, imagine HR drawing up diagrams for future car trips: “Here’s Jack at Point C. If a bird lands on the antenna of the car, Jack has two options. Escape Route X will intersect with Fergus at Point D, so Fergus will need to divert his path of ingress alone Route Z…”)

        3. Fiennes*

          A phobia is not “scared.” It’s a term that gets overused and thus trivialized, but a phobia is a genuinely crippling mental problem. I can see why Jack didn’t disclose it–who could guess bird phobia would turn into a workplace issue?–but the OP is correct to take it into account as they would any other mental illness/problem. Jack didn’t intentionally hurt Liz; what happened falls more into the category of “freak accident” than anything else.

          That said, I sympathize with Liz’s feelings. She’s been terribly hurt and traumatized, no doubt frightened too. If she no longer feels that she can trust or work with Jack, I think that’s pretty understandable, all things considered. IMO the OP needs to offer Liz an excellent reference and all professional courtesies, and then let her go. The issues they face as a result are just part of the cost of doing business.

          1. Gadfly*

            Well, my former VP did, and accommodations were made and all went well. And because of that being in place, no one got hurt when the owl at her window scared her out of her office–we all just got out of the way.

          2. jasper_red*

            Here’s the thing though, I know phobias are real and I sympathize, but it doesn’t sound like Jack made any efforts at all to help Liz or express any remorse for what happened. An apology forced by HR is not a genuine apology. It’s like a teacher forcing you to say sorry because you pushed someone on the playground. I wouldn’t trust him at all either and I’d quit with no hesitation because a workplace like that doesn’t seem to have your back.

            Also I would guess something like that falls under workman’s comp, but not sure.

            1. Forrest*

              I don’t know if it’s fair to say he made no effort to help – I think he may have thought considering his limitations, waiting until the ambulance arrived was him helping. There were other people helping Liz and he didn’t enter the building until the ambulance arrived. He didn’t have to wait and it’s not like standing in a spot far away is useful. But I think there’s recognition that he knew he hurt Liz. We also don’t know anything about any personal apology or if the HR apology was forced.

              1. Browser*

                I disagree. He had plenty of time to apologize after the bird flew away and chose not to. He has not shown any remorse for her injury and in fact has only defended his response.

                1. Forrest*

                  I have no clue how you’re jumping to him feeling no remorse. If he didn’t care, he wouldn’t have stayed outside with the birds. And it’s expected for him to explain why it happened.

                2. Amber T*

                  After the bird flew away, Liz was on the ground nursing a broken arm, in a lot of pain, probably crying. People were probably rushing to help. Jack must have realized he caused it. Sure, some people’s immediate reaction would be “oh my god I’m sorry!” and some people’s reaction would be shock, like “what the hell did I just do?” I don’t blame him for standing on the sidelines while it was happening. I don’t think we have enough information to know if the HR call was forced or not, but I don’t think it was.

                3. Anna*

                  You know when the exact wrong time to apologize is? When you’re in the middle of an emergency and someone needs help.

                4. Loose Seal*

                  @Anna: It’s possible he was apologizing in the moment. Most people would be saying something like, “Oh God! I’m so sorry!” But presumably Liz wasn’t in the shape to truly hear it, being in pain and likely in shock. Also, some people are better in emergencies than others. Jack was recovering from his adrenaline rush from his encounter with the bird and may have needed a few moments to comprehend what happened. By that point, it could have looked like to him that others had the situation well in hand. It’s also possible that he may have (probably correctly) read the scene and decided that Liz didn’t want him near her at the time. At that point, it would be selfish of Jack to insist on having Liz hear his apology.

                  (And I may be in the minority on this but I’ve always thought that, while people may feel compelled to apologize, it really is up to the one wronged to decide when they are ready to hear the apology. I’ve had way too many people in my life trying to Step 9 their way to salvation regardless of whether I was ready to hear it.)

                5. Loose Seal*

                  @Anna: And now I see I read your sentence wrong. I though you were saying he should have apologized right then and there while the emergency was still being handled.

                7. Similar thing happened to me*

                  I feel that it is wrong to assume that Jack would’ve been 100% back to himself just because the bird flew away. Although everyone experiences phobia slightly different, there are lingering affects after having a panic freak out like that. I doubt Jak would’ve been ok enough to even approach Liz.

                  I wonder though, if Liz already had some issues with Jack to begin with. A similar thing happened to me at my workplace, granted, my injuries were not as catastrophic as Liz (I fell down a flight of stairs after a co-worker freaked at the tarantula casually lying on the ground). My work was great about covering my bills and after I recovered, I had actually found it humorous. I wasn’t angry at him, just shocked.

                  My coworker actually avoided me for as long as he could because of guilt and because he felt a sincere sorry wouldn’t be enough to make up for it but that was pretty much all he could offer. (He did offer to help me with my work but I was recovered enough to do what wasn’t covered while I was out recovering so I didn’t see the need)

                  We’re still on good terms but I will always walk in front of him when we go up and down the stairs lol.

                  Although i understand Liz’s outrage i also find it hard to be on her side 100%. We’re all working adults and professionals, and unless there were other things Jack has done that has made her feel unsafe and this just topped it off, it seems like her options are eternal to just quit (and Sue as a intended I guess) or return to work after recovering. Or, like someone mentioned, get a good reference for the next job.

                8. Michelle*

                  Where do you see that? It says in the letter that he stayed away because the bird had landed near where Liz fell. How do you know when the bird flew away, and whether there was time to apologize in between that happening and Liz being in the middle of receiving treatment for her broken arm?

                  Amber says, “After the bird flew away, Liz was on the ground nursing a broken arm, in a lot of pain, probably crying.”

                  Where does it say that? Again, the letter says that after Liz was hit by the car, the bird landed right by her. How do you know when it finally flew away?

                9. RueBarbe*

                  The bird was still nearby, so he stayed away. “…he didn’t help Liz after she got hit because the bird landed on the ground close to her.”

            2. JeanLouiseFinch*

              Jack had better pray that this falls under workman’s comp. Otherwise, intentional or not, Jack is going to be sued for a pile of money. If it’s not workman’s comp, Jack’s insurance probably won’t apply and he will either spend all of his money on a lawyer, or empty his savings on a settlement. If it is workman’s comp, most states won’t allow Liz to sue Jack. I guess as an artist who needs the use of her arms, I can really sympathize with Liz. Any way you shake this, it sounds like she has permanent damage.

              1. JoJo*

                It is permanent damage. I had a similar injury 35 years ago and I still don’t have full use of my arm. Liz is completely justified in her outrage.

                1. Artemesia*

                  The wrist I broke 35 years ago means that I have a severely arthritic wrist now. The elbow I broke last year was surgically repaired and I have much of the use back, but it will probably always hurt, and have some limitations in range of motion. A double break that required surgery and plates is going to have lifelong consequences.

                3. Brrrrr!*

                  It’s not necessarily permanent damage just because what happened to you was permanent. Not only that, but what happened to you happened 35 years ago, so that means medicine has had 35 years to improve its treatment of all kinds of injuries, so if you had gotten the same injury today, you might not have the same problems.

                  Of course, I hope everyone notices my use of the word “might” since I have no way of knowing if this would be true or not, which is the same case for the incident involving both of these poor people. Many people seem to be conjecturing a lot on this topic, of which we have only a brief and very limited view of what actually happened.

              2. ScrappyCook*

                It’s not necessarily permanent damage. My husband had a compound fracture in both bones of his right arm from an accident caused by a good friend. Three days in the hospital and two surgeries. He has two plates and 14 screws. A few weeks in a cast and he is fine. It’s an awful experience, but the physical damage may be easier to get over than the emotional/trauma issues.

                1. Anna*

                  Yes. Don’t make the situation worse with no reason. My husband got a compound fraction to his wrist. He has a screw. It hasn’t impeded him at all.

                2. Judy*

                  And probably knows when it will rain from his injury, I get that from my hairline fractured elbow 14 years later. And needs to have extra screening if he flies.

                  And 10-20-30 years later it’s probably going to bother him, the trauma makes his muscles weaker. (One of my uncles had polio as a teen. You couldn’t tell it at all in his 30s and 40s. By his death at nearly 80 years old, he had lost the use of one arm and had a pronounced limp.)

                3. Anna*

                  Unless you can see the future, imagining what Liz COULD suffer as she gets older really isn’t a good idea. This doesn’t make her more sympathetic, she’s already in a pretty shitty situation.

                4. Amy*

                  I have years old injuries that if someone asks me about I say are fine now. A coworker tries to get me to tell the story about how I injured my elbow and I always end it with but I’m fine now. However, I do still have occasional pain and that arm is weaker it’s not something I make a big deal about but it’s not like there are no long-term repercussions from the injury.

                5. The Strand*

                  The important point though is that injuries *can* have long-ranging consequences once you settle into middle age and older.

                  The wrist I broke at 20, so far, has not developed the level of arthritis I was warned about. However, the serious ankle injury I got on the job a year earlier, at 19, was undertreated. I don’t know why I never got rehab for such a serious injury (6 months recovery time). Anyway, I now have permanent ankle instability. Rehab and more thorough treatment might have made a difference. I didn’t know that at 19. I do know that two decades later, because now the instability flares up more often.

                  Y’know… Doctors make mistakes – I had to shake my head at the comment that 35 years later the care is probably better. Many doctors do not adjust their practice as rapidly as you might think. Some of my doctor colleagues are more change-averse than anyone else I’ve ever worked with. There is an Atlantic article from last month called “When Evidence Says No, But Doctors Say Yes,” you may want to read.

                  It’s fine to want the aggrieved person to be positive, but I think we can also see why she might sue: in order to provide long term help for herself, if it gets worse. Especially if she doesn’t have single-payer or similar to ensure care for a lifetime.

              3. Judge Crater*

                I was waiting for a comment along these lines. No matter the resolution of the original issue, I think Liz has a very significant legal case against both Jack and her former employer. It’s really not a normal business occurrence to be pushed into the path of a moving car by a coworker.

                1. Retail HR Guy*

                  What case against the employer? Either it was considered to have happened at work, in which case workers’ comp applies, or it happened outside of work, in which case the employer isn’t involved.

                2. fposte*

                  Agreeing with Retail HR Guy that there’s not likely to be a case against the employer here, but I did want to say how exciting it is to see you’ve been found, Your Honor :-).

                3. Melissophoebea*

                  Did they (meaning Work) even pay for any of the costs of her medical bills? I didn’t read anything to give me that impressiom

              4. kab*

                She can sue workers’ comp, then turn around and sue Jack, workers’ comp will intervene to recoup its costs.

            3. Loose Seal*

              There’s the driver’s insurance and the company’s liability insurance too. I’m sure all the insurance companies will be fighting it out amongst themselves.

              However, I would bet that the company’s liability insurance people will tell the company not to pay any of Liz’s bills in advance because it might be seen as admitting fault.

              1. BWL*

                “However, I would bet that the company’s liability insurance people will tell the company not to pay any of Liz’s bills in advance because it might be seen as admitting fault.”

                Not necessarily. I think pretty much every state has Good Samaritan laws, in case law if not statutory law, that prevents this type of action from being used as evidence of fault.

                1. Loose Seal*

                  That might be. It’s another good action point for OP and/or HR: Discuss with your attorney if paying some of Liz’s bills is possible.

            4. Have Sprained My Own Finger Avoiding a Bug*

              It’s entirely possible Jack was still frozen and literally unable to move, if he truly has a document he’s in a phobia for. He also was probably literally not in his right mind.

              This is why you need to tread cautiously around mental health issues. If you’ve not had a phobia, it looks a lot like being “scared.” But if Jack had been scared in, say, an active shooter situation, we’d be having a totally different conversation. For a phobia sufferer, the fear can be exactly that intense. For a severe phobia sufferer, your brain is convinced that *your life or health* are in danger.

              1. Melissophoebea*

                I’m conscious of the fact that my fear is stupid (even if I wasn’t, my mocking family members have been drilling that into my head for years), even in the grip of absolute panic. Maybe I’m just a special case though? I wouldn’t know. A single bee sting wouldn’t kill me unless I had a severe allergy, but I’ve never been stung before, so I have no idea. I just know that even seeing pictures of bees up close makes me want to cry in the corner.

                1. Tab*

                  I don’t think you are a special case for knowing that your fear is ridiculous, even in the moment. I always do. It just doesn’t help at all. Its all a subconscious thing, and your consciousness can be there going “This is completely ridiculous, that’s just a bird” but your legs are running anyway.

                2. Simonthegreywarden*

                  I have a phobia of sharks so bad that I can’t swim in water over my head/where I can’t see the bottom. I know how ridiculous it is that this includes swimming pools. . I have no doubt. But I still won’t go off a diving board.

                4. Brrrrr!*

                  @Simonthegreywarden: I have a similar fear. I think the term for what you are describing is thalassophobia. (Also, if your username is referencing what I think it’s referencing, I have to applaud you :) )

                  @Melissophoebea: Of course phobias can be recognized by people who have them as being ridiculous, but that doesn’t make them any less debilitating. I hope your family will soon begin to understand what you are feeling instead of mocking you. Also, I can totally understand being afraid of bees – some people have dinosaur phobias (Thanks, Jurassic Park!) and they’re less likely to run into one on a daily basis. Phobias are just weird in general and we just have to respect that.

            5. Tab*

              Yea, this is where I am most on Liz’s side. The letter doesn’t make it seem like he was appropriately mortified. Even though I fall on the side of this is as much Jack’s fault as it would be if he tripped on a rock, I’d still expect him to be super sorry about it and that could be upsetting Liz.

              It is also possible though, that the letter writer thought that Jack’s mortifiedness was a given and just decided to leave it out for brevity because it wasn’t the issue she was having. It also doesn’t specifically say that HR asked Jack to apologize to Liz, just that he apologized while HR was also on the phone. Jack could have said he wanted to apologize and HR insisted they be in on the call.

          3. INTP*

            Except it’s really not a freak accident at all in the sense of being a really weird, rare convergence of factors that realistically will never happen again. If it were, I would say that firing people because a terrible thing happened and someone needs a sense of resolution is unproductive. But this happened because there was a bird outdoors, a person next to him on the sidewalk, and a car parking on the street. ALL of those things happen frequently on a sidewalk and this could easily happen again if Jack, by his own admission, has no control over his behavior around birds.

            I don’t think he should necessarily be fired, but the company needs to take this seriously and come up with a plan to prevent this from happening again. The next injury could be far worse than a broken arm.

            1. Monday*

              That issue stands out to me as well. He’s already in treatment, and yet this condition is clearly not managed adequately. Birds are always going to be outside, and work will always require intervals spent outside. How is the employer possibly going to ensure that this can’t happen again? I’m not saying he should be fired, but I don’t think this is a realistic expectation either.

              1. INTP*

                Maybe a plan could be developed involving safety steps, like Jack making an effort to stay 10 feet away from other employees when outdoors, letting other employees know to clear away from him if a bird gets into the building, checking vehicles for birds before Jack gets into them if he has to ride with other employees, etc? I think there are steps that could be taken to greatly reduce the safety risks, but a lot of managers and HR departments fall into the assumption that if something is related to a diagnosed condition they can’t bother the employee about it at all.

            2. Newby*

              I agree. I don’t think he should be fired, but there should be some disciplinary measures taken. He pushed a coworker in front of a moving car. The phobia does provide some mitigating circumstances, but it doesn’t make it an ok thing to do.

              I also think Liz is right to quit. I would not be able to work with someone who injured me that badly, regardless of why it happened.

            3. Elizabeth H.*

              Huh, it seems to me like it IS “a really weird, rare convergence of factors that realistically will never happen again.” Even if Jack has bird related freak outs at some point again, you have all of these series of events, like he happens to be in the right position to knock into somebody, she happens to be in the right position to fall off a curb, a car happens to be parking in that exact spot and happens to hit her, the injury happens to be that serious, etc. It strikes me as the perfect definition of freak accident.

              2. Chicklet*

                I work in a busy city with not a lot of parking. I am constantly walking on outdoor sidewalks near people parking, and there are quite often birds around. Basically, except for the person freaking out and knocking me over, this situation is actually exceptionally common. If Liz and Jack work in a situation even close to that, it could absolutely happen again.

                1. Elizabeth H.*

                  Me too though, I live in Boston, people drive like maniacs and park like idiots, we have tons of birds, tons of sidewalks, bike riders, I think actually exceptionally common is a HUGE stretch. Liz would probably more easily be struck by lightning than get knocked into a parking car by a coworker having a panic attack again in her life.

                2. AMG*

                  It makes you wonder though, given his obviously severe phobia. What if he is driving and a bird scares him, and he injures someone with his car? I guess my point is that he seems to no so affected that he is out of control of himself when triggered by being near a bird. And it’s not like birds are hard to come by anywhere.

                3. Chicklet*

                  Elizabeth H, I was saying every part but the getting knocked into traffic was exceptionally common. Walking on a sidewalk while someone parks nearby and birds fly around is an everyday occurrence for me, so I disagree that it’s “a really weird, rare convergence of factors that realistically will never happen again.” Jack is the only uncommon part of this equation. If he works in or near a city and has a phobic reaction that severe, the likelihood of him pushing someone in front of a car again is a lot higher than it would be for someone else.

                4. Chicklet*

                  To be clear, my point isn’t that Jack is a terrible person; it’s that this could happen again, and he needs to take as many steps as possible (increasing his therapy, only walking on the outside of the sidewalk so that if he pushes someone it won’t be into traffic, whatever) to make sure this doesn’t happen again. It may have been an involuntary reaction, but it also could have resulted in someone’s death if the situation had been even slightly different.

            4. Tab*

              I think people in this thread are vastly overestimating how often phobia attacks happen. I have just as severe a phobia as Jack does, but to bugs. Bugs are far more ubiquitous, and yet, this severe a phobia reaction has happened maybe 7 times in the nearly 30 years I’ve been dealing with this phobia. It doesn’t just happen at this severity because you see a bird. It has to be under the exact right circumstances. There are different levels of fear that you experience and this fly-off-the-handle level is rather rare in my experience. He’s probably in a low-level of fear near constantly because of his phobia, but that level is not one that other people would even notice, let alone need to be wary of.

              Think about it this way: Fire trampling occurs really often. Lots of people are afraid enough when the building they’re in is on fire to run into people enough to knock them over. But those same people won’t be running away and knocking them over whenever they see a fire.

            5. Sarah*

              I tend to agree with this. What happens if he’s the one driving the car and a bird flies in front of it? If anything, it’s lucky the consequences in this case were not more severe (it’s very possible someone could have been paralyzed or even killed by being pushed into traffic). I’m not sure what the solution is, but if his phobia is so severe that he has zero consideration for the well-being of others when it hits, the company does need to try to deal with that in some way. Maybe a work-from-home arrangement until after he has gone through an adequate amount of treatment? I’m not saying this is his fault, but mental illness does not excuse behavior that hurts others — someone could have an untreated or poorly treated mental illness that caused them to scream at their coworkers, and I don’t think anyone would say that was acceptable just because they can’t 100% control it. And this is way worse harm than yelling.

          4. Artemesia*

            Yes he was terrified. And so he is entitled to push a coworkers into moving machinery in a factory? In front of a moving car? Off a cliff? If Liz were my employee my first concern would be finding her a safe space to work not just dismissing it as ‘oh well, disability, so whatever Jack did must be respected and excused and so too bad about Liz, bye. Maybe this business is small and there is no way to have Liz and Jack work in different buildings or very different spaces, but my first impulse would be to see if Jack could not be assigned a space far enough from Liz that she would not need to encounter him or put Liz far away from Jack (although that seems less fair) But I’d be bending over backwards to try to work something out for Liz. And Jack since he has no ability to direct his violence when frightened needs to be in a position where he can’t hurt someone else.

            1. Amy The Rev*

              It sounds like you’re reading some sort of intentionality in Jack’s reaction, based on your wording, “so he is entitled to push a coworkers into moving machinery in a factory?” and “no ability to direct his violence”…I’m asking this sincerely, because I think it may help me and others understand what you’re saying- did you interpret the letter to mean that part of Jack’s reaction was to become aggressive and intentionally push people around him? Because I think most of us (as well as Alison) interpreted it to mean that as Jack started to run, he accidentally knocked into Liz, who lost her balance and fell. It may just be semantics, but I’m not sure calling an accidental bump in the course of a startle reflex “violence” is productive or accurate.

              1. Manager On a Break*

                We can only go by the writer’s words. Nowhere was it said the push was accidental, or that Jack “bumped into” Liz. And it appears that he didn’t address it in his later explanation, either.
                What was said was that, according to Liz and others, he *pushed* her. And that she fell.

                Alison notes that she is reading the letter as if it wasn’t an intentional push. Sounds like you are, as well. Just know that “Accidental bump” is an interpretation. Doesn’t mean it’s a fact.

                Without evidence to the contrary, and by his own omission of explaining it later, I chose to interpret it the other way, and that pushing Liz out of the way was a conscious decision. Granted, the omission of explaining the push as incidental to the act of running away could be on the part of the letter writer. But who knows.
                If it read that he had explained and apologized for “pushing her,” specifically, perhaps I would feel differently.

                Instead his apology/explanation sounded more like a justification. So I translated that into, “I have a problem and I don’t expect to ever be held accountable for my actions, whatever they are. Yes, even though I never gave my employer the heads-up before now, and yes, even though I knowingly make the choice not to distance myself from others when in a high-risk-of-birds location like a parking lot.”

                And yes, I do realize that attributing actions to reasons “other than malice” is more the norm, here, but occasionally I like to play devil’s advocate. :)

          5. Amber T*

            +1000000 thank you! Phobias are not just being scared of something! I hate it when someone says “I’m ___phobic!” because they dislike something, or something freaks them out.

            Birds freak me out. Bugs are icky. I don’t like snakes. But I am arachnophobic – I will either freeze and be unable to move, or I will run away. Fight or flight kicks in. Heart rate majorly increases, shaking could start. It’s awful. I’ve had similar reactions to Jack and I really feel for him. I agree – this was just a really bad, unfortunate accident.

            1. Melissophoebea*

              I scream like a little girl and sprint like I’m running a marathon, or whatever my out-of-shape equivalent would be. XD

            2. Tab*

              I’m with you! I feel like so many of the commenters that are more vitriolic towards Jack have only ever met the “eek bugs are creepy” kind of phobic people, rather than the really severe kind.

            3. Halpful*

              TIL this :) I always thought overwhelming disgust (ie, very hard not to throw up if I have to look at/near it) counted as a phobia. I have a startle reflex, but after that I can control myself if I really really really *have* to. (I might be shaking after that, though. and my skin will get all twisty…)

            4. ThatAspie (who also has a phobia)*

              Yeah. I actually have only just recently been officially diagnosed with cyclophobia, even though I’ve had the symptoms for years (and, for a good portion of the time spent between onset and official diagnosis, thought it was somehow normal…until I grew up a bit and realized that it wasn’t normal, which is when I sought help, and that lead to a diagnosis.) It isn’t just “biking hard, me no want”, or even,”riding a bike is kinda scary”. It’s “I cannot ride a bike, because every time I try to climb onto one, I start getting intrusive images in my head of my own death, I get slightly dizzy, the only movement I can do is shaking, I can’t breathe properly, all my muscles tense up and start aching, and, even though I know, on some level, that my fears are completely irrational and unlikely to come true, I can’t stop this.”

          6. scarydogmother*

            His genuinely crippling mental problem doesn’t make Liz’s bones any less broken, her treatment any less expensive or her ordeal any less traumatic. Jack is a liability, whether intentional on his part or not.

            1. Sunshine on a cloudy day*

              Would you feel the same way if Jack had an epileptic seisuze, knocked into Liz while shaking/falling to the ground, and then Liz very unfortunately fell into the path of a moving car? Its tragic and terrible luck, but I don’t think people would be reacting the same way.

              2. AMG*

                People aren’t debating the illness; it’s the fact that he pushed someone into traffic, intentionally or not. I legitimately don’t understand how this is covered by the disability angle. Have a fear of birds? Okay, fine. Pushing people into traffic, not so much.

                What if I had a compulsive rage issue? I can’t necessarily control getting angry but I can decide not to assault someone or break something. He hurt a person. He’s still responsible for that.

                1. Michelle*

                  And that’s exactly the point. You can control whether you assault someone. Jack could NOT control his panic-reaction anymore than an epileptic can control whether they have a seizure.

                2. AMG*

                  That’s actually the opposite of my point. He can’t control his emotion but he can control not injuring someone. I have seen many panic attacks, and had some myself but didn’t shove, hurt, or even touch anyone. He is still responsible for his physical actions if not his emotional and mental reaction.

                3. AnonymousNow*

                  @Michelle: Thank you!! I’m so happy for the people in these comments that actually understand phobias.

                4. AMG*

                  I understand what a phobia is. I also understand personal accountability. You can have both. Hopefully Liz will get a good lawyer and a jury that gets that as well.

                5. Anon for this*

                  I have no phobias, but I do have fairly serious PTSD that I’m in active treatment for. One of my major triggers is people touching my waist from behind – specifically, putting both hands on my hips/waist at the same time while I cannot see them.

                  At my last job I was making copies & standing at the photocopier – which is placed in just such a way that standing at it blocks access to a bookcase in the corner. A coworker (who I happen to be friends with) came up behind me, said excuse me, and put her hands on my hips – I guess to move me out of the way?

                  I reacted with such physical violence that she wound up flat on her back with a black eye. Apparently I went for her with my elbow, but I have no recollection of doing so – I literally have no memory of around 5 minutes after she touched me. I was in total panic mode and wound up in my boss’s office and taking the rest of that day and all of the following (which was Friday) as sick leave. As a result I did not apologize to my coworker until Monday.

                  Long story short, I wound up providing documentation of my PTSD and ongoing therapy to my work, they paid for my coworker to go see a doctor, and our entire office had a refresher course on appropriate vs inappropriate touching – it was determined by my grandboss that I’d been fine not disclosing my PTSD up to that point because my specific triggers are extremely unlikely to occur in a professional setting (after all, how often does a coworker touch your waist like that from behind, stroke your neck, or bite you?) – and my coworker/friend and I are fine.

                  While I absolutely can sympathize with Liz in this situation, Jack is also not to blame for his reaction. People are bringing up all sorts of straw man arguments here – we have no idea what Jack’s specific triggers are with regards to this phobia. He may be more or less fine with birds if they are not within a certain distance of him. He may be able to function if he’s in a car and they’re outside of it because of the barrier. Heck, he may have been startled by the bird landing or taking off. We are not Jack or his therapist so we don’t know the details of his issue and frankly I find this level of nit-picking and skepticism about his (documented! in treatment for!) disorder to be frankly disturbing and disheartening.

              3. Sarah*

                Er, but people with epilepsy actually DO have to put serious constraints on their behavior to avoid their disability from harming others. Such as, not being able to drive a car until the seizures are under control AND it has been a certain amount of time since a seizure occurred. That’s actually a pretty serious inconvenience that could seriously impact your work life, but as a society, we don’t just throw up our hands and say “Oh well, you get free reign to harm others since it’s a medical issue.”

              4. Hiker 1546*

                Yes, I would be reacting the same way. And who are any of us to “condemn” Liz for her reaction. So many of you are giving Jack the benefit of the doubt because of mental issues. Well, maybe Liz had a mental issue before this that caused a more severe reaction from her to this situation. Or maybe this situation caused a mental issue (e.g. PTSD) that is affecting her now. Just because you don’t like how Liz reacted doesn’t mean that you wouldn’t react the exact same way that she did if you ended up with broken bones from an accident.
                And to all of you who are trying to minimize the situation of broken bones in the future – – – my relative broke arm bones at age 25 and had no problems for about 30 years, then beginning in her mid-50s had all kinds of problems relating to those breaks. It’s not being on one side or the other, but trying to make the situation better for both parties – – as well as making Liz as whole as possible, both in terms of paying for medical care including follow-up needs AND future employment.

        4. Dizzy Steinway*

          We don’t know that he ignored them as opposed to being unable to help eg hyperventilating. None of us saw it, including the OP.

          I also think we can acknowledge that this was not a good thing to happen without trivialising phobias. They’re not just ‘being scared’.

          2. Anion*

            Exactly. He could have been hyperventilating. He could have been crying or huddled on the ground. He could have been standing there wailing, “I’m so sorry! God, I’m so sorry, Liz!” the whole time.

            I imagine the incident being rather like the time a spider landed on me and I accidentally threw my soda can in my husband’s face as I jerked and screeched to escape it. (Luckily he wasn’t hurt.) I don’t picture Jack deliberately flinging Jane into the path of a moving car, more like he moved fast, accidentally hit her, and she stumbled into the parking space where the car was pulling in. But that’s just how I’m picturing it.

            1. Anonymousaurus Rex*

              The other day a spider crawled on my foot while I was getting ready for work in the bathroom. I involuntarily shriek/screamed so loudly my partner thought I was very seriously injured. I had heart palpitations for several minutes afterwards. My partner, meanwhile, has a mouse phobia severe enough that she’s totally paralyzed when in a place where there is evidence of mouse activity. Phobias are not voluntary reactions. I know that the spider was harmless; I know my reaction was irrational, but I literally wasn’t able to act calmly.

              1. Anion*

                Eek!

                I’ve had to get used to spiders a bit, living in a very old house with lots of spaces for them to get in (the soda-can incident was years ago), but I would have shrieked at that, too.

                We had a mouse in our house a year or two ago, too. I spotted it around one a.m., woke up my husband, and we eventually caught it and released it. Or, well, HE eventually caught it and released it, because despite my pretty cool and calm reaction on first spotting it, once it started running around the living room I literally squealed and jumped into a chair like a cartoon woman in the 1950s. I knew that was silly, but…yeah. I couldn’t help it.

            2. Elizabeth West*

              Yes, could have been like this. I was standing on the beach once in Santa Cruz (in winter, when the surf is usually pretty high), with a friend. All of a sudden, the friend bolted without a word. I heard something behind me and half turned just in time to see a huge wave coming in, which picked me up off the ground and flung me onto the sand above the berm. Seriously, my actual feet left the actual ground. I could have been hurt; luckily, I wasn’t. Just wet and covered with sand. We went to his folk’s house and his mum helped me get cleaned up and explained the phobia. He did apologize, btw.

              Turns out this person had a phobia of waves and he saw it coming. Panic took over and he didn’t even think to warn me or grab my hand or anything. It was basically like, “Wave! NOPE!”

              I did learn a valuable lesson about turning your back on the ocean–namely, DON’T.

          3. Amy*

            This is my take on it. Phobias suck. A severe phobia can make you react in unpredictable and irrational ways, and the effects of that kind of panic linger for a bit–it’s not like the bird flies away and you suddenly are 100% normal again, hyperventilating or faintness or other symptoms are pretty common. He likely wasn’t trying to push her, and may well not have been in any shape to help much.

          4. MWKate*

            My mom is this afraid of birds. I can imagine her in this situation running away in a panic if she thought the bird was going to be close enough to touch her. She is ‘okay with’ aka able to ignore, birds when they are just flying around doing their business. Having grown up seeing her intense phobia of birds, I am sympathetic to Jack’s blind panic here and can see this being a natural reaction to being confronted with a bird. My brother and I grew up darting around on sidewalks to remain between our mom and any nearby birds.

            However. Even if he was unable to avoid instinctively running from the bird, and her being knocked over, he should have done more to apologize once everything was said and done. If he couldn’t immediately after the event, then once he was able to compose himself.

            1. Fiennes*

              I agree apologies were called for, but I’d caution against assuming that only a lack of remorse/feeling explains Jack apologizing on the phone with HR. Often after a litigible incident, lawyers insist on carefully structuring/monitoring any apology or interaction between the two parties. Either the company’s team or Jack’s personal lawyer may have absolutely insisted that this be the only time/method in which Jack apologized to her.

              1. MWKate*

                I guess I was thinking more, after the ambulance left and before he would have been contacting lawyers etc. I guess the letter writer doesn’t indicate much on what kind of remorse Jack felt.

                1. Loose Seal*

                  The letter writer wouldn’t know how much remorse Jack felt; only Jack knows that. The letter writer could know how much remorse Jack showed. But even then, people can feel remorse but appear stoic. Or people might not ever feel remorseful but can gnash their teeth and rend their garments with the best of them.

                  So does the amount of remorse Jack shows mean anything as far as OP and the company are concerned? Genuinely asking, here, since I’ve been truly startled by the number of comments that seem to think Jack should not only be fired but perhaps have his head placed on a pike in front of the company. Do people feel that there is a sufficient level of remorse that should be shown before an employee can be forgiven for an accident assuming the employee has no previous history of carelessness? Or will no amount of showing remorse save Jack’s job?

                2. MWKate*

                  The impression I got from the letter, was that the apology came after awhile and through HR. That may very well be inaccurate. I have sympathy for Jack – in fact I don’t think he should be fired. However, it is easier (right or wrong) to feel sympathy for someone who took steps afterwards to show they were remorseful for an accident like this. I understand some people can’t do that – or legally shouldn’t, but there really isn’t detail on what is reaction was aside from that later phone call.

                3. Browser*

                  “So does the amount of remorse Jack shows mean anything as far as OP and the company are concerned?”

                  No, but it means a hell of a lot where Liz is concerned.

                4. Loose Seal*

                  @Browser: Does it? Liz seems to have made it clear that there is only one outcome she will accept if she is to return to the company. She is furious as evidenced by her screaming when he attempted to apologize. She wants him fired as a punishment. Not, as many commenters are suggesting, because she’s afraid to be around him. (Note the OP did not say that Liz is fearful of her personal safety if Jack remains employed by the company.)

                  I’m gonna go out on a limb here and say that Liz expected things to go her way and is likely shocked that Jack wasn’t immediately let go upon her demand. Now she’s doubled-down on it, possibly thinking her skills are more valuable to the company because OP mentions the outstanding projects and/or maybe because she doesn’t know how to de-escalate this.

                  If this were mine to handle, I’d give Liz paid time off until she gets medical clearance to return to work, which may include mental health treatment to deal with the trauma of the accident and her justifiable anger at Jack, the company, and fate. Then I’d give Liz an easy way to save face and let her walk back her ultimatum by telling her I was assuming that she said it in a moment of weakness caused by the pain, etc. of the accident and subsequent treatment. If Liz stood by her statement at that time, I’d treat her as per policy for employees who quit. I’d give her a good reference; since it seems that only she can keep certain projects going without delays, I’m assuming that her work has been satisfactory. But, sometimes when people tell you what they intend to do, you have to believe them. If she says she quits, then ok.

                5. Relly*

                  @Loose Seal okay, that last post of yours is ridiculously uncharitable. You imply that she’s spoiled and sulking because she “didn’t get her way,” like she’s a gigantic brat who is being Mean to Jack for no reason whatsoever.

                  She’s in pain and she’s been through an ordeal. And how do you know she’s not scared? Because she sounded angry on the phone? People get angry when they’re scared.

                  Assuming she wants to punish him out of sheer vindictiveness is a stretch, considering that she didn’t call the company up and demand he be fired. She found out he was still working, so she quit. She has that right. She’s not a diva throwing a tantrum.

                6. Loose Seal*

                  @Relly re: charitable. Uncharitableness is going around, I’m afraid. Bound to step in it sooner or later in this thread.

                  I think you’ve read into my post something I didn’t intend. When someone issues an ultimatum, I think it’s fair to say they want things to go their way. By stating that, it doesn’t mean I think she’s a brat. I do, however, stick with my assumption that she (like many people in this thread) truly thought that if she thought he would certainly be fired over this. And, like many in this thread, she’s incensed (and probably incredulous) that he’s not and she — the victim — is the one who’s going to be out a job.

                  I do think she’s angry rather than afraid her her safety, though, and I don’t mean to apologize for that stance. Surely, if she were afraid of working with Jack after this incident, when she was told that Jack won’t be fired over this, she would have told the OP that she was afraid. I think the OP would have mentioned that in the letter if it had happened because that does change things a bit. I mean, if you were really afraid for your safety, wouldn’t you say that?

              2. Pommette*

                That’s one plausible reason.
                It’s also possible that he feels that profuse apologies will put her in an uncomfortable position (feeling obliged to accept the apology; feeling responsible for coworker’s feelings of guilt).

            2. Atwood*

              But he didn’t run until it flew up off the sidewalk. Was he going to walk past it to get in to the building?

              1. Amber T*

                He might not have seen it if it was just chilling on the sidewalk, and only noticed it when it moved? If I see a spider standing still, I can kind of prep myself to get around it, but if it moves unexpectedly, that’s when the real fear kicks in.

              2. MWKate*

                I agree with Amber T – he might have been ok walking past it if he knew it was there and could keep an eye on it, or if was far enough away. There are birds everywhere, he has to have some kind of way to cope with being outside – but if he felt the bird was coming towards him I can see that being a separate issue.

                1. Loose Seal*

                  My issue with birds and other flying things — bats, large moths, flying squirrels, probably — is the flapping. My fear doesn’t rise to the level of phobia; it’s more of an exaggerated startle reflex rather than a fight/faint/or flight response. However, were I in Jack’s situation and I didn’t see the bird before it, sensing Liz and I were close to it, started to fly, I’d probably have hugely jumped and flailed my arms and, yes, perhaps knocked Liz off the curb. (The difference here would be that, while my heart would continue to knock at my chest, I’d likely be of a mental state to assist Liz immediately after the accident because I don’t have a phobia. As others with true phobias have mentioned, it likely wouldn’t be as easy for Jack to calm down and offer assistance.)

          5. The Final Pam*

            This – I don’t have a specific phobia but I do have issues with anxiety and I get panic attacks. If I have a panic attack I am completely unable to do anything. I hyperventilate, I cry, there’s no way I can do much of anything except wait it out or, at most, hurry to get to a more private place. If other people were helping Liz, I don’t think that him standing off to the side suggests much of anything other than panic.

        5. Cary*

          1) A kid wasn’t involved in this incident, and the co-worker is not paralyzed for life, so let’s not make this into a different issue.

          2) Having a phobia isn’t being scared. It’s an intense disabling fear that can rule and ruin someone’s life. You can go to this link to hear people talk about their phobia http://www.mind.org.uk/information-support/types-of-mental-health-problems/phobias/#.WOR93hLyu8o

          3) This was a freak accident. In all likelihood Jack was so panicked and anxious that he didn’t see the car, or the coworker who happaned to be right behind him.

          1. Gadfly*

            Regarding 3) as long as that holds true as likely to happen whenever he sees birds, he remains a danger to co-workers who he won’t see and push into other things he won’t see.

            Blind panics are dangerous.

            1. JB (not in Houston)*

              It doesn’t sound like he ran because he saw a bird. She described it as him running because the bird was on the ground nearby and then took off. I’m not scared of birds at all, but I’ve been startled and flinched from a bird suddenly taking off near me, especially if it flies in my direction. I can see how, for someone with a phobia, that would trigger it. Yes, that kind of thing isn’t rare, but it doesn’t happen nearly as often as seeing birds.

              1. Anion*

                I feed birds in my backyard, on the patio in front of me as I sit in my little chair having a cigarette. Once a robin flew up behind me and landed on the edge of my laptop screen. I almost flung my laptop, I was so startled (and then felt bad, as it flew away). So yeah, it’s not like people can’t be startled by birds even without phobias, even when we feed them and talk to them like dorks all alone in our backyards.

                (The robin seems to have forgiven me, thankfully. He’s never landed on my laptop again, but he will come stand on the little low rock wall right next to me [less than a foot away], and look at me–pointedly, if I have not yet put out mealworms.)

                1. JB (not in Houston)*

                  He’s more polite then than bluejays, who can express their displeasure at lack of feeding very vocally (and I’m glad you didn’t accidentally throw your laptop!).

                2. Anion*

                  Lol, yes. There aren’t any jays here, but I remember them well from when I lived where there were. My robin, blackbirds, and sparrows are very well-behaved, even if they did get into the mealworm bag last night and strew them all over the patio. Sigh.

                  And thanks! I’m glad, too. :-)

                3. Anion*

                  Oh my GOD, the robin just flew up and perched on my laptop screen edge again, just now!!

                  The first time was almost a year ago, I never thought he’d do it again!

                  Sorry, I know this is OT, but for it to happen again today when I was *just telling that story a few hours ago* strikes me as slightly noteworthy, lol.

              2. K.A.*

                Yet, he did nothing to help her because the bird landed on the ground nearby. So, it wasn’t just the bird flying up startling him. He didn’t even try to help her and after hurting her so badly!

            2. BethRA*

              By that standard, so is carrying a backpack or a large satchel – you could just as easily knock someone over, or off a curb or subway platform by accidentally hitting them with your bag when you turn around.

              But we don’t ban bags, because outside of a freak accident, the worst that will usually happen is someone gets annoyed.

              1. Green Notebook*

                But if you accidentally bumped someone with your bag, you’d still be responsible. You’d be responsible for what is essentially an extension of your space, and that you are taking up more space and can possibly knock someone or something over.

                We don’t ban bags, but no one is saying to ban Jack. But you are still responsible for being aware of how your actions may affect others.

            3. Anna*

              So is blind punishment. This is a terrible weird thing that happened, but it’s so weird it’s unlikely to happen again, meaning he is not an imminent threat to coworkers.

              The logical conclusion to your suggestion is that he sit in his home and never leave for fear he may strike again. That’s what asylums used to be used for. No thanks.

              1. Loose Seal*

                I’m starting to believe that if we removed the mental illness reason for Jack’s bumping into Liz and replaced it with a physical reason of any kind with the exception of a purposeful shove, people would be kinder to Jack. I am more distressed by this realization than I am about the entire story. In my naïveté, I thought people were more knowledgeable of and understanding toward mental illness in this day and age.

                1. Ask a Manager* Post author

                  Yes. I’ve been mostly staying out of this since last night because it’s too much of a mess to even attempt to try (I’ve never seen so much speculation presented as fact here before) but this is my take as well.

                2. Going anon for mental illness talk*

                  I’m feeling this too. This actually confirms my gut feeling that I should never disclose mental illness unless I really need accommodation–there’s way too much entirely unsubstantiated fear and stigma out there, even among people who generally care about workplace equality and good management.

                3. Detective Amy Santiago*

                  Agreed. It’s really very disheartening and makes me SO incredibly grateful for the coworkers I have now and the ones I’ve had in the past who have been so kind about my panic disorder.

                4. AMG*

                  Well, that’s very compassionate and I love this reader base for their kindness….but what about Liz? She got badly hurt and I’m just honestly surprised to see the ‘accidents happen’ response. Illness or not, he is still responsible for that. You can feel sympathy for him and decide he’s a liability at the same time. It doesn’t have to be one or the other. Also, his phobia did not cause him to hurt her. His reaction did, even if he did it out of fear. He did not ‘phobia’ her; he shoved her.

                5. Retail HR Guy*

                  Yep. Imagine if Liz and Jack were walking side by side and Jack had an involuntary muscle spasm due to a medical condition, shoving Liz. I have to think that the comments wouldn’t be as cruel to Jack in such a case.

                6. AMG*

                  I don’t see anyone referencing Jack in a cruel manner, or even debating that he has an illness.

                7. Detective Amy Santiago*

                  @AMG

                  Plenty of people are saying he’s a danger, a menace, etc. Short of one person (that I saw), no one has said that Liz doesn’t deserve empathy and kindness. Empathy isn’t pie – giving some to Jack doesn’t mean that Liz gets less.

                8. AMG*

                  I agree that both deserve compassion. Not sure if he’s dangerous or not, but I sure wouldn’t be caught on a sidewalk with him.

                9. Green Notebook*

                  Most people commented on Jack not being disciplined are knowledgeable and understanding of mental illness.

                  And it if was a physical reason, then most likely the Liz and others would have known so they themselves can take reasonable precautions to keep safe. Or if they hadn’t known, then when an attack(such as a seizure) they’d be able to see the person unable to help.
                  The way the letter was written, it doesn’t look like Jack’s phobia was disclosed until after Liz quit, so even if she is usually more understanding; she could have just spent time thinking about a coworker pushing her into a car, not helping, not apologizing until after she got out of the hospital for no known reason. And finally getting a reason wasn’t going to change that accumulation of anger.

                  I really understand not wanting to disclose, I have a mental illness as well, but at the very least of I have disclosed when it is possible it could become an issue. People are sympathetic and empathetic to Jack, but this is a no win situation. On the one hand, if you don’t have any form of discipline, coworkers who don’t know of Jack’s phobia are now going to see him as the person who pushed someone into traffic, didn’t help, and didn’t get punished. If his phobia does get disclosed and he isn’t disciplined in any sort of way you can also create a stigma that those with mental illness are untouchable, that if you are near them and get hurt, they go unpunished. On the other, if you discipline too harshly, you can stigmatize the mental illness in a way you look like you are punishing the mental illness and not the action.

                10. Manager On a Break*

                  OK, to be fair, I didn’t read that he *bumped into* her. I read that, according to Liz and other eyewitnesses, he *pushed* her. In my mind there is a *huge* difference in those two actions. I can understand a phobias and being so irrationally afraid that you accidentally “bump into” something or someone in your attempt to get far away from the danger.
                  And then there’s the act of intentionally reaching out and shoving someone. What, for added flair or dramatic effect? These actions look different, and my (and others’) reaction to them is different.
                  Oh, and after the fact he produced a note and explained why he ran, and explained why he didn’t offer to help, but he never explained why he pushed her?
                  Now, I doubt very seriously that he acted with any intent that Liz get hurt. But, as it was described to us, it did in fact sound like the push was not merely incidental to his escaping a perceived danger.

                  On the one hand it sounds like Jack should probably be working in a bubble. Given how many birds there are, and how common this scenario would occur in some locations, at a *bare minimum* he should not place himself within a few steps of anyone when entering or leaving any building or car. Ever. *If* he’s the type to feel responsible or accountable for his actions.
                  Where I work, this could be an every day occurrence. Birds are everywhere.

                  On the other hand, it’s true that companies probably shouldn’t cave to ultimatums. I 100% agree with Liz never wanting to work or be around this person again, but the ultimatum probably wasn’t the best way to handle that. I do respect her opinion and decision to remove herself.

                  The company has made their decision as well, and they should live with it and move on. I will say that if Liz was a real asset and this represented a huge loss, I probably would have been very quick to offer her a 100% remote-work arrangement, if the type of work she does can be done remotely. Or from another branch/office if there is one. Compensating over-generously for any added miles or traffic, if any, of course.

                  Spot-reading through quite a few comments, I liked Meg Murry’s response from the 5th:
                  “At a bare minimum Liz should have been given as much time as she needed to recuperate, paid time off to go to physical therapy, all her medical bills covered, and the option to not have to work anywhere near Jack again. I agree that Jack should not necessarily have been fired, but I don’t think its unreasonable for Liz to ask that she not have to work with or interact with Jack again.”

                  Me, I feel bad for people with issues that are beyond their control, but I also feel bad for “everyone else.” And it baffles me how this turned into a poor, pitiful Jack-fest when he isn’t the one that sustained a life-changing injury and trauma at the hands of a co-worker.

              2. turquoisecow*

                Yes, thank you for saying that. He has a phobia. Once, this once, it resulted in him inadvertently injuring someone. However, assuming that he’s an adult, he’s gone through a good many years without injuring anyone. He’s walked in and out of his house, in and out of the workplace, and presumably in and out of many stores many times in his life. He’s also theoretically spent some time out of doors – although given his phobia, maybe he hasn’t spent a lot of time in parks or anything like that. Over the past however many years he’s been alive, if this is the first time he’s ever seriously injured someone, AND he’s working on it in therapy, I think people are going a bit overboard suggesting he’s a danger to others.

                All humans are a danger to others. What if someone is momentarily not paying attention, or is distracted by a noise, or has some other (physical) medical issue, which results in them hitting someone with their car, or bumping into them and knocking them down the stairs? It’s a bit extreme saying that person should never be allowed out in public again.

                As Loose Seal says, I’m disturbed by some of these comments.

                1. Serafina*

                  I agree that he wasn’t acting with malice or intent, but I think what a lot of commenters are (correctly) saying is that even a mental illness doesn’t excuse negligence when that negligence hurts someone.
                  Negligence is defined as breaching a duty of ordinary care. In this case, that duty of ordinary care means don’t push someone when you are trying to get past them. In this case, Jack broke that duty and caused someone major injuries.
                  It’s not a defense to say, “well, he’s never hurt anyone BEFORE and therefore he shouldn’t face any consequences from this!” I do agree that if nothing like this has happened before, that can be taken into account in deciding what discipline is warranted – but discipline IS warranted. Treating mental illness or any other disability as a “get out of consequences free” card when they directly result in harm to others does everyone else who suffers from them a terrible disservice by creating a greater risk to employers and coworkers and peers than there ought to be. That can cause a stigma and unwarranted resistance and fear to interacting with disabled or mentally ill persons just as surely as other stereotypes. (I.e. – “if we hire Person With X Condition, we’ll never, ever, ever be able to discipline him/her because of X Condition” is just as harmful a stereotype as “if we hire Person With X Condition, they’ll go crazy/have episodes/be unable to work because of X Condition.”)

                  Jack was negligent. He didn’t mean to harm Liz, but he did harm her – he pushed her, and the fact that he may have been in the throes of uncontainable fear doesn’t diminish the harm to her. Others have aptly pointed out, otherwise where does it end? If Jack dropped heavy machinery or leapt out of a vehicle he was driving to escape the subject of his phobia and someone died as a result? He and his employer would still be held fully responsible. Reasonable accommodation does not mean “all incidents stemming from the disability are excused.”

                2. Gazebo Slayer*

                  @Serafina: Yes. Insisting Jack suffer no consequences because of his mental illness makes stigma WORSE, not better. It infantilizes or dehumanizes him by robbing him of any agency and presenting him as an uncontrollable beast to be feared that no one will protect you from – see Gadfly’s multiple posts on this topic. Or, alternatively, it positions him and other people with mental illnesses as special superior beings who are always in the right and whom you must never ever get angry at or you are a nasty ableist vindictive drama queen witch – which breeds resentment and hatred as well as fear. Either way, it does people like me no favors. (I mentioned my multiple hospitalizations for anxiety and depression elsewhere.)

                3. The Strand*

                  I’m with Sarah and Serafina’s comments on this, as well as Green Notebook…

                  People who have epilepsy can be a danger to others in certain circumstances, and that’s why they’re expected to avoid certain circumstances that they can control. My coworker had a seizure and drove her car into a divider, injuring herself and her passengers. She wasn’t arrested; but her license was taken away. That wasn’t punishment, that was protection.

                  Jack could be asked, as a condition of continued employment, to avoid and plan around certain situations where other people might be hurt by his phobia. Maybe he’s asked to use a back door or leave 15 minutes before or after others. Perhaps if HR had worked out some things that could be done, not punitive but protective, and then reassured Liz of these changes, she would have been open to returning.

                  Precisely because we should have compassion and logically view Jack as having an illness… We have to be careful about accommodation, while also protecting privacy. I can’t agree more with the misperception of illnessses as a “get out of consequences free card” and how that complicates the way others see it in the workplace. (It made me think about a bully in another department where I work, and how the bully’s victim believed, “I can’t say anything because this person’s in a protected class.” And that question has come up in this column – the person who can’t get any work done because their ill coworker is gone so much.)

                  I tend to think that accommodation is resented more the less it’s publicly understood as such, because people have no way of applying logic or compassion – or learning from the situation. They just make stuff up or assume the worst.

                  Speaking of the worst, I think HR’s actions here could lead to other employees’ wrongful belief, “This guy got away with pushing someone in front of a car, and the company did nothing.”

                  So they should have done something, not punitive – but protective. Without necessarily revealing anyone’s medical or other conditions. But to stave off the rumor mill and let employees know that this was being resolved.

                  Last but not least, Liz is now someone with a medical condition as a consequence of the event – maybe PTSD, which isn’t unusual after car accidents – and we should be showing her the same compassion given to Jack.

              3. Bleef*

                It’s interesting to me that this comes down to Team Freak Accident versus Team There Are Birds and Cars in the Parking Lot and It Could Easily Happen Again. I can’t help but be on the latter team! It’s not about a lack of sympathy for his phobia, but rather a common sense assessment of if the situation is likely to happen again. If he is still not at a place in his treatment that he can direct his panic in a non-harmful direction from others, then all other employees outside with him are basically in danger, as birds are likely to be flying, landing, taking off at any given time. He’s also a danger to himself, as he may run in front of cars himself getting away. It would be cruel to fire him or dismiss the seriousness of his phobia but if I were Liz, I would be pissed if I felt like my office was basically saying “he can’t help it so just forgive him and come back!” when the situation could happen again if she’s still expected ride places with him and be in the parking lot with him.

              1. Gadfly*

                Although don’t forget the very easily part. It matters, even when you aren’t hurt at all. because that is the part that wakes you up, makes you ill when you hear certain noises or see certain things…

              2. Mike C.*

                It’s a foreseeable consequence. When it comes to safety, you don’t just worry about what happened, you also worry about what’s likely to happen. Once you open the door to “getting run over by a car”, then likely repercussions leading from that are fair game.

            2. Forrest*

              Well, if we’re making up things, what if Jack pushed her in the race to save a kid?

                1. Czhorat*

                  What if he’d pushed a fat man in front of the car to keep it from running over Liz and the two kids? Works that still be wrong?

                1. AMG*

                  He could have been running to stop someone from pooping in a potted plant, or to prevent a witch from hexing another coworker. Or even going into a bathroom with another employee!

              3. Mike C.*

                Come on, when you’re talking about issues of safety it’s perfectly reasonable to think about possible consequences.

                1. Gravel*

                  Courts consider whether outcomes and damages are foreseeable in negligence cases.

                  In terms of employer liability, it also comes into play.

                  This isn’t just about what did happen, but what might happen if Jack continues to work there and be outside in the same area with co-workers.

                2. Forrest*

                  Yes, it’s perfectly reasonable to think about possible consequences for the thing that actually happened. Not make up scenarios that didn’t happen.

                3. Mike C.*

                  No Forrest, that’s not how safety planning works in the real world. Someone was hit and severely injured with a car. It’s perfectly reasonable to discuss the ramifications of those injuries being more or less severe.

                4. Forrest*

                  People are making up these scenarios to make comparable situations to what Jack did. They’re not trying to plan out emergencies plan for what happens if they did occur.

                5. Forrest*

                  That said, thinking up the consequences for using a kid as a human shield should probably be lower on the list than thinking how to avoid people needing to use kids as human shields.

                6. Forrest*

                  BUT if it’s cool to discuss these imagery situations – Liz being a kid for example – then why is it outline of line for me to bring up what would happen if Jack pushed her trying to save a kid? If we could look at the different possibilities for the person injured, why not the person who caused those injuries?

                7. Mike C.*

                  You’re not treating my point fairly. I’m only speaking towards the best practices when it comes to workplace safety and I haven’t mentioned children once.

                8. Forrest*

                  You’re not treating my point fairly either. If you’re all for preparing for possible work situations – which I agree with – those situations are not only discussed on Liz’s side. You need to discuss them on Jack’s side as well. Anything else is just an attempt to try to make Jack worse and honestly, you don’t need to try to make Jack worse.

                  Yup, talk about what would happen if Liz had died. But what would have happened if Jack was running to save someone?

                9. BananaPants*

                  An entire part of my job involves coming up with different event scenarios, considering probabilities of chains of events happening, and assessing consequences. Even a very low-probability scenario may be worth attempting to mitigate in some way if the consequence is really high (serious injury or death). In this scenario, there is the possibility that it or something similar could happen again if steps aren’t taken by Jack’s employer to ensure that other coworkers aren’t in the same position – maybe no one gets within 10 feet of Jack when outdoors, Jack isn’t able to carpool with coworkers, Jack needs to seek more intensive therapy as a condition of remaining employed, etc.

                  I don’t think Jack should be fired, but as someone who has dealt with mental health issues, I don’t think that having a mental health issue should be a “get out of jail free” card. Even though he didn’t mean to do it, the fact remains that he caused a coworker to be seriously injured. Hell, if I was to hurt myself at work through my own negligence or violating a safety rule – even unknowingly – I would be subject to disciplinary measures!

                10. Forrest*

                  “An entire part of my job involves coming up with different event scenarios, considering probabilities of chains of events happening, and assessing consequences.”

                  Do you only come up with one side of these scenarios? Because when I was working for an emergency response company, we looked at all the angles.

                  The company is able to determine how to prevent further incidences with Jack without commenters here resorting to the “What if Liz died????” Ok, well, she didn’t and what if something was different on Jack’s side? Or are we only allowed to play Devil’s Advocate with our favorite person?

            3. Anna*

              She also could have suffered absolutely no consequences saved a bruised ego or a scraped hand. If you’re going to go with what COULD HAVE happened, make sure you go in both directions.

              1. Mike C.*

                One direction requires a whole lot more planning than the other. Planning for “but nothing bad happened” is what I would call “the trivial solution”.

                1. Loose Seal*

                  Of course, depending on OP’s role at the company, they may not be involved in safety planning at all. So, we can go down that road, but it’s unlikely to be helpful to the OP.

                  If there isn’t a safety planning person at the company, then a direct action OP could take is suggesting they contract with one and take that person’s recommendations.

              2. Gadfly*

                There is a square they have you make in business classes. It is divided into quarters. They are 1) likely and severe, 2) likely and not severe, 3) unlikely and severe, 4) unlikely and not severe. You then graph onto this values assigned to possible happenings.

                Unlikely and severe is one that you still pay decent attention to and make plans for. And it is questionable if this doesn’t move it closer to the Likely square. Because it is now a known that Jack can be triggered by birds to lose all control. That could result in a co-worker just falling and having minor injuries. It could result in a coworker being seriously injured in innumerable ways (not just cars). It isn’t far out on the unlikely scale anymore, not once it has become a reality, not as long as Jack panics at birds remains a likely.

            4. The Strand*

              Actually, my first thought is that if Liz is an anxious type (as are lots of us; maybe 25% is a figure I’ve heard batted around), she might dwell on that aspect of it. I.e. “I had no control in the situation and could have been more seriously injured.” She could be more injured psychologically than even physically.

              Someone else with a different temperament might say, “Hey, I just faced a really scary situation. I need to take stock of my life.” And still another person might shrug.

          4. Browser*

            She’s not paralyzed for life, but the injury she sustained is one that will never fully resolve – she is going to be dealing with the repercussions from it for the rest of her life.

          5. Artemesia*

            She was in front of him and he pushed her aside. If you can’t aim your panic reaction so as to not hurt someone (she could have been killed easily in this situation of being pushed under a car, or paralyzed or had her life entirely ruined) the perhaps you can’t be around people. He took off running, he didn’t steer around her but bulled right through her pushing her into the street. If he can’t do better than this than he is a danger to all those around him.

            1. Elizabeth H.*

              It was an accident though. I doubt that he intended to knock into Liz and I doubt that he didn’t or wouldn’t care whether or not he knocked into her. I would think that even if Liz didn’t fall off the curb and get this serious injury, he would still be embarrassed, remorseful and apologetic that he had knocked into her.

                2. Elizabeth H.*

                  I’m just assuming that he reacted to this situation in the same way that any reasonable person would.
                  Any reasonable person would be apologetic that this happened no matter how or why it happened. I wouldn’t be surprised if Jack were even more mortified and apologetic than if he had knocked into Liz because he tripped rather than because of a phobia reaction. To my mind, it should be treated the same way as if he knocked Liz off a curb because he tripped on a rock or something. Or if he were having a seizure. It wasn’t on purpose. Even in the midst of a panic attack you still try NOT to run into people or objects to the best of your ability, this is like a brain stem level reaction.

                3. Aveline*

                  @Elizabeth

                  If someone, let’s call him Bob, had a history of seizures and didn’t take any steps to mitigate or he didn’t disclose and ask for accomodation, he could be in deep trouble.

                  There’s a reason the rules on driving and seizures focus on medication/mitigation and don’t simply let people drive if they have a history of seizures.

                  http://www.aafp.org/afp/1999/0101/p199.html

                4. Elizabeth H.*

                  @Aveline, but he wasn’t driving, he was walking on the sidewalk. I just don’t see this as something that realistically could be prevented by mitigation, accommodation, etc. It was a freak occurrence.

                5. Anon for this*

                  @Aveline

                  He’s in therapy for this issue. How, exactly, is that not taking steps to mitigate his phobia?

                  Hypothetically, say I have a severe allergy to pet dander and I cannot be around dogs or cats without having intense physical reactions. If I am employed in a typical work place without dogs or cats in it, do you believe that I should disclose and ask for accommodations immediately upon hiring, or would I be fine with keeping that issue private unless a situation arises such as a coworker needs to have a service animal or (as in a recent letter) my supervisor is so very cat-ified that they trigger my allergies? I’m guessing that you (and most of the people on this site) would go with the latter answer.

                  Presumably this is an indoor work environment. As such, Jack’s phobia could not reasonably be considered something he needs to disclose or ask for accommodation for – after all, most offices don’t come equipped with birds.

            2. Amy The Rev*

              I’m not sure where you got “took off running, he didn’t steer around her but bulled right through her pushing her into the street” from “Liz was less than a step ahead of him”, which is what the OP wrote. Sounds like she got knocked off balance by his startle reflex. It sounds like you’re assigning a lot more intentionality/deliberateness into Jacks actions than the OP made it sound like.

            3. turquoisecow*

              “If he can’t do better than this than he is a danger to all those around him.”

              That’s a bit extreme. He’s an adult, so presumably he’s spent 20-30+ years around people. Because he had a panic attack and accidentally knocked someone over, you now think he should be banned from interacting with other humans? Seriously?

            5. Michelle*

              “aim your panic reaction”

              Four words that summarize everything wrong with the comments on this letter.

                1. fposte*

                  Not by definition, though. You absolutely can have a panic attack and retain voluntary control.

                1. Sunglow28*

                  I have a needle phobia and despite cognitively understanding that a blood test could save my life, I basically blacked out, punched my husband so hard I gave him a black eye and somehow found myself in a parking garage still in a hospital gown. That is phobia. It is risking death to avoid a blood draw. It is punching a loved one to escape. It is FIGHTING FOR YOUR LIFE even when it’s unneeded. This is a real thing, and it too me years of cbt so I could get pregnant.

        6. Gazebo Slayer (formerly I'm a Little Teapot)*

          THIS to Artemisia, and I speak as someone who’s been hospitalized more than once for severe anxiety but has never PUSHED SOMEONE IN FRONT OF A CAR. Jack’s phobia does not entitle him to assault, severely injure, and endanger someone’s life. If I were his employer, I’d not only have fired him but I’d have asked Liz if she wanted to press civil or criminal charges and supported her in that if she said yes.

          And IANAL, but I wonder about the company’s liability if Liz decides to sue them unless they’ve already paid a fat settlement.

          1. Zillah*

            I don’t think anyone is saying that a phobia entitles Jack to assault anyone. Saying that it was an accident really isn’t the same thing.

            1. JB (not in Houston)*

              I am a llama, and from the facts of the letter, you simply cannot conclude that this was assault.

                1. JB (not in Houston)*

                  Ha! I’m very sorry to tell you that I did mean that I am a lawyer. Someone here once guessed that IANAL=i am not a llama, and some of us liked that so much we started using it.

            2. Gravel*

              I am a lawyer. I have tried cases similar to this.

              It may or may not be assault. None of us can conclude this from the facts.

              It’s an issue of Jack’s mental state. We’d have to have a lot more data to say one way or the other.

              1. Zillah*

                I responded to “Jack’s phobia does not entitle him to assault, severely injure, and endanger someone’s life” by pointing out that no one is saying that a phobia entitles Jack to assault anyone. I am not and have never claimed to be a lawyer.

              2. Zillah*

                That doesn’t mean that anyone is suggesting that Jack’s phobia entitles him to assault, severely injure, and endanger someone’s life. There’s a difference between seeing this as an accident and saying that having a phobia that Jack is totally in the clear to either assault his coworkers or not put preventative measures in place to ensure that this doesn’t happen again.

          2. JS*

            Yeah I wouldn’t be so quick to do all that. If Jack has been receiving therapy and diagnosed with a condition than the ADA likely prevents his employer from discriminating against him based on that. Even though his condition caused injury to another employee as it was an accident, I would consider his tenure and if erratic behavior was involved previously. Jack could likely sue just as much as Liz could. It’s a tough situation so as an employer the smart thing would be to remain neutral and sensitive to both employees.

            1. Doe-eyed*

              I am not an HR person, but I’m pretty sure that ADA accommodations only apply if you disclose that you have the need for an accommodation. You can’t wait until after a serious incident that the employer had no chance of mitigating and then go “ADA!”

              1. Katelyn*

                I see that, but I also see that a phobia of birds when working in a white collar job is not normally something that you need accommodation for. What would you even ask for from your employer?? I think the phobia is an additional layer of explanation for an accident, but it’s still accidental.

                1. Doe-eyed*

                  Well I mean realistically, birds are everywhere, even in cities. You don’t even have to ask for accommodations, you can simply say “look here’s the deal”. Becuase if I’m picking people for offsite meetings, the person with the bird phobia would likely not top the list.

                2. Just Jess*

                  Reply to Doe-eyed –

                  I hope you don’t mean that you’d use someone’s disability as a reason to not select them for career enhancing business travel. I could be misinterpreting your comment though. Do you mean you’d extrapolate that Jack shouldn’t be doing certain things or do you mean his disclosure would lead you to check in with Jack about going to offsite meetings?

                3. Doe-eyed*

                  Can’t reply and nest on this, sorry –

                  There are multiple kinds of travel, some career enhancing, others not. If I can avoid sending the employee who might throw someone under a car to a non-essential, off-site meeting easily handled by someone else, that’s going to be my first option. If there is a need or it is an opportunity vs. a duty, I’ll talk to them about their needs and see what we can do to accommodate them.

                  In our industry there are plenty of “grunt” meetings that serve little purpose, don’t accomplish much, and do nothing to enhance anybody’s standing, but someone from each group has to be there so they can say they filled us in on whatever is happening.

                5. Chalupa Batman*

                  I think Doe-eyed’s reasoning makes sense, but I can see why Jack wouldn’t disclose. Birds are seen as a silly phobia by a lot of people who don’t have it, and Jack has probably been teased or treated poorly when disclosing before. I doubt it’s never come up until now, and when people find out, it’s probably unpleasant for Jack. I’m not phobic, but have a greater-than-average distaste for birds, and people act like there’s something wrong with me because I find them annoying and nasty instead of cute and funny. Being legitimately phobic would be about 1000x worse.

                6. Ellen N.*

                  In every office I’ve worked in birds roost on the window ledges and sadly fly into the windows. I would think that someone with a phobia of birds would have to ask for a desk that’s not near a window. Also, the accommodation of warning coworkers to be several feet away from him any place where birds might be (which is pretty much everywhere outside) would be necessary.

              2. Retail HR Guy*

                Depends on the circuit. In the 9th circuit, it’s established that you can greatly misbehave, attribute it after the fact to a newly-disclosed qualifying disability, and be immune to any negative work action tied to your misbehavior.

                The case establishing this was a woman who freaked out at her boss, shouting, insulting, and throwing things. She was suspended. She then claimed the misbehavior was due to a disability. The company said too bad, it wasn’t disclosed until after your suspension and it isn’t reasonable to accommodate that kind of behavior regardless. They fired her. She sued. The courts said it was discrimination.

                In any other circuit, though, you would be correct that you can’t use the ADA as a defense after a misdeed.

                1. StartupLifeLisa*

                  Do you happen to have that citation? I’m considering law school & would like to read the case.

                3. Retail HR Guy*

                  StartupLifeLisa,

                  I wish I did have the citation for you. I just tried to Google it but I didn’t remember enough details to find it. It’s a relatively well known case on the west coast, though, and I’ve seen it referenced by law blogs and mentioned by more than one of our employment attorneys (in different firms) so hopefully an actual attorney could weigh in. My remembrance on it was that the decision flew in the face of what other circuits have decided, but until such time as one of these cases goes all the way to SCOTUS the law here out West will just stay different than the rest of the country.

              3. AMG*

                Right–jack should not be allowed to endanger people any time his bird phobia arises. I can’t imagine ADA covers justifying pushing people into traffic. Poor Liz. I really do hope she sues him.

                1. Zillah*

                  He pushed her and she fell off the curb, where she was hit by a car that was parking.

                  That doesn’t mean that it’s not a problem, nor does it mean that Liz wasn’t seriously injured and has every reason to be furious! But it’s also not the same thing as pushing her into traffic.

                2. AMG*

                  I just feel like it’s an issue if semantics. Jack cause don’t her to get hit by a car.

                3. Zillah*

                  I don’t want to parse words, but I don’t think it’s just semantics. Pushing someone into traffic has some really specific and strong connotations.

            2. TL -*

              So I’m pretty sure nowhere in the ADA would they consider broken bones and assault a reasonable accommodation.

                1. Gravel*

                  It might be in some states. It really depends upon whether or not he had the mental state to know he was pushing her out of the way. That’s a question for a jury.

                  We don’t know enough about Jack and his mental state to know one way or the other.

                  Just b/c it happened quickly and in a panic may or may not absolve him of the mental state.

                  There are similar cases where someone pushing someone out of the way to escape someone chasing them have been convicted.

                  It’s all very fact specific.

                  http://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-charges/assault-and-battery-overview.html

                2. Gravel*

                  We do NOT know this one way or the other.

                  As a lawyer, I have seen cases like this (and tried a few) where it was deemed assault and some where it wasn’t.

                  It really turns on Jack’s mental state. Being in a blind panic helps, but I’ve seen people being chased or with phobias be found to have committed assault or battery when they shoved someone or barreled into them.

                  Everyone needs to stop saying it is definitively assault or it isn’t.

                  It’s not that simple.

                3. Lynxa*

                  I am also a llama (I LOVE THIS) and I am jumping in to second Gravel. It could possibly be assault, or it may not. The determination is fact-based and made on a case-by-case basis.

                  (And, honestly, in my state for assault all that’s needed is the intent to perform an unwanted touching.)

                4. Artemesia*

                  I am astonished that we are more concerned about Jack’s career enhancing travel than the lives of his coworkers or the hapless visitor he might be dispatched to pick up. You don’t let epileptic workers, work around dangerous machines or drive. Someone with a phobia so severe that an ordinary event causes him to lash out blindly and push someone under a moving car is not more precious than the person pushed under the car.

                5. Pwyll*

                  But you wouldn’t fire an epileptic who, in the course of suffering a seizure, knocked someone else over and into the street in the path of a moving car, either. And an epileptic suffering a seizure on the street is at least as foreseeable as a person with a bird phobia coming into contact with a bird on the street.

                  I don’t think anyone is saying that either person is more precious than the other. This was an accident, and I’m really struggling to come up with what kind of punishment would be warranted for someone who accidentally knocked someone over (at least as it’s described by OP, it’s not that Jack was grabbing her and trying to force her to get between him and the bird as much as he fled and knocked her over).

                6. AMG*

                  I have one–he has to pay for Liz’s medical bills, plus damages for pain and suffering. Also,, should have to compensate her for going without a salary while she finds a new job working with people who shove her into traffic.

            3. Spex*

              Surely there’s a difference between having a phobia and needing some extra patience or accomodation in the workplace, vs. having a phobia that causes you to do great bodily harm and being immune from repercussions.

              1. JS*

                He’s been in therapy for two whole years prior, he has coping mechanisms. All we know is when it flew away he ran, we don’t know if it touched him or flew super close to his face, dove at him while flying away, etc. That’s completely different than seeing a bird and flipping out. Furthermore, there are numerous of non mental health reasons why you could accidentally bump into someone or push them and they could get hurt that would happen in this exact situation. Mental health comes into play because you can’t discriminate against him based on that, he was receiving coping mechanisms up until that point with no incident (of course that impact depends on if he had been working their 2 months versus a year or more). I’m not saying it makes him immune, I’m saying the employer needs to be careful.

          3. Meg*

            Right. Phobia or no phobia, I’m sure this employer has a zero tolerance policy on workplace violence. What Jack did was workplace violence whether he intended it or not. A phobia is not a free pass to assault people, which is what he did.

            1. Natalie*

              That’s not really what any of those words means. “Workplace violence” doesn’t cover accidents, and accidents aren’t assault (assault implies intent).

              1. Jesmlet*

                This. Exactly. The way I read it, Jack pushed past her in his attempt to run away. This is not the same thing as shoving someone in front of a car. If Liz had tripped on Jack’s foot as he ran past her and had the same thing happen where she broke her arm, would everyone still be clamoring to see him fired? This whole situation majorly sucks for Liz and I would’ve tried to accommodate her so she’d never had to work with Jack again, but firing him just seems like an overreaction to me.

                1. Bangs Not Fringe*

                  But she didn’t trip, he pushed her. The intent may not have been for her to fall but that was the outcome.

                2. Jesmlet*

                  In either scenario, Jack doesn’t mean for Liz to get hurt but she does. I just don’t see it as a fireable offense especially coupled with the possible ADA stuff.

              2. Gravel*

                Well, we don’t know for certain whether he intended to push her or was even aware.

                People are coming down hard on both sides of this with not enough evidence to conclude.

                He could have been acting in a panic or had a phobia and still intentionally pushed her.

                I’ve seen cases like that occur.

                I would lean toward “accident” but I would never, ever be so certain without more facts.

                1. Marisol*

                  But what difference does it make whether it was intentional or not? Isn’t he liable for damages, regardless? It was his actions that led to the injury.

                2. JS*

                  I think its pretty obvious he didn’t intend to push her in front of a car (you would really need to gather a LOT of malicious intent evidence by his past interactions with her, etc to come to that conclusion). As far as his knee-jerk reaction of fight or flight, his “flight” reaction was to get the heck out of there obstacles or not.

                3. Loose Seal*

                  @Marisol, I would imagine the driver of the car might be just as liable for damages and/or charges. After all, it doesn’t generally matter why you hit someone with your car. The fact is, they did.

                4. Marisol*

                  @Loose Seal – ha ha I did forget about the driver! But the logic should be the same I imagine. You’re liable for traffic accidents regardless of your intentions. I’d think you’d likewise be liable for pushing someone into the path of an oncoming car, regardless of the intention behind the act.

            2. Apollo Warbucks*

              No this situation is not the same as workplace violence, not anywhere near close to it.

            3. Amber T*

              So when my coworker walked into me and made me spill hot coffee, giving me some light burns, that was work place violence? I think “work place violence” is turning into the new “hostile work environment” in this thread – it has a certain definition that we’re not quite getting.

              I don’t think anybody here actually think’s Jack stopped and thought “Oh man, a bird, I’m gonna push Liz in front of that car.” It was an accident. Now, does that mean he should or shouldn’t suffer any repercussions? That’s what we’re debating. But calling this work place violence is a bit extreme.

          4. Anion*

            If Jack had tripped on a broken pavement slab, fallen into Jane, and accidentally knocked her into the parking space, would you still think he ought to be fired for it?

            1. AMD*

              Presumably, then Jack would have immediately tried to help Jane and also apologized, which it sounds like didn’t/couldn’t have happened here.

              1. JS*

                People are so stuck on the immediate reaction of apology/help without taking into concern him not being in a mental state to assist anyone.

                1. Zathras*

                  The actual incident is more like Jack tripped, hit his head, and was too woozy and concussed to come to Jane’s assistance. He stayed on the scene long enough to see that she was getting assistance from someone else.

                2. BookishMiss*

                  Thank you, JS & Zathras. Panic like that means you’re not in any competent state to offer assistance. He stayed until he was sure assistance had arrived – that’s more than I may have been able to do, in his situation. Someone upthread said it well – empathy isn’t pie.

                3. Loose Seal*

                  What I’ve learned from this thread:

                  1. Never have a mental illness while at work.

                  2. Apologize for everything early and often.

                  I think that about covers it.

            2. Temperance*

              That’s a different scenario. He injured her, severely, and didn’t try to make her whole.

              1. Jesmlet*

                If he had tripped in an attempt to get away from a bird and knocked into Liz and continued to run away, would that be a whole different scenario?

                1. Temperance*

                  It’s slightly less awful than knocking her into the street into oncoming traffic.

                2. Jesmlet*

                  I’m having flashbacks to college where we discussed variations of the trolley scenario. Is it the hands on her that’s the source of all the outrage? If the outcome was the same but it was his foot or shoulder that caused her to fall and get hurt, would fewer people want to see him fired? Generally I’m siding with Liz, but specific to fire or don’t fire Jack, I’m siding with OP.

                3. Erica*

                  Yes, that would be different. Because “tripped on something” is a circumstance that can happen to anyone. Liz knows that people trip on sidewalks sometimes – if there’s an uneven patch in the cement, or they’re walking near the curb, she is, at some level, aware that there’s a risk involved. Even without that, she knows that people trip on their shoelaces sometimes, or on nothing. It’s not common, but it happens.

                  Liz did not know that “bird nearby” was a sign of potential physical danger to her; she had no idea that might cause Jack to do something erratic. And keeping that secret from her is what makes Jack the one in the wrong – not because he has a phobia, but because he has a condition that affects the people around him, which he hid from them.

              2. Anion*

                He didn’t knock her “into the street into oncoming traffic.” It was a parking lot, where a car happened to be pulling into the space where she fell. Had no car been pulling in at that moment, she likely wouldn’t have been injured.

                This did not happen on the side of a busy road. It was a parking lot. It doesn’t mean the accident was less bad, but let’s not act like he pushed her into the HOV lane on I95, either.

                1. Princess Consuela Banana Hammock*

                  You actually don’t know if it’s a parking lot. It says they were on the street (sidewalk) in front of the building, and a car was parking. That description could easily refer to a street or a lot. And the location doesn’t really matter much, tbh, except to determine whose insurance is responsible for Jane’s injuries.

          5. Backroads*

            This. This a hundred times. The company and the world cannot just sit around judging the results of Jack’s panic attacks.

            He pushed someone in front of a car. Consequences are needed.

            1. Jesmlet*

              I don’t think a single person is arguing against consequences. They’re arguing against firing Jack.

              1. K.A.*

                So the victim (Liz) is supposed to work with someone who greatly injured her and then stood by and did nothing to help? And what happens when a bird appears again? Who will be endangered next? Birds are everywhere.

                1. Anon for this*

                  No. This is not okay. This line of thinking leads to “people with phobias/disorders/etc should never be around other people” which is not okay.

                  Clearly Jack, as an adult who leaves his house, has a job, and is in ongoing therapy for this issue, has some coping mechanisms for this phobia that allow him to deal with the fact that “birds are everywhere”. There was something about this particular bird at this particular time that triggered this panicked reaction – I clearly cannot know, but I would guess that it’s likely that the bird flew in their direction or otherwise moved towards them or in a way that startled Jack.

                  I have PTSD. I’ve worked very hard in therapy to temper my reactions from “people touching me unexpectedly = panic/defend” to “people touching me in X, Y, and Z ways (all of which are unlikely to happen at work) = panic/defend”. I would ask you to please consider that there’s nuance to these situations and issues, and not go around making inflammatory statements like “Who will be injured next?”

            2. Retail HR Guy*

              By that standard, let’s punish the driver of the car, too.

              They should have stopped in time, but instead drove over someone. Consequences are needed.

              1. Loose Seal*

                Honestly, I’m surprised the driver isn’t getting some of the venom. Perhaps Liz is friends with them and knows that their part was an unavoidable accident.

                Or it could be that the driver has no known mental illness and, therefore, isn’t to be as excoriated by the commentariat as Jack is.

                1. Temperance*

                  This is unfair. The car was in the process of parking when he pushed Liz. It’s entirely jot the car’s fault. Then again, if the driver had mental health issues, he’d be excused.

                2. Loose Seal*

                  So? When you hit someone with your car, it doesn’t matter why you hit them. You don’t avoid getting a ticket or facing charges because a kid suddenly darted into the road and you hit them because it was quick and you couldn’t get stopped in time. When you are driving near pedestrians, on the sidewalk or not, it’s your responsibility as a driver to pay attention.

                  Granted, I was facetious with my last line but, given that the driver is the one that actually did the damage, there must be some reason why they are getting off so easily and Jack is bearing 100% of the burden. There are commenters today that I have always respected but now see a little differently because of their comments toward mental illness and/or about a person with a mental illness. I’m sure people see me as being callous to Liz and that’s fair. Because I certainly see them as being callous toward Jack.

                  I hope we can all agree that this is a horrid situation for the OP, who didn’t get a lot of help today from the comments. Instead, we all just hashed out the same points that I’m sure they have already in her office. They didn’t really get much concrete advice from us and I’m sorry about that, OP.

              2. Sarah*

                I would imagine the driver IS having consequences — if in nothing else, in increased car insurance premiums (and possibly they are partly liable too). The reason they’re not getting more discussion here is because they are not associated with the company, so the company isn’t involved in it at all — if the driver of the car were ALSO a coworker, I think it would be more relevant (also – even weirder!)

          6. Jady*

            Glad someone has said this. This seems insane that he wasn’t fired on the spot.

            Companies are required by law to make reasonable accommodations, yes. A reasonable accommodation would be letting him work from home and not travel. A reasonable accommodation doesn’t require allowing him free reign to endanger another employee.

            If I were Liz I’d be throwing lawsuits everywhere.

            1. Retail HR Guy*

              Depends on where the company is located. The ninth circuit does require employers to refrain from any negative work action against employees as a result of a disability, whether or not the disability was disclosed in advance and whether or not their behavior was reasonable.

            2. Anon for this*

              So by that logic, the only jobs that people with phobias or PTSD like mine should take are ones that keep them at home?

          7. whichsister*

            My daughter has severe panic/anxiety disorder. And has been hospitalized multiple times. We often have this conversation. “You have an illness, but your illness is not a reason or an excuse to mistreat others. ”

            Where was Jack on day 2? When Liz was in the hospital? Yes, he has a phobia – an extreme fear that causes him to act what we may perceive as irrationally. But the realization that someone was severely injured should still bring remorse. Even if it was an accident. In the immediate afterwords, Jack was not remorseful. It wasn’t until the situation escalated that the apology came and that was only after he provided documentation to cover his own a$$.

            1. PlainJane*

              “You have an illness, but your illness is not a reason or an excuse to mistreat others.” Thank you. I also have a child with an anxiety disorder, and I teach him the same thing. I’m not taking a side on the “should Jack be fired” question (I’m not sure where I come down on that; I feel awful for both employees), just appreciating your approach. I grew up with a mentally-ill parent whose verbal abuse and other crappy behavior was always excused with, “But he’s sick,” rather than, “I won’t allow him to treat you like that.” It got old fast.

            2. Salamander*

              I have an anxiety disorder. I agree that it is not a reason or excuse to mistreat others. My intent or state of mind doesn’t matter – what matters to me is the effect of my actions on the people around me. I am responsible for what I do, whether I intended to do harm or not.

              I’m frankly shocked at responses to this question. I am floored that Jack seems to be getting a get out of jail free card for this and that there’s so much vitriol against Liz, who was literally an innocent bystander who got hurt. And that there’s an expectation that she shouldn’t be upset by this? Huh? She was a victim. She doesn’t *have* to dispense forgiveness to make everyone more comfortable.

              I’m honestly rethinking how close I’m following this blog in the light of the responses to this. I just…unbelievable.

          8. Amy The Rev*

            Since when did accidentally knocking someone off-balance due to your startle reflex become assault? I once accidentally hit my sister in the face when I didn’t hear her come up behind me and my arm flailed…did I assault my sister? Would she be entitled to press criminal charges? Would those charges actually stick?

          9. Erin*

            Even if it was an accident, Jack is still responsible for Liz’s injuries. There are as many mental health issues as there are people in the world. If Jack had another disorder and thought Liz was a giant chicken and pushed her into traffic on purpose would that excuse him from what happened? He needs help. Suspend Jack until he gets help and maybe Liz would be satisfied to comeback on a short term basis to finish up her work.

            1. Anon for this*

              I am utterly appalled by this comment and its unbelievably ignorant tone towards people with mental disorders.

              Comparing a phobia with a purely hypothetical psychotic break and hallucinations is like comparing baby carrots and ghost peppers. Other than them both being in the same general category of thing, they’re nothing alike.

              1. Erin*

                I grew up with a mentally ill father. One who would snap and punch people in the face at work and get fired. He is diagnosed as bipolar. Should others have to tolerate getting punched in the face for my fathers out of control illness? I don’t think people should have to tolerate being pushed into traffic because someone has an irrational fear of birds anymore than people should tolerate being punched in the face because someone can’t control their anger because of a chemical imbalance with their brain chemistry.
                People need to be responsible and take control of their problems or their problems take control of them and effect others.

                1. Loose Seal*

                  i must have missed where Jack has refused to take control of his “problem.” He’s been in therapy for it for years. He waited outside as close as he could until Liz was being helped by EMTs. He informed his manager about the accident as soon as Liz was secured in the ambulance. He has cooperated with his manager and HR. He allowed them to share his personal medical information with Liz.

                  What else does he need to do to show that he accepts responsibility?

                  I think you’re upset that the company didn’t fire Jack. But that’s not his fault. It’s entirely possible — probable, even — that Jack was not made aware of Liz’s ultimatum so you can’t even expect him to resign so that she has a clear field ahead.

              2. Loose Seal*

                Anon for This, I’m getting a strong whiff of “bootstraps” in this thread. I honestly didn’t think I could be more upset about the state of things lately. Turns out, I was wrong. People can be ignorant, dismissive, and cruel, of course; I knew that before now. I just didn’t realize that there is still obviously such a stigma about mental illness that people would recommend removing from society those who are suffering.

                I hope that, wherever you are Anon, people are treating you with kindness and respect simply because you deserve it. I find you incredibly brave to keep coming back to defend others with mental illness, especially since this casual talk about how people think those with mental illness should be (mis)treated must be hitting awfully close to home for you.

          10. Loose Seal*

            Really? You’d tell one employee that you’d support them in suing another employee while that employee was still working for you?? I find it difficult to believe that your company would continue your employment if you did so. You’d better be completely committed to Liz if you did that.

            Assuming the OP is writing about a U.S. company on U.S. soil, I’m sure Liz is well aware that she can file a lawsuit for just about anything. She doesn’t need your advice on the subject. I’m sure that wherever she is currently recovering has the Yellow Pages and she can choose from any number of the personal injury lawyers contained within it.

            Also, companies are aware that there is a potential for them to be held liable if accidents occur on their property. They carry insurance for these types of things. Those insurance companies have lawyers that specialize in dealing with this. That’s not where OP’s head needs to be right now. Yes, there may be an insurance settlement later and it may be a hefty one. But that’s not in OP’s purview as the manager of these two employees and isn’t, in my opinion, particularly helpful to speculate about.

        7. Czhorat*

          “Scared” is an incredibly dismissive way to describe a documented mental illness which, in this case, impacted Jack’s ability to function. You’d not do anything similar were it a physical illness.

          1. Gadfly*

            If he were in a powerchair and backed into her accidentally, pushing her into a car, because of his blindspots, I would expect him to be held responsible still.

              1. Erica*

                I would fire Jack because he’s proven that he can’t or won’t evaluate risks accurately. The obligation to make allowances for his phobia doesn’t extend to letting him harm other people because he didn’t want to tell people he had a disability.

                Think of it this way – what if it were a client he pushed, and not a coworker? What if the accident had cost them a large new project? The company probably would’ve fired Jack without a second thought – so sorry, dude, and we’ve got a nice severance package for you, but… can’t have someone on the team who drives off customers.

                1. turquoisecow*

                  In this ONE instance, he freaked out at a bird and caused an injury. As an adult, presumably he’s been outside and interacted with the public, or with his coworkers, thousands of times over the past 20+ years. You can’t say “He’s proven he can’t or won’t evaluate risks accurately” based on ONE instance. That’s flat out wrong.

        8. JS*

          But it’s different if the push was intentional or he just accidentally knocked her over while barreling out of the way. It doesn’t sound like he was trying to use her as a human shield by any means she just not knocked down while he was running away.

        9. Parenthetically*

          Thank you! This was exactly my thought. I have mental illness myself, so I am very sympathetic, but this is just a giant, giant WOW to me.

        10. Jessesgirl72*

          I hope Liz takes him to Civil court.

          She may not need to find another great job ever again…

          1. DCGirl*

            It’s amazing how many people think an accident is the golden ticket to riches. By way of comparison, I worked for a nonprofit that held its annual conference in a hotel with escalators. Two employees were riding down one of the escalators when it stopped. The employee in the rear lost her balance and fell into the other employee, then both tumbled down a few more stairs (they’d almost reached the bottom when the escalator malfunctioned) with the faller landing on the other employee, who sustained a broken arm. She was quite upset with the person who lost her balance and knocked her down. Ultimately, she received reimbursement for her medical bills and a modest settlement of $30,000. Being in an accident of any kind is not like winning the lottery.

            1. Saucy Minx*

              There is no settlement that will compensate for permanent severe injuries & chronic health issues, even though inflicted by accident.

          2. Jessie the First (or second)*

            “She may not need to find another great job ever again”
            Yeah, that’s not how civil liability plays out in the US.

            1. Artemesia*

              I know a lot of Llamas and have seen a lot of civil cases and it is rare for people to get adequate compensation must less get rich. Yes it happens, but it happens pretty rarely. I personally know of a case where a cop rear ended a person in a car because he was inattentive (totally his fault no question) leaving her with serious head injuries and cognitive long term issues and she still got almost nothing. I know a case where an ER didn’t diagnose an obvious aneurysm and sent the guy home where he died; it was operable if they had acted. They lost the malpractice case. so lots of bad things happen that don’t get compensated.

              1. Jessie the First (or second)*

                Exactly. Huge payouts are really rare.

                Also, I love that people are saying llamas now. Now when I read my daughter the “Is your mama a llama” book, we can all just say yes and move on.

              2. JKP*

                Exactly. I know someone who suffered severe permanent brain injury through 100% the negligence of the hospital treating him for a minor flu (they put him alone in a standing x-ray after he told them he was too dizzy to stand, then he passed out and cracked his head open.) During the trial, his lawyers were able to prove that the hospital staff changed their testimony between the depositions and the trial, basically lying in court. AND they altered the medical records after the fact to cover it up, which he also proved. The jury still sided with the hospital and awarded $0, because the defense pushed the story that everyone’s premiums go up if the jury awards money, even if they award money in cases where it’s justified.

            3. Loose Seal*

              Even if it did, it would take years and years to claim, after appeals and after the judge knocks down the jury’s award to a reasonable size. Liz is going to need to pay her medical bills as they come in if she wants to protect her credit. I understand she’s traumatized but unless she’s independently wealthy or has a partner or parents that will support her, quitting a job without another one lined up is not a great idea for her right now.

              Really, if she drops her obstinate stance, she’d be in the best possible place she could be if she stays in her current job. They will likely be incredibly flexible about time off for follow-up appointments and physical therapy while a new job wouldn’t feel obligated to. She’ll probably get a pretty good raise next time, if she stays with this company too.

              1. Relly*

                I don’t like that we’re characterizing her as obstinate now. She’s been traumatized, and she’s in pain. That doesn’t go away because this “isn’t his fault.”

                2. Loose Seal*

                  The problem is that, when you issue an ultimatum, you pretty much encompass obstinacy. If Liz had approached this from the point of how could the office help her return to work without having to work with or near Jack, it would be different. Instead, she closed off any other solutions but her own. It sounds like OP had talked to Liz a couple of times since she quit and Liz has remained firm in her stance.

                  Which is her right, of course! I’m not arguing that at all. But if you were Liz’s personal friend knowing that she will soon be billed for an ambulance ride, four days in the hospital, surgery, anesthesia, and who knows what else, would you encourage her to quit or to try to find a way to keep her current job — at least for a while — if she could work out a way to feel safe at work? I’ve been paying one hospital or another for the last 25 years after an accident. I doubt I’ll ever get it paid off. So perhaps I’m too realistic about medical bills to be so cavelier about employment. I mean, you could be right or you could keep a roof over your head.

                  (All my medical bill concern — and it’s a huge concern! –comes from my assumption that this took place in the U.S. If the OP comes back and says that they are in a country where they don’t pay at point of service, then I’m gonna have to revisit some of my comments.)

                3. Relly*

                  @Anon, ugh, those weren’t meant to be scare quotes, but I see they read that way. I wasn’t meaning to imply that it IS his fault. I was feeling like there’s a Greek chorus chiming in “but it’s not his FAULT” and feeling like, yes, awesome, let’s say that twenty more times because somehow that will make her arm unbroken.

                  It doesn’t read how I meant it to, but I wasn’t being sarcastic the way it sounded. I get that it wasn’t his fault. That isn’t the same as saying it’s not his responsibility, and I’m tired of the constant chant of “it’s not his fault” being held up as if it’s an impenetrable shield they absolves him and the company both of having to plan to avoid this in the future.

                  Sorry for giving the wrong impression. I see where it reads like scare quotes / mockery and I’m not even sure I’m explaining well what I actually meant, and I gave up on this post entirely for various reasons, but I’m sorry to have come off like I was blowing off his phobia. I wasn’t, I swear.

          3. Princess Consuela Banana Hammock*

            Taking him to court will likely be expensive and is very unlikely to help her. Unless Jack is independently wealthy, most of Liz’s recovery would be sucked away in legal fees. And it’s highly unlikely that “She may not need to find another great job ever again”—this is not how damages or tort liability works.

          4. Loose Seal*

            How much do you think she can take Jack for? Most of us have a house/condo that the bank mostly owns and a car or two that we’re still paying on and, possibly, some savings and, if we’re super lucky, a 401k. So what assets do you think he’ll owe her once he cashes all that out? You can’t get blood from a turnip but perhaps she’ll feel justified by causing him and his partner to be bankrupted and forcing his children to live on the street. (I understand that a partner and children are not mentioned but since everyone else is speculating, why not?)

            If it’s a windfall she’s looking for, she’d do better to put her blame on the driver of the car. At least they likely have insurance that might cover her medical bills and possibly settle a small amount.

        11. Robin B*

          I agree. No excuse for his behaviour, and Jack should have made HR aware so that anyone traveling with him could be on guard.

        12. Susan*

          I am glad that I am not the only one who was thinking this. Yes, he has a mental illness and it sounds like it is very serious, but by him running in fear and pushing Liz out of the way, he could have killed her. He may not have intended for her to be hurt, but she was. Her injuries are super severe… the broken arm requiring surgery… no wonder she refuses to work with this guy. I can’t believe that there are some comments on here defending his actions. What if it was them who was pushed in front of a car and needed surgery? Would it still be ok because he has a phobia? A mental illness is not a free pass to severely hurt people. That is not a reasonable accommodation that a company should provide. Who knows though, perhaps they consulted with an attorney and were advised that terminating him could create a legal issue. I can’t wrap my head around how the company is handling this.

          1. Amy The Rev*

            Hmm, this doesn’t sit very well with me. I don’t think anyone in the situation has been given a “free pass to severely hurt people”. What if while walking next to each other, Liz had been suddenly stung by a bee (happened to me once, I call BS on the ‘dont bother them and they wont bother you’ thing) and in her reaction to that immediate, intense pain, had jumped a little or flailed her arm and caused Jack to fall into the road in front of a car. There’s obviously more nuance than that because a severe phobia has identifiable and (somewhat) predictable triggers (like being outside you can reasonably assume there may be birds around but it’s still possible to be startled/surprised by one), however a person’s reaction to a severe phobia isn’t as controllable as I think people on this thread are making it seem.

        13. Falling Diphthong*

          I am thinking back to the fake spider on the boss who has a spider phobia, and swore, and whether that was understandable with fight-or-flight grabbing your brain or a reaction you should be able to override. There I tend to come down on the first. (Also if you fling your arms up and whack the spider-deliverer on the nose–the lesson is not to put spiders on people and expect it to go well.)

          But if the spider phobia person didn’t just shriek or jump up but hurled an innocent bystander into the path of a moving car? (Or Mike C’s example of heavy machinery?) That seems to rise to the level where your mental illness makes you a danger to others.

          1. Elizabeth West*

            In that case, I think the onus would be on the person who deliberately chose to put a spider on someone’s shoulder, not on the person who panicked and flailed. Their reckless behavior (playing a trick on someone that they are reasonably sure would startle them) would have caused the accident.

            I am not a llama either but that seems reasonable to me.

          2. turquoisecow*

            Also, Jack, as an adult, has presumably interacted with humans (and birds) hundreds of times, and this is probably the first time he’s injured anyone. It’s certainly the first time it’s injured anyone at this job, or the OP would have mentioned it in the letter. To go from that to say that he’s a “danger to others” is a little extreme.

        14. Amy The Rev*

          From what it sounded like in the letter, and from Alison’s response, I don’t think the push was as deliberate as you’re making it sound. A better analogy I think would be someone getting a trampling injury in a human stampede of people running from a very real and present danger – since that’s what phobias feel like to a person who has them. Also, I don’t think there were “no consequences”- Jack likely feels absolutely terrible about what happened and will have to live with those feelings for a very long time, plus I’m sure this didn’t make him any friends at work. If you mean no punishments, that’s one thing (though I’m personally not someone who really agrees with the idea of ‘punishments’ in the workplace), but there absolutely were consequences.

        15. Tab*

          A phobia isn’t FEAR. It’s an irrational ridiculous condition that you can not help in any way and that makes it sometimes impossible to get out of situations when you yourself are in drastic danger. I’ve ended up in the hospital because I am a diabetic and when alone at home, a bug was near the bedroom door and I COULD NOT leave. It was not in anyway possible to get myself passed the door in order to get the food that I needed to live. I tried. I tried for HOURS. I tried even though I was nearly passing out from low blood sugar. I kept trying to tell myself that if I didn’t leave the room to eat something, or grab the phone for help I could die, but it didn’t matter. It does not matter.

          You’re being confused by people who are scared of things like spiders and call it arachnophobia because they need to stand on the other side of the room while someone kills it because it scares them. Phobias are extremely serious mental illnesses that people can’t help.

          It’s not okay that the woman got hurt, but its not okay to just presume that he made this choice to hurt her just because he was “scared”. He wasn’t scared. He was having a mental illness breakdown. His brain, in that moment, Did. Not. Work.

        16. Rainy, PI*

          I was hit by a giant van in a parking lot two weeks ago. I was on foot. I wasn’t even seriously injured (some bumps and bruises, ankle strain, bruised my face) but I’m still not entirely recovered emotionally from it. I was very badly shaken up. I think expecting Liz to work with the guy who pushed her into traffic is beyond the pale, personally.

        17. BTW*

          Your comment makes it sound as if what he did was intentional. Now I can’t know for sure but I can *almost* guarantee that he had no idea there was a moving car there. His body initiated a fight or flight response and you get tunnel vision. A phobia is also so much more than just being “scared.”

      3. Karen D*

        Yeah this.

        Alison, I will always think you give fantastic advice. But I really hope and pray you’re wrong about this one because injuring a colleague horribly, then refusing to even try to help her, seems to me to be so very, very far outside the scope of any kind of accommodation a company might be required to make, especially since there was apparently zero advance notice that this kind of thing might be an issue with Jack.

        If his phobia is this incredibly severe, then Liz certainly should have had the opportunity to refuse to travel off-site with him .. .because Jack is dangerous. Point blank. He’s a threat to the safety of anybody who might conceivably be in the vicinity of him and a bird, and there are as many as 400 billion birds in this world.

            1. hbc*

              Would you fire a person in a wheelchair for not hopping down the curb and picking her up? “Not helping when incapable of helping” is just not a fireable offense.

              1. Mookie*

                I don’t know that I find Jack a plausible ongoing threat nor do I think he should be fired (either for the accident, or for failing to assist Liz, or for failing to deliver the ‘right’ apology in the ‘right’ way), but this analogy doesn’t capture the right dynamic, as far as I can see.

                Being incapable of helping someone, as a bystander, is not a dereliction of one’s moral duties. It is not a failing, but a simple matter of fact. Accidentally contributing to someone being hurt — say, a wheelchair wheel went awry and Liz was intercepted — does not make one a threat. With the right combination of events, people, and circumstances, this could have happened to anyone. Jack has unpredictable reactions that pose a small risk to himself and others, because birds exist and don’t give advance notice of where they’ll be next. He needs to manage those risks, with accommodations where necessary and helpful, from his employer. But he’s also allowed the opportunity to do so.

                (I had an initial visceral reaction to this letter because something similar happened to someone I know, and for a long while I held an irrational but powerful resentment against this other person, a stranger to me, who was triggered into inadvertent physical violence. I regarded them as obnoxious and selfish, and viewed their inability to ‘properly’ apologize and grovel as haughtiness, rather than intense embarrassment and shame. For a moment here, years later, I HATED JACK for what that other person did and didn’t do. I indulged in revoltingly ableist fantasies I thought I’d long ago learned were cruel, unproductive, and selfish. But my counter-reaction is just as strong: irrespective of his intent, Jack deserves the support he’s getting. I am so sad for Liz, but this is a situation with no perfect resolution, and that really, truly, isn’t anyone’s fault. It just is what it is. Jack did nothing wrong, even if something wrong happened, if that makes sense.)

                5. Yogi Josephina*

                  Yes. This. ONE MILLION TIMES.

                  I am really, really disheartened by all the privileged, ableist outrage here mostly from folks who don’t suffer from phobias. If you haven’t lived it, you don’t get to judge it. And honestly, even if you DO have a phobia and are judging Jack harshly, fine, but your one differing opinion doesn’t cancel out the experiences of millions and millions of people across the world who suffer from this and don’t share your view.

                  Everyone is flailing and screaming about how “why should Jack’s mental illness be prioritized over Liz’s broken arm?” You can very easily flip that around – why should Liz’s broken arm automatically be prioritized over Jack’s illness?

                  I am also getting VERY tired of the trend lately that intent doesn’t matter AT ALL. I’m the first to defend that impact matters more than intent when it comes to most things, but THAT DOESN’T MEAN THAT THE PUNISHMENT FOR THE TWO CIRCUMSTANCES SHOULD ALWAYS BE THE SAME. In fact, most of the time, it shouldn’t be. My accidentally slapping someone with a flailing hand IS NOT THE SAME THING as deliberately punching them in the face, and it is ABSOLUTELY RIDICULOUS to assume that just because “the outcome is the same,” the same punishment is warranted regardless of whether or not there was malicious intent. NO ONE is saying there shouldn’t be consequences for Jack – but those consequences SHOULD NOT be the same as they would be if he’d done something intentionally hurtful.

                  Enough assuming the worst in people you don’t know with self-righteous talk about how “he doesn’t show any remorse!” As if you know, or understand, or were there. You don’t, and it’s incredibly arrogant to assume ANY of that about Jack just because you want to play judge and jury, or feel morally superior, or what have you. You have literally nothing to base that assumption on besides your ignorant non-understandings about how phobias work. I mean, the ARROGANCE in, “he didn’t react the way that *I* think is acceptable in this situation that I’ve literally never been in, so he’s a jerk!” Not to mention projecting things onto the situation that flat out didn’t happen, just to try and make him sound worse than he is (“he pushed her in front of a moving car!” NO.).

                  And also? I know no one wants to hear this, but life isn’t fair. And sometimes, THINGS HAPPEN THAT ARE NO ONE’S FAULT. Accidents are ACCIDENTS. And they just happen. And they suck, and they’re unfortunate, but sometimes, things go wrong when no one DID anything wrong. That’s a part of life. And I’m so tired of our constant need to place blame on people and “hold people responsible” bleeding over into territory that just flat out doesn’t warrant it. Sometimes in life, NO ONE IS AT FAULT. Even if something horrible happened, even if someone’s actions caused harm, the fact that it was an ACCIDENT by nature means that no one did anything wrong, and therefore punishment WILL and SHOULD be absent or very minimal. That’s just how things go sometimes in life, and we need to accept that not every unfortunate situation is something that warrants or calls for “punishment” and consequences just to satisfy our need for “vindication,” or to feel like something wasn’t in vain. Sometimes in life, things ARE in vain, and pointless, and arbitrary, and there’s no greater point or purpose. I know it’s human nature to desire “justice,” but there ARE circumstances in life where that’s just not how it works, accidents being just one example. You HAVE to allow for that in the world, and we can’t get so fixated on “accountability” and “fairness” that we try to apply it to situations where it just doesn’t make sense. This is one of those situations.

                  Attempts should absolutely be made to maximize the comfort of Liz and everyone involved – paying for all her bills would be ABSOLUTELY the right call, and if she is scared to work with Jack due to this and doesn’t want to come back, okay. A generous severance while she finds work elsewhere would also be a good move. There is no perfect solution that’s going to feel 100% “right” or “fair” to either party, but we have to stop treating accidents as though they’re crimes. They’re not, and therefore should not be judged and dealt with in the same manner.

                6. Amy The Rev*

                  @yogi josephina – I couldn’t put my finger on what it was that was irritating me/what I wanted to say, but you hit it right on the nose- sometimes life isn’t fair and sometimes things are no one’s ‘fault’. Also I agree re: intent. Heck, even the law recognizes that intent matters even if the outcome is the same (which is why we have different charges & sentence guidelines for premeditated murder, spur-of-the-moment murder, and accidental death/homicide). Thanks for articulating all of that!

              2. Karen D*

                That example has absolutely no bearing on the case at hand. In this case Liz’s badly broken arm was a direct result of Jack’s condition. Direct. Result.

                Whether or not he is ‘to blame’ is moot, when assessing the threat he poses. He loses control of himself and will run, regardless of the situation he’s in, who he has to shove aside or any other peril his running poses to others. That’s not a hypothetical. That’s the actual facts of the situation as it exists – giving Jack every benefit of the doubt. It’s not even “what if he hurts somebody?” He has hurt somebody. You can’t use hypotheticals to argue away significant harm that has already occurred, and it is disingenuous to pretend otherwise.

              3. NLMC*

                And trying to help with he is unable to could is actually worse than just standing off to the side.

            2. Chocolate lover*

              Being unable to help someone is NOT a threat. Plenty of people are not trained or able to help in emergency situations, that doesn’t make them a threat.

              1. Mike C.*

                The threat isn’t from not being able to help, but rather from pushing someone into traffic or more generally acting in a highly uncontrolled manner when surprised by the object of his phobia/anxiety.

          2. paul*

            That also doesn’t really make him less of a potential threat to people’s well being.

        2. Ask a Manager* Post author

          Just to be clear, I’m not saying that the OP is legally required to retain Jack. The OP would need to consult with an employer about their legal obligations here (and should not be taking advice on that from the comments section, because the ADA is incredibly complicated and nuanced and not always intuitive at all).

          1. Karen D*

            I understand, and I have only researched the law insofar as it applies to my own diagnosis (I have had a formal accommodation for severe ADD in the past; my current situation doesn’t require it).

            I am not really addressing the legal issues. I just can’t agree with the statements “you’re right not to fire Jack,” and “Liz quit. That’s the resolution here,” for a range of reasons that extends far beyond the bounds of the ADA (I’m not even sure OP is American, to be honest.)

          2. Gravel*

            Except that he did not disclose this until AFTER the accident. So the ADA is not the issue.

            Had he disclosed before, it would be a different situation.

              1. Opl*

                We don’t know they are in that circuit and the majority rule in every other circuit required disclosure before

              2. Aveline*

                We don’t even know if they are in the USA!

                If they are, and they are anywhere but the 9th, prior disclosure would have been required.

          3. Artemesia*

            I understand that it is complicated and also that Jack didn’t necessarily intend the outcome and that firing may or may not be possible. What bothered me is the idea that all the concern is for preserving Jack’s position and that Liz — well tough cookies, off she goes.

            I think the first concern should have been accommodating Liz and her need to be safe. Perhaps no resolution could be found in a small organization to keep her away from Jack (I could certainly imagine that she has developed a phobia or PTSD issue specific to being around Jack) but that should be the first step — ‘Liz what can we do to make you feel safe at work.’ It might come to inability to fire Jack hence Liz has to leave, but the first step should have been to accommodate her and be sympathetic to her situation not a knee jerk ‘poor Jack, no consequences at all for him.’ There are potential options short of firing Jack to keep them apart, maybe.

            1. Just Another Techie*

              Personally I’m just baffled that nowhere in the question, and only very little attention in the comments, has been given to “How do we make sure Jack doesn’t break another employee’s arm?” If I were one of Liz and Jack’s coworkers I wouldn’t want to ever travel anywhere out of doors with him, not even to walk across the street to starbucks.

              1. AnonAnalyst*

                Seriously. This struck me too. I hope the OP just left out the peripheral details for brevity, but if I had seen this as a fellow employee, I would be concerned about going somewhere with Jack where birds might be present (so, probably anywhere outdoors at the very least).

                1. Gadfly*

                  And that is only if coworkers know it is a bird problem–I wouldn’t assume that information would be disclosed. Instead, to them it might be a mystery and Jack could just randomly go off. If that is the case, I doubt many would want to be near him anywhere. Especially, ironically, places birds are least likely to be–enclosed spaces where the coworker would be trapped.

              2. turquoisecow*

                Because Jack is an adult, and so has presumably been outside, maybe with his coworkers, hundreds of times over the last 20+ and NOT hurt anyone. Assuming this ONE incident leads to him being a danger to himself and others is extreme.

                1. Bleef*

                  It kind of seems like people want to have it both ways. Some commentators want it acknowledged that Jack’s phobia response is completely outside of his control and in the moment he will do whatever it takes to get away from a bird. But then they also want to say that it’s highly unlikely he will have this kind of response again. Perhaps with treatment his responses will be less erratic and potentially harmful but as long as he and fellow employees are walking around where birds could be, it does seem like a possibility and not just a freak accident (it would be a freak accident to me if it happened somewhere birds seldom appear like inside the building or something, but there’s nothing freaky about a bird being in an outdoor parking lot.)

        3. Thlayli*

          Well put! If his phobia is that bad he should really have disclosed it for other people’s safety.

          Also, did he have a phobia of apologising?

          3. Mb13*

            I don’t know about phobias for apologizing but he might soon have a phobia of lawyers.

          4. Fiennes*

            Lawyers often forbid clients to apologize in a litigible incident, or insist on carefully structuring the time/form of the apology. This sounds like what happened here. If Jack apologized in this way bc either the company’s lawyer or his own insisted, it’s unfair to consider that proof of callousness or a lack of remorse.

            1. Gadfly*

              Which, while rational, is distasteful that he appears to be doing everything to CYA himself and it sounds like the person he caused to be severely injured and probably severely traumatized is just SOL/he has no responsibility to her. Distasteful enough to raise serious unethical/immoral sorts of objections, IMO. This is the sort of thing a professor assigns an ethics 101 class to debate or write papers on.

      4. Mazzy*

        Yes I’m 100 percent in liz’s side here. Just because she was so wronged. And hasn’t he ever noticed a bird outside before? There? Doesn’t his treatment give him some sort of way of dealing with them besides running away? What else would the therapy consist of?

        1. AnonAnalyst*

          Yeah, I’m also pretty confused by this. I’m really on Liz’s side because I think Jack was irresponsible not to disclose his bird phobia once there was the potential for it to become an issue at work. I understand if your job just requires you to be in the office, but once he had to leave the office for offsite meetings he should have spoken up. I mean, birds are everywhere. I just can’t think of a realistic way you could avoid ever seeing birds outside. If nothing else, it would have made Liz aware of the issue so she could perhaps alter her behavior when she was outside with Jack.

        2. MWKate*

          Having experience with people with bird phobias (my mom), for her the trigger is if she thinks the bird is going to come close enough to touch her. If, when the bird was taking off he thought it was coming at him I can see him getting this panicked. There is a difference between “I do this whenever I see a bird” and “In this instance I thought the bird was coming at me.” He might be able to ignore the birds just walking around and doing bird things but a sudden action like taking off could be startling.

          1. Matilda Jefferies (formerly JMegan)*

            Seconded. I also have a bird phobia, although not quite this severe. Last summer, I had a bird fly at me, and I responded by screaming, dropping my purse, and running into the middle of the road, where I tripped and fell. Luckily there were no cars coming at the time, because I would absolutely have been hit. As it was, the adrenaline after I picked myself up and started walking again took me almost a kilometre away before I really knew where I was or felt safe again.

            So, yeah, Jack probably didn’t expect or anticipate that particular confluence of circumstances. But now that it’s happened, we can certainly start anticipating it for the future. I don’t think firing him is the right answer, but there’s definitely a need to plan ahead for something like that to happen again.

            Full sympathies to Liz as well, because that must have been very traumatic for her. I can understand why she wouldn’t want to work with Jack again, and I hope OP’s company is treating her well after her departure.

        3. Gravel*

          He can have a phobia and still be a Jackass.

          If he knew this was likely an issue and didn’t try to mitigate, then yes, he’s a problem.

          The think that makes me dislike Jack is he didn’t disclose or do anything after the fact. Not immediately after. I get that.

          He seems to have done nothing until HR got involved. That’s not cool to me.

          1. Amber T*

            We don’t know the timeline here, so I wouldn’t resort to name calling until/unless we know what happened.

            I’m imagining what would happen if this scenario occurred in my office. The immediate reaction would be – oh jeez, someone’s hurt pretty severely. Whoever witnessed it would stop work and seek to help the injured employee immediately. There would be a brief discussion of “someone call an ambulance!” Meanwhile, a crowd is starting to form, people are asking “what happened?” The employee is uncomfortable, in pain, probably trying to process what happened. The ambulance arrives and takes the employee away. The crowd starts to disperse. HR is on the scene because someone was just taken away by ambulance and they need to know what happened. They turn to the only employee to witness what exactly happened.

            I’m putting myself in Jack’s shoes – what would have happened if I pushed someone because of my phobia of spiders and they got injured? What would my reaction be? So I see what triggers my phobia and I go into a blind panic. In my case, my only “thought” (and I put thought in quotes because it really isn’t what I would be thinking, but literally just a reaction) is to get away as quickly as possible. In my panic, I knock into something. When I recover to realize my surroundings (which could take a minute, or could just take a few seconds), I realize my colleague is on the ground, pretty injured. People are coming out to see what happened, and I’m realizing that I caused it. Adrenaline from the fright is leaving me, making my reaction time slow. Before I know it, an ambulance is being called, and oh my god I caused this. People are focusing on my colleague, as they should be, and I can’t move because the reality of all this is hitting me. The ambulance comes and takes her away, and HR comes over to me and asks what happened.

            Is this what happened? Maybe, maybe not. But I’ve been in the blind panic mode, unable to do anything. Does that make me a jackass? I don’t think so.

            As for him not doing anything until HR was involved – I can’t imagine a scenario where HR wasn’t immediately involved, unless the work place is dysfunctional, which the letter writer doesn’t allude to.

        4. Kj*

          So, for a phobia, exposure therapy is the treatment of choice and the treatment with an evidence base behind it. In exposure therapy, you create a “fear ladder” of fears relating to your central fear, going from least fear to most fear. In this case, maybe seeing a picture of a bird would be on the low end, then watching a bird video, then touching a feather, then watching birds in real life through a window, then watching them not through a window, then being in the same room with a bird, then touching a bird. You work your way through the ladder with your therapist, using copings skills to deal with your new fear at each level. By then end of therapy, you should be desensitize to the cause of the fear. Depending on where Jack is on the ladder, he may not be able to tolerate birds outside near him yet.

          However, I’m also going to say, treatment for phobias are typically FAST. Like, can-be-cured-in-6-weeks-fast. Not all of course, but most phobias can be gone pretty quick with effective treatment. I’m surprised Jack has been in treatment for 2 years without being able to handle birds better. That concerns me.

          1. Detective Amy Santiago*

            You don’t know how far Jack has come with managing his phobia.

            Nor is it accurate to say that phobias are always curable in a short amount of time.

            2. Kj*

              No, but it is very odd that two years into therapy this happened. And while phobia are not always curable quickly, the evidence base for phobia treatment suggests that the vast, vast, majority are treatable and with results in under a year or even much less. If Jack’s is not treatable, I would hope he would be informing his employer ahead of any possible interactions with birds (and birds are everywhere). We can’t know specifics, but we can make reasonable inferences. My post was a reasonable inference about most phobias and their treatment, based on evidence and research.

              1. Loose Seal*

                I can give you some reasons it might take this long:

                1. Jack’s insurance only allows a limited number of visits a year so he isn’t able to have enough sessions together for exposure therapy to have the usual quick resolution.

                2. His therapist quit, became ill, or otherwise had to close their practice in the middle of Jack’s therapy and it took Jack a while to find another therapist that he felt comfortable enough with to attempt exposure therapy, which does, for obvious reasons, require trust.

                3. Both Jack and his therapist felt as though he was sufficiently desensitized to his trigger to cease the exposure therapy and then this incident triggered Jack in a way that others hadn’t. Back to the drawing board, then.

                And probably lots more reasonable reasons that it’s too late in the day for me to think of now.

          2. Simonthegreywarden*

            Lol. I can watch shark week on Discovery, but I will never be able to cage dive around great whites. We’re don’t know how crippling his fear was. Maybe when he started therapy, he couldn’t even say the word.

      5. Mazzy*

        Yes I’m 100 percent in liz’s side here. Just because she was so wronged. And hasn’t he ever noticed a bird outside before? There? Doesn’t his treatment give him some sort of way of dealing with them besides running away? What else would the therapy consist of? At the very least he’s lax in the treatment

        1. Whats In A Name*

          Since he is still undergoing therapy my guess would be this is something they are working on. Have you ever been to therapy? It’s not a one and done type of thing and you can’t manage you issues 100% of the time after many visits, let alone just one or 2, it’s a process.

          1. Mazzy*

            I went for one thing and we got right down to business. Since this is a simple issue, if they “got down to business” right away I don’t see how it dragged on so long. And please don’t say it isn’t a simple problem, because it is.

        2. Oryx*

          Therapy is far more complicated than “Here’s some treatment! You’re healed!” It is a constant ongoing process and there can be backslides that depend on situation. So his treatment and tools may be fine in one circumstance but then something in another circumstance means the tools don’t work.

      6. designbot*

        She could easily be more charitable to Jack and less bitter towards the organization by just saying that in a panic a coworker caused a serious accident and she didn’t feel like she could work with him after that. Still completely true, but sounds less bitter.

        2. Mike C.*

          Why is it so important that she sounds “too bitter”? If I was throw in front of a car, had my arm severely broken and required half a week in the hospital and my employer didn’t have a plan to keep me safe at work I would be bitter as well.

          1. AnonAnalyst*

            Yeah, I imagine if I were in Liz’s situation I would be pretty frustrated. As INTP noted upthread, this was not some weird confluence of factors that is unlikely to happen again. As long as Jack is unable to control his reaction around birds, this might happen again. That wouldn’t instill confidence in me if I worked at this company.

          2. Jessie the First (or second)*

            Because sounding bitter in a job interview doesn’t help her, no matter how right you feel she is. The advice here for other really out-there situations has generally been to be matter of fact. There is a way to be matter of fact about this situation too. (And as you can see from these comments, there are intense reactions to the situation – you don’t want the interview to become about This Big Thing. You want to be able to move on with the interview, right?)

          3. INTP*

            I think Liz 100% has reason to BE bitter, but it’s generally not in someone’s best interest to sound that way at a job interview. Not because in this situation it isn’t understandable, but because the person making hiring decisions has a responsibility to choose a good person for their team, and they don’t know how much of the other side of the story you’re leaving out, or whether you will get over it and be a positive member of the team or stay so angry you bring a toxic morale element with you. Sounding positive and chipper for 30 seconds while answering questions about your previous employer is a good way to demonstrate that you can move past it with a good attitude.

          4. designbot*

            What Jessie and INTP said. Be as bitter as you like to your friends and family, just not in an interview.

          5. LBK*

            “Didn’t have a plan to keep me safe at work” seems like a disingenuous description of the situation. What are they going to do, hire a hunter to shoot any bird that comes within 100 yards of company property? I don’t think it’s remotely reasonable to expect them to have a contingency plan for a situation like this, nor do I think it’s reasonable to fire Jack to prevent any possible bird-related injuries in the future. Unless they conduct business outside often, this doesn’t seem like something you would have to plan for again.

            1. Speechless*

              Someone else in the thread had a manager with a bird phobia. She disclosed it. She asked people not to block her office door in case a bird at the window caused an attack. She made sure people didn’t walk in front of her in case she was triggered. People knew that if she was triggered to get out of her way. A plan to keep those working with Jack safe might have been not to have them outdoors with Jack. It might have been for them to know to walk behind Jack. It might have been for them to let Jack re-enter the building before they left their cars. The fact is Jack didn’t disclose so his company didn’t get a chance to do a risk assessment to see if any of those things were necessary or helpful. Now that it’s clear some of it might have been, he doesn’t get to wave a letter from his therapist saying you can’t be mad at me I have a phobia. He’s not protected (I’m given to understand as not my country not my rules but this is the impression upthread) because he didn’t disclose.

              1. LBK*

                I just can’t get on board with the idea that it should have been obvious to Jack that he should’ve disclosed a bird phobia while working in a white collar office.

                1. Mike C.*

                  You don’t have to. All you have to get on board with is the fact that there was a serious workplace injury and that there should be a serious discussion about how to prevent something like that from happening in the future.

                2. LBK*

                  I really don’t think I could have a serious conversation about how to keep one of my employees away from birds and/or keep my other employees away from him in situations where a bird might appear. There’s just no rational plan I think I could put in place to make that happen.

                  Sometimes accidents happen. Even severe accidents are still accidents. This isn’t comparable to the kinds of things you’re probably thinking of where someone’s injured by workplace equipment that they’re expected to use every day – in those scenarios, I obviously understand the need for harsh examination of any accident and discussion about a plan to prevent it from happening again.

                  But for something that’s so unlikely to occur again and that has so many variables that can’t be controlled (like the location of birds), it seems to me like having a talk about how to prevent it would pretty much just be for show, because there’s really not a lot you can do about it other than ask Jack to keep his distance from his coworkers when they’re outside.

                3. Late To The Party*

                  I work in a white-collar job in a building that includes a manufacturing facility with many large dock doors. Birds fly into the building all the time in the summer, and almost everyone who works in the office is required as part of their job duties to walk through the manufacturing area at some point. I can’t even imagine the injuries that an undisclosed bird phobia might cause in that environment. The point being, I don’t think anyone should assume that that they could not encounter an animal in a professional, indoor job.

                4. designbot*

                  I can see where you’re coming from if he had literally never seen a bird at or near his office before. For example if this was his first off-site meeting and he didn’t normally enter/exit the building in the middle of the day. But the first time he had to travel off-site or someone opened a door for some air and he found himself thinking “but a bird could fly in!!!” that’s when you know you need to say something. So while I acknowledge there may be a combination of circumstances that mean this is the very first time anything relevant has come up around the workplace… odds seem good that while this is the first actual incident it’s not the first time that this has been relevant at work, which would incline me to say he should have spoken up.

                5. Mike C.*

                  No rational plan? Someone with a similar phobia already discussed what works for them in this very thread. Just because you or I don’t have a specific accommodation (I certainly had no idea until I saw the post) doesn’t mean that one doesn’t exist.

            2. Mike C.*

              I don’t know what such a plan would look like. What I do know is that the most important job of management is to keep their employees safe from harm. This isn’t going to be discussed in most white color work because there isn’t a lot to worry about, but there was a serious, serious accident that caused lost work days. That management doesn’t have an answer for keeping that from happening again is troubling.

              1. LBK*

                But that’s my whole point – if no one here can seem to come up with a concrete plan to assure Liz that this won’t ever possibly happen again, I don’t think it’s reasonable to get angry at the OP for not having done that. And Liz doesn’t seem to want a prevention plan anyway, she just wants Jack to be fired, so it seems like a pointless argument.

                1. Gadfly*

                  We don’t know that is all she wants–that is her plan on how to make things right and protect herself. It is the job of OP and their HR to make counter offers that address her concerns. Which are reasonable concerns for someone in her circumstance to have. Even just being vindictive is reasonable even if not actionable.

            3. turquoisecow*

              Yeah, presumably as an adult, Jack has never caused injuries to anyone else as a result of his phobia, because most phobias do not result accidental injuries. Presumably, Jack and Liz had worked together (or at least for the same company) for some time, and this had not happened before. Presumably, Jack has not had this sort of thing happen in the past, or he would have mentioned it, and the OP would have mentioned it in the letter. It’s a freak accident, and thinking that there’s some risk it will happen again is a little extreme.

    2. DArcy*

      “A coworker shoved me into traffic and the company refused to discipline him for it because he claimed it was because of a panic disorder. While that might have been true, the bottom line for me is that I didn’t feel safe working there anymore.”

      Being unwilling to work with Jack after what he did is not an unreasonable action on Liz’ part. It’s understandable that the company can say that his actions were clearly not malicious so he doesn’t deserve to be fired; it’s equally understandable that the victim doesn’t have the emotional distance to do the same and has a right to prioritize her own needs over being “fair” to the person who assaulted her.

      1. Dizzy Steinway*

        Sorry to nitpick, but a phobia and panic disorder are not the same thing. Both are anxiety disorders, but different types.

        3. JessaB*

          Yes and one can have both. I have certain phobias and if those are triggered they also feed into my panic disorder. It’s just (sarcasm on) twice as terrifying. (Sarcasm off.) Many times the disorders come hand in hand.

    3. copy run start*

      I can’t think of a good way to spin it… maybe something vague is the safest bet for Liz. You probably don’t want to be remembered as the candidate who was pushed into a car because your coworker had a bird phobia.

      1. Mike C.*

        Well if employers are going to insist on asking certain types of questions they should be prepared to receive certain types of responses. Imagine all the women out there who leave a job because of rampant sexual harassment, what are they supposed to say when asked a similar question?

        1. JS*

          Not to get off topic but I wouldn’t even be honest here. A valid concern of job seekers is if they tell a potential employer they left because of sexual harassment/discrimination etc that they will be seen as a problem and a whistleblower (even if they are justified). It’s not right but personally I made up an entirely different reason why I was let go after I was discriminated against and filed an EEOC report against my employer. I took the serverance instead of suing (the amount they offered was an admission of guilt in itself) part of the serverance was neutral terms of dismissal so they didn’t bad mouth me and I didn’t bad mouth them. In Liz situation it’s different but I wouldn’t risk being seen as the problem employee who wasn’t sensitive to others mental health issues ( you never know how people will take the story). While I am on Liz side as far as not wanting to work with directly or travel or with Jack, her quiting all together to me is extreme and probably is the last straw in a string of job dissatisfaction. I can’t imagine being in a job I loved, paid well and then this happened and I end up quitting over it.

          1. Tab*

            People largely don’t understand phobias and how serious they are, so I could see her seeing it as not a freak accident that happened, but as more of an assault(as a lot of commenters also seem to be doing). If you feel assaulted, with the assailant getting no punishment, I could see them leaving for that reason alone.

            1. Erin*

              it was assualt, unintentional assualt, but he still pushed her and caused her serious harm. It doesn’t matter what his intentions were. People get fired all the time because of something they did or didn’t do was not intentional. If she were killed it would be manslaughter.

        2. Heatherskib*

          I was advised by a former interviewer to phrase it as a “Management conflict” cue eyeroll and me knowing better now.

      2. Gadfly*

        I don’t see how that hurts? It isn’t like it is likely to be a chronic issue going forward (that’s why she quit…)

          1. Mookie*

            Would something like “there was an accident on my employer’s property that made it impossible for me to feel safe returning there” / “I was inadvertently injured by a colleague and decided to move on” work, or does that just stoke additional interrogation? I can’t decide whether it sounds weird or implausible or not, because in some industries something this wouldn’t raise eyebrows, in others, it’d be unusual, and in still others, it’d be grounds for concern about Liz’s aptitude for work safety.

              1. ThatGirl*

                They may, but the point is to make it an understandable reason that she left her job, not to get across how horrible the whole thing was.

                1. Temperance*

                  I think she needs to get the message across about how egregious this incident was, though, to show that she’s not oversensitive. I’ve been “inadvertently injured” by a coworker in the past (was cut with a piece of glass because he broke a lightbulb above me while I was holding the ladder), and that’s not even in the same ballpark as someone shoving a person into traffic.

            2. EddieSherbert*

              I think it would prompt me to ask more questions. My brain would be like… What happened? Is this lady way overreacting to something dumb? Or did something terrible happen?

              I’d be super curious!

            3. NLMC*

              I’ve had someone tell me there was an accident at their previous job and it was too hard to go back to in an interview and that didn’t raise any red flags for me (there were others, but not that answer.) I wasn’t going to ask anything else about it, but she later told me that it involved her child, and the job was a car dealership. I don’t know what happened but not returning to the sight of a traumatic accident is completely understandable.

      3. Bonky*

        Wouldn’t bother me in an interview, and wouldn’t reflect on her badly; if anything, it’d make her more memorable. Sometimes I really worry about what the commenters here think is going on in the minds of those of us who interview!

        1. Audiophile*

          Yes but does it make her memorable in a good way? I think that’s what most people grappling with.

          1. Jesmlet*

            Right, I think if someone told me this, it would be in the back of my mind the whole interview and I’d likely forget the interesting professional things about her. The words “bird” “phobia” “car” “hospital” and “broken arm” should not be mentioned. Best to leave it more vague and then pivot into all the things you liked about the job and tie that into what interests you about the job you’re interviewing for.

    4. Mustache Cat*

      What? I would find “My coworker pushed me into an oncoming car” a perfectly reasonable explanation for leaving

      1. SadPanda*

        Who cares about Jack? Liz was severely injured and hospitalized!

        Phobia, whatever, he is *fine* and she needs to find a new job because coworker almost killed her.

        2. Caro in the UK*

          Put me in the pile of people who care about Jack AND Liz.

          I think I need to stay away from this post, because the trivialisation of mental illness is already really upsetting me.

          1. Katherine*

            Right. It’s possible to acknowledge that what happened to Liz was awful while also having empathy and understanding for Jack. The ableist comments here are very upsetting.

            1. Josiah*

              I think the part of the problem is that a lot of people commenting don’t understand how phobias work.

              People seem to think that having a bird phobia means that Jack always freaks out whenever he sees a bird. If that was true, they’d be right to consider his actions grossly negligent.

              Similarly, people seem to think that good therapy means that the phobia goes away and never matters again. It doesn’t always work that way, especially in the medium term. It’s often much more complicated than that.

              Disability in general is way, way more complicated than people usually realize it is.

              (And it’s also possible that Jack really is a jerk — I think that we don’t know one way or another from the facts we have. But it’s important to realize that everything described could happen without Jack being negligent or cruel.)

              1. Zillah*

                Yes. Pointing out that some assumptions about Jack aren’t reasonable isn’t the same thing as not caring about Liz. This was an awful situation, and in a lot of ways, there’s no good answer because there are multiple people in it who are dealing with serious health issues through no fault of their own and whose needs directly conflict with each other.

                I feel awful for Liz, because she’s had her life upended, been seriously injured, and may deal with chronic pain and/or limited mobility for years to come – so I totally get why she’s furious with Jack. I also have sympathy for Jack, because it sounds like he’s been trying to address this phobia for years and he’s still clearly got a long way to go, which I suspect severely inhibits his life.

              2. paul*

                I’m not seeing a lot of people flat not getting phobias (though there’s been a few); what I’m seeing a lot of us saying that it does not matter that he has a legitmate mental illness, if his reactions to triggers make him dangerous.

                It doesn’t have to be “pushed into oncoming car” to get someone hurt; pushed down stairs, pushed into anything that might injure them, hell it could be someone that’s got osteoporosis and breaks a hip in a fall.

                This *exact* set of circumstances is unlikely to occur again, but there’s enough circumstances where shoving someone out of the way in a panic is dangerous that it really is a safety concern. And that isn’t trivilizing a phobia.

                1. Josiah*

                  I’m getting the sense that you think that if this happened once, it means that he habitually panics and shoves people. That *could* be true, but it seems more likely to me that it isn’t. The description in the letter seems to me to be saying that he has never panicked a work in a disruptive way before.

                  What seems more likely to me is that Jack had strategies for managing his phobias that had been working and that he had every reason to believe were reliable. (Similarly to how people who have epilepsy can start driving again once they’ve had good seizure control for a significant period). And then it turned out that his strategy wasn’t as reliable as he thought it was (which also happens with seizure medications).

                  This kind of failure doesn’t necessarily mean that Jack was negligent, and it doesn’t necessarily mean that he is habitually violent. It’s entirely possible that Jack cares deeply about not hurting people, that he had a strategy he had every reason to think was reliable, and that he is now committed to finding a new strategy.

                  It’s very normal for people with and without mental illnesses to have safety strategies that turn out to be unreliable, for any number of reasons. This always needs to be taken seriously, and failed safety strategies need to be addressed in both an immediate and long term way.

                  What I’m saying is that there’s a big difference between being habitually violent and accidentally hurting someone because a safety strategy you relied on turns out to be unreliable.

                  I think that effective accountability is always context-dependent. I think it’s important to apply the right categories, and I strongly suspect that the right category here is “failed safety strategy” rather than something like “habitually violent person”. Those are different problems that need different solutions.

                2. Temperance*

                  @Josiah: this particular incident resulted in a serious injury to another person, and it could have been way worse. It doesn’t matter to me that Jack is working on it, if I was working with Jack, I would consider him an unsafe person to be around outdoors, and would do what I could to minimize that happening.

                  This is not to say that I don’t “get” mental illness, because I do understand it all too well. I’m going to prioritize my safety or my perceived safety over him.

                3. Anna*

                  Thank you Josiah. I think what I’m seeing a LOT of is the stereotypical positioning of mental illness with being dangerous. In fact many people’s comments are stating quite plainly that Jack is dangerous. I feel sick reading this vitriol.

                  Burn the witch? I think I’m done with this thread.

                4. Amber T*

                  I admit I was ignoring all of the hypothetical situations above because I didn’t think they were relevant, but now I have one of my own.

                  What if we took the phobia out of the mix? What if the situation was something spooked one person (I think it’s reasonable to assume that most people have jumped over something unexpected happening), and they they bumped into a second person, causing said injuries? I think the tone of the responses would be vastly different.

                  This is a scenario that is *unlikely* to happen, but *could* happen to anyone. I think there are a lot of people, including the OP and the people he/she works with, that are so caught up on PHOBIA and MENTAL ILLNESS = THREAT TO EVERYONE AROUND THEM. I think the issue the letter is (or should be) dealing with, is Jack caused an accident that resulted in Liz being injured – what should we do? I don’t think the phobia aspect is most important here.

                5. Kate*

                  @Josiah In my area an epileptic person with “good seizure control for a significant period” was driving, had switched epilepsy meds recently, had a seizure, and ran over two children who were crossing at a crosswalk. One will mostly recover, the other almost died and will spend the rest of her life mentally and physically disabled. I don’t think people with epilepsy should ever drive.

                  And I say that as a person with two mental illnesses and a minor physical condition that limits, thankfully also in a minor way, my mobility.

                6. Falling Diphthong*

                  Birds and moving vehicles are both often found near sidewalks. If anything, it seems likely to happen again.

                7. Gadfly*

                  Amber T–the difference is that while anyone can be spooked, Jack is someone who not only is spooked, he is spooked by something fairly commonplace under at least some circumstances, and when spooked does more than just startle–he runs and pushes and is in total panic mode. people who are simply startled don’t do that and so are far less likely to push people over, run into a dangerous situation themselves, etc.

                  It is like saying “anyone can step on someone’s feet if they are too close”. Well, true, but the odds go up and the possibility of serious damage rises if the person doing the stepping is in a powerchair. And so it needs to be addressed to reduce that possibility, especially once it has actually happened.

                8. turquoisecow*

                  @ kate as a person with epilepsy who has a VERY low risk of seizure, that’s almost as insanely over reacting as the people who think Jack shouldn’t be around people.

                  There are MANY types of seizures and MANY types of phobias and different reactions. There is little to no risk of most of us in both categories ever being a danger to anyone else around us. To say that either of us should not be allowed to drive, or should not be allowed to be around people is to move back to the dark ages. What happened in your situation and in this situation are both freak accidents. Kindly avoid punishing the rest of us by blatantly stereotyping based on your assumptions.

                  Thank you.

              3. Gravel*

                “And it’s also possible that Jack really is a jerk — I think that we don’t know one way or another from the facts we have. But it’s important to realize that everything described could happen without Jack being negligent or cruel.”

                This goes for both the “it was an accident” and “it wasn’t” crowd. We don’t know enough about his phobia to know if it is an excuse or if it’s an ongoing danger.

                All we know is how Liz feels about it.

                Could be he’s a jerk, could be it was totally accidental.
                Could be he will be an ongoing danger, could be he’s never likely to do this again.

                We simply don’t know.

                If I were OP, I’d want to focus on both Liz and Jack separately. Even if Liz goes away and does not sue, I’d be worried about Jack and for Jack going forward.

                If he’s a Jackass with an ongoing issue he’s not dealing with, then he’s an issue.

                If he’s a good Jack who is doing his best, people are going to judge him and punish him for this.

                It’s not simple.

            2. Speechless*

              I’d have a lot more empathy for Jack if he’d told his boss and or colleagues that a bird coming near him could cause him to uncontrollably panic to the point where he might shove them over out of his way. Then they’d have all been on the same page.

              1. Lissa*

                It is likely he did not realize this was even a possibility. Many many people have phobias, and there are examples on this very thread of people mentioning similar reactions, like somebody who said she shoved her coworker because of a spider, only in that case she was small and he was big so no harm done — should everybody with a phobia that might cause that reaction disclose? It is highly unlikely that even in Jack’s wildest dreams would he have thought this would happen.

                1. Speechless*

                  His situation must be bad enough that he’s seeing a therapist. Loads of people have phobias and don’t seek treatment for them so something must have triggered Jack to start off 2 years of therapy.

                2. Anna*

                  People see therapists for a lot of reasons. Can we stop bashing people with mental health issues?

              2. Anon for this*

                I have PTSD and react very very badly if people touch me by stroking my neck, grabbing me by the hips or waist from behind with both hands, or biting me. None of those are particularly likely to happen in a workplace scenario.

                And yet, one did. I wound up knocking a coworker/friend to the ground and giving her a black eye in the middle of an episode because she grabbed my waist from behind.

                I had not disclosed up to that point because it seemed massively unlikely that anyone would touch me like that at work. With regards to this post, most office environments don’t come equipped with birds, you know? And given that this is the first time this has been an issue with Jack at this job, it’s pretty clear that he can handle his phobia in a lot of circumstances – just not the one that, sadly, happened leading to this post.

          2. (another) b*

            Agreed – it was an ACCIDENT. And the people downplaying the mental illness/phobia is starting to piss me off. You don’t just “get over it.”

            1. Temperance*

              No, but a lot if people here are casting Liz in a negative light, and have more sympathy for Jack. He could have disabled her for life. At the very least, she has medical bills now and I bet he’s not even offered to pay.

              1. Meg Murry*

                Since the incident happened on work property when returning from a work function, this incident should be covered by workman’s comp and Liz should not have to pay any medical bills. (Assuming this was in the US, of course)

                That said, getting bills covered by workman’s comp and negotiating exactly what treatments and therapies they will and won’t pay for is often a bureaucratic nightmare.

                I haven’t seen anything yet in this post about how else Liz has been treated, and I wonder if not firing Jack wasn’t the full cause but rather the final straw. Was Liz given full time off with pay for the time she spent in the hospital, and assistance navigating workman’s comp? Or was she left in the lurch with something like “well, short term disability doesn’t kick in for X days, after which they’ll pay 60% of your salary, so you can use PTO to cover the time you had to take off. Here’s a giant stack of forms you’ll have to fill out about the incident. By the way, how quickly can you be back at work? If you don’t come back soon we’re going to have to pay extra costs for your projects being late, so we’ll need you and Jack to get on that right away.”

                At a bare minimum Liz should have been given as much time as she needed to recuperate, paid time off to go to physical therapy, all her medical bills covered, and the option to not have to work anywhere near Jack again. I agree that Jack should not necessarily have been fired, but I don’t think its unreasonable for Liz to ask that she not have to work with or interact with Jack again.

                1. Lynly*

                  Yes! I had this same “last straw” thought too. This is a highly complex case — one for an HR Legal rep versus regular HR employee relations — and there are ways to support both Liz and Jack with appropriate sensitivity through fact-finding and resolution.

                2. Jady*

                  I’m skeptical. I like my current job, but in Liz’s shoes I’d be demanding his head on a platter too.

                3. Retail HR Guy*

                  Whether parking lot accidents are covered under workers’ comp varies by state. Some states yes, some no, and some are gray areas in which other factors should be considered.

              2. Anna*

                I have seen very few comments that are bashing Liz. What I HAVE seen are people saying:

                Jack is dangerous. (Stereotyping people with mental health diseases as dangerous.)
                Jack is a jerk. (Assuming Jack feels absolutely no remorse.)
                Jack should have known he was a danger to coworkers. (Again, stereotyping mental illness as dangerous and blaming Jack for not protecting others from his inherent violence.)
                Because Jack sought therapy, clearly he knew his issue was big. (Stigmatizing seeking therapy and doubling down on the idea that if he is seeking therapy to mitigate his illness, he clearly is admitting he could be dangerous.)

                1. Kate*

                  Speaking as a person with two mental illnesses who has been on multiple medications and has seen multiple mental health professionals for treatment, Jack IS dangerous. Anyone who goes into a blind panic at a common sight and can’t or won’t control their reaction to it IS dangerous. That is a simple fact. That doesn’t mean all people with mental health issues is dangerous, and no one has been saying that.

                2. Relly*

                  Jack sought therapy ABOUT the bird phobia, according to the therapist’s letter. That means it is big.

                  Jack accidentally caused someone to be severely injured. The situation could potentially repeat. That makes the situation dangerous.

                  As someone who has spent decades in therapy, and thinks that most people would benefit from it, I assure you, I’m not castigating him for being in therapy. Or for having a mental illness.

                  This isn’t his fault, but it is his responsibility. Same as if I hurt someone because of my issues.

            2. fposte*

              I would say this is an area where “intent isn’t magic” factors in. I do have a phobia, so I’m not making light of them. But if your phobia is to something that’s commonly encountered without warning (birds are probably even more of a likely meet than dogs) and your phobia is so severe you can’t behave safely around other people in that situation, that is a big problem. I don’t know if I’d fire Jack or not, but I’d have serious concerns about him; there’s just too much birdness in daily life.

              However, I also wouldn’t fire Jack just because Liz wanted me to. In general, the answer to “Either he goes or I goes” is “We’d be sorry to lose you.” I’d made my decision about Jack independent of the question of Liz’s departure.

              1. yasmara*

                Right – I think Liz could reasonably have said something like, “I do not want to work with Jack again based on this traumatic event” and perhaps Jack could have been transferred to another area. If I were Liz, I don’t think I would want to work with him either, but at the same time I don’t see this as purposeful assault.

                1. Falling Diphthong*

                  It’s entirely possible that it’s a small office that can’t accommodate them in different teams, buildings, etc, and Liz’s demand is based on knowing this–she doesn’t feel safe working with him any more.

              2. Gadfly*

                See, and I think Liz is perfectly reasonable to demand that, even if it isn’t something you can give her. The right answer would be to say as much but follow it up with trying to address her reasons for him to be fired and see if there is some middle ground that is acceptable. Like he’ll be told he needs to stay 500 feet away from you at all times and never assigned to work with you ever

                1. fposte*

                  I don’t think Liz is necessarily unreasonable to ask for that, but I don’t think it’s appropriate to grant it just because she asked. This is a situation where reasonable responses don’t necessarily all go to the same Rome.

            3. Gravel*

              There’s a difference between an accident I could have/should have taken steps to prevent and one I could not.

              If I’m driving down the road at 100 mph and get in an “accident” that’s very different than if I am driving at 20 and a deer jumps out in front of me.

              We don’t know enough about Jack to say anything about him.

              You can be pissed at me all you want, but a phobia is not an excuse to not take steps to mitigate any harm you might cause others.

              As someone who works with a lot of mental ill people and people with disabilities, it’s very ableist to just assume he’s not at fault AT ALL, under any circumstances b/c of his phobia. He’s not a 3 year old child.

              My clients get treated like they aren’t capable of being adults all the time.

              It may have been something totally outside Jack’s control, it may not have been.

              None of us here have sufficient facts to evaluate Jack one way or the other. We are not his therapists nor are we a jury.

              We need to stop focusing on him. It’s fruitless.

              It’s also not the point of the letter.

              All we have is how Liz feels.

              1. Anon today...and tomorrow*

                Yes to this —–> it’s very ableist to just assume he’s not at fault AT ALL, under any circumstances b/c of his phobia. He’s not a 3 year old child.

                I think that’s the thing that is frustrating me the most with the comments on this today. Jack’s phobia, documented and legit, shouldn’t be the focus. HE HURT SOMEONE. She was hospitalized. She required surgery. She is angry. From the letter it also appears that while an apology was given little else was done. I feel like there are all kinds of excuses being made for a man who didn’t even acknowledge his phobia in the workplace until it HURT A COWORKER! He can still have a phobia and be wrong.

          3. The Final Pam*

            Absolutely this – I think this is a bad situation for everyone involved. But yeah, the trivialization I’ve seen is upsetting. This is why people don’t disclose their mental illness with their jobs.

          4. Kate*

            Except a lot of people with mental illnesses, like myself, are pointing out that mental illness is no excuse for bad behavior and that Jack should have disclosed his bird phobia and need for accommodation as soon as he started working there.

            Birds are everywhere. Unfortunately for Jack, he is going to need to disclose his phobia at every place he will ever work, but that is necessary to protect his coworkers, and keep more people from getting pushed in front of moving cars. Birds land on the sidewalk, and fly off from there all the time.

            If Jack chooses to walk on the sidewalk and/or has to cross it to get to his office’s entrance, his coworkers need to know to stay away from him at this time.

            1. TheX*

              Although I’m not on Jack’s side (or of anyone else for that matter), I disagree. It’s very likely that his episodes of phobia make him run for his life and definitely NOT push “people in front of moving cars”.

          5. Tab*

            Same here. I actually called my boyfriend crying over this because some of these comments are just horrifyingly insulting and cruel. Who cares about Jack?? I care about him. Anyone who has seen anyone with an actual phobia even near as severe as his obviously is cares about him. I’m certain that he feels near as traumatized by this incident as Liz does. I would. Especially if then I’m having to worry about her demanding I get fired for something I could not control and apparently coworkers who might think, as some of the commenters here have alluded to, that I am some kind of maniac that is dangerous.

        3. Forrest*

          She needs a new job because she quit her job.

          Yes, it’s awful that she was hurt and thankfully it wasn’t worse. But unless they work in a bird house, her life is not at a continuous risk – in fact, it’s less so because now she knows not to be around him outside. Do employees have the right to demand their coworkers share their mental health histories with everyone because there may be a risk and they should know?

          The OP didn’t say she asked for any accommodations – not traveling with Jack, moving to another area so she doesn’t see him as often. She had options to use while looking for a new job rather than quitting without one lined up.

          1. Gadfly*

            She shouldn’t need to be the one asking and trying to figure it out while recuperating. That is a management fail.

            1. Forrest*

              So she can ask for someone to be fired but not how the employer will accommodate her while keeping Jack?

              1. Mookie*

                It depends on when and how she said that, though, doesn’t it? If a reasonable amount of time had passed, the employer should have already had a rough plan in mind to do just that. If not, they should have countered that they’d work something out, accommodate her by certain means in the meantime, and finalize a plan as soon as possible.

                1. Forrest*

                  I’m not seeing the logic in “Liz shouldn’t have to ask for an accommodation.” One, she has to because how else would the employer know they needed to come up with one? And two, she did, in fact, ask for a type of accommodation – for Jack to be fired.

                2. Gadfly*

                  Basic common sense should have had them offering her something/expecting that there was a good chance she wasn’t going to just be willing to shrug and move on.

                3. Forrest*

                  Basic common sense would also say if Liz thought about it enough to say she wanted Jack fire, she had some time to think of alternatives.

                4. Forrest*

                  I mean, I’m not going to claim I’d know what I would do in that situation but people are not a giant hive mind and common sense would dictate that upon hearing Jack’s condition, an employee may be willing to work something out besides he must go or even if they want to work something out at all. People come with all kind of viewpoints and there are saints out there that would understand it was an accident and may be able to move on without any accommodation.

                5. Forrest*

                  Anyway, regardless, she needs a new job because of her decision. Unless it was intentional, I don’t think its fair to blame Jack for her decision to quit without a job lined up. He’s to blame for putting her in the place to make that decision but not responsible for her choosing that route.

                6. Mike C.*

                  @Forrest

                  Liz shouldn’t have to ask for an accommodation because the primary concern of a manager should be the safety of their employees. The fact that she didn’t feel safe enough to come back to work is the fault of the manager, full stop.

                7. Forrest*

                  So people need to ask for an accommodations for their medical conditions but the employer should just guess what Liz wants? She can ask for him to be fired but the suggestion that she ask for an alternative accommodation is out?

                  By this logic, Liz should have never asked for him to be fired in the first place. Let the employer volunteer if he’ll be fired or not. But she did say what she wanted first, so it doesn’t sound like she subscribes to this idea of not having to ask for an accommodation.

                  People are just upset that the employer felt they couldn’t accommodate what Liz wanted and Liz decided that there was no other option she wanted.

                  Either way, Liz choose to quit.

                8. Mike C.*

                  @Forrest – It should certainly be a conversation between affected parties, but that doesn’t absolve a manager from their primary responsibility for safety.

                  And frankly, I think folks need to understand that Liz is clearly and justifiably angry at the harm that was caused to her. As I’ve said a few other times, she has every right to ask for that, but not the right to expect it to happen.

                  Also, this idea that it’s “her choice” really, really minimizes the situation. She’s clearly afraid of being hurt again. She’s not making the choice to quit out of spite or capriciousness, she’s making that choice out of fear of further harm. That’s not a choice.

                9. Forrest*

                  Saying that Liz has the ability to ask for accommodations – which she did by asking for Jack to be fired – is not absolving the company from their primary responsibility for safety. They’re two completely different things. Thinking that Liz could request an accommodation – which, again, she did – doesn’t mean the company is scot free if they decide that they can’t meet that accommodation.

                  I see no one is saying that Liz doesn’t have the right to be upset or even that she doesn’t have the right to make this demand. People thinking that Jack shouldn’t be fired doesn’t mean they think Liz is out of line. Again, you can feel for everyone in this letter – Liz, Jack and the company. It’s not difficult – you don’t have a limited amount of empathy.

                  Liz made a choice. Period. She shouldn’t have been put in the position to make that choice and it sucks that she had to – which I said. But if you ask for something and that party can’t fulfill that request, then yes, it’s your decision to make it or leave it. I get Liz was/is upset and scared and she shouldn’t have had to be in that position but I’m not going to discount her autonomy in the choice she made.

            3. Artemesia*

              This. They should have proactively planned to protect her from being around Jack before she was even out of the hospital (does everyone not realize how serious something must be to be hospitalized in the US if it is here? They do major surgeries as outpatient procedures. Hospitalizing for 4 days is unusual) When she came back upset about Jack and wanting him fired, they should have already thought that through and had a plan for her to not be anywhere near him at work; if possible he should have been reassigned to another building or floor or whatever. Perhaps that would not have been enough for her — but I didn’t get the feeling that any real concern had been shown for protecting her. It all seems to be ‘he couldn’t help it, so suck it up.’

              1. LawBee*

                protecting her from what? A freak accident? Because that is ALL this is.

                Look, it sucks for Liz, and I do feel for her. But Liz wasn’t asking for accommodation, she wasn’t asking to “make me feel safe” – she wants Jack fired. I get the rage, but no – she does not get to make that choice for the company. The choice she does get to make is to either stay at the job or leave the job.

                1. Mike C.*

                  Every employee has the right to be safe in their workplace. That she didn’t use the right magical words doesn’t change this fact.

                  And yes, any even that causes lost work days should be investigated and have a plan to prevent it from ever happening again. That’s just best practices when it comes to workplace safety.

                2. Kate*

                  Um, no, it’s not a freak accident. Birds, sidewalks, people and cars, are together all day long, every day. Birds are everywhere, especially in cities, people have to use cars and sidewalks to get around, buildings generally have sidewalks around them and cars near them, birds roost on buildings and hang out on sidewalks.

                  Encountering birds at work was not unexpected or a surprise for someone with a bird phobia. Jack should have known better and taken steps to protect the safety of his coworkers, like telling them about his phobia, or walking in front of any group.

              2. Anna*

                Jack is not a dangerous beast walking around inflicting violence on people and I resent the number of comments on here feeding into the “mentally ill people are violent” bullshit. People who suffer from mental health diseases are more likely to be victims of violence, not cause it.

                1. Kate*

                  No one is saying that, I, a person with two mental illness, am not saying that, but a person with a blind panic reaction to a very common thing, IS dangerous.

                2. Mike C.*

                  Jack’s reaction sent a coworker to the hospital. That has nothing to do with population level stereotypes.

                3. Anna*

                  How often has Jack had a reaction to a bird that caused harm to someone? It seems only once. That means he does not pose a danger to anyone unless we’re willing to say that a random confluence of factors coming together means anyone can be a danger to others. I’m not willing to make that leap.

          2. Speechless*

            She’s this injured because Jack needed accommodations and didn’t ASK for them. By doing so, he put his colleagues at risk and Liz was the victim of that decision on his part. Liz has less than zero responsibility here and shouldn’t face recovering from major surgery while possibly in fear of her life as she works with someone who PUSHED HER IN FRONT OF A CAR! At the time she had no idea why he would even do that and now that he has, it’s ok she’s afraid of him, even if he couldn’t help it due to his debilitating fear of birds. She really shouldn’t have to come to work in fear for her life because she still works with Jack while also recovering from the major surgery she only had to have because Jack pushed her in front of a car.

            1. Guy Incognito*

              This x1000! Jack is absolutely at fault here, phobia or not. I don’t understand why people are minimizing his involvement because he has a phobia. That’s no excuse! And I say this as someone who suffers from mental illness.

              2. BananaPants*

                Me, too. I don’t see why Jack is getting a free pass from so many, and Liz’ pain and suffering is being minimized.

              3. Jesmlet*

                The issue is it’s being treated as so black and white, like the only two options are fire Jack or let things stay as they are. Liz is the one who created that false dichotomy. That’s why people are minimizing his blame, because they don’t feel like it’s a fireable offense.

                1. Speechless*

                  The manager who wrote in is only concerned about getting sued by Jack (given to understand he can’t because he didn’t disclose) and missing deadlines because Liz won’t come back while Jack is still there. She didn’t ask ‘Should we be moving Jack to another department’ or ‘What should we do to make Liz feel safe to come back when she says she can’t work with Jack ever again?’ I guess my vehementness that Liz is the one that deserves our support not Jack is because the letter writer clearly cares about not missing deadlines and not getting sued by Jack in that order and Liz’s situation is some distant fleck of nothing way way below those two things. It sounds like the fact Liz might sue them once the extent of her recovery is clear is a situation which never occurred to them.

                  For the record though, it’s Jack who has the undisclosed phobia and Jack who did the pushing, so Jack is totally to blame. He has mitigating circumstances but he’s still the one who pushed a coworker so he is totally to blame for Liz’s fall. I think the company might want to look at other outcomes like we offer Liz her job back on the proviso that while we’re not firing Jack, we have moved him to another team where his work does not require him to go outside during working hours and where she will not have to interact with him ever again.

                2. Jesmlet*

                  I don’t think OP is not concerned about Liz, just not concerned to the point where they would fire Jack. If there was a third option here like bringing Liz back and moving Jack to another team, that probably would’ve been mentioned.

                3. Amber T*

                  @Speechless

                  “When Liz found out that Jack wasn’t going to be fired, she quit… We have tried to get her to come back, but she refuses unless Jack is fired.”

                  OP says she tried to get Liz to come back. She doesn’t mention how, but it’s all possible that the questions you pose were asked, and Liz refused. As Jesmlet said, Liz created the false dichotomy. She’s saying “it’s him or me.” And I don’t think OP is just worried about getting sued for firing Jack. Sure, ADA could (and honestly, should) be a factor, but Jack has had no previous trouble. The problems OP is immediately facing are – what to do with Jack, and what to do about the projects Liz had been working on, which she asks.

                  Alison said in a letter yesterday that she’s not a fan of firing someone for a single incident unless it truly warrants it, and she explains in her response why she thinks it doesn’t warrant firing. It also doesn’t sound like firing Jack was even in consideration until Liz brought it up, which is also problematic.

              4. Kelly*

                Given how gender and perceptions of mental illness are co-related, it’s telling that the manager is giving Jack a pass for something that he disclosed after he shoved a female co-worker into traffic. The manager and their employer should be hoping and praying that Liz doesn’t sue them and Jack as an individual for damages and loss of income. Liz at the very least has PTSD from the incident and how it was handled.

                As a woman, I am aware of how gender plays and has played a role in perception and diagnosis of mental illness. Men are more often easily believed and seen as more credible when they have symptoms, but women still sometimes are seen as hysterical and oversensitive. I’m very much getting that from how the company is protecting Jack and not understanding Liz’s reaction. Liz is not being hysterical here – she has every right to be angry and upset.

                1. Anna*

                  That is bullshit. Gender is not playing a role in this. Liz does have a right to be angry and upset; Liz does not have a right to give the company an ultimatum. That’s not how being an adult person works and ultimatums almost never turn out in favor of the person giving them.

                2. Retail HR Guy*

                  There is nothing at all in the letter indicating sexism played any role in anything, or that Liz now has PTSD.

                3. LawBee*

                  I don’t know where you’re getting this interpretation. Liz has set forth a “him or me” option, and that is not her call. Period. She, an employee, does not get to dictate who works at the company.

                  You are 100% correct in that Liz has every right to be angry and upset, but not for your reasons. I don’t see anything in this letter indicating any kind of gender bias or mental health bias. And you can’t go diagnosing PTSD from a third-party letter writer. Maybe she does, maybe she doesn’t.

                  And he did not shove a female co-worker into traffic. He pushed her aside and she fell onto the street and was hit by a car. Not the same thing.

                4. AnonEMoose*

                  I had this thought, too, Kelly. It does seem to me like Liz is being expected to do the emotional labor of understanding that Jack “couldn’t help it,” and “being the bigger person,” and all of those other things women are told we “need” to do. I do wonder if the reaction would be the same if the genders were reversed, or if both Liz and Jack were of one gender.

                  I’m not saying (and I don’t think Kelly is saying) that gender dynamics are a huge part of the equation here. But I do wonder if unconscious bias is playing a role in how Jack is being treated vs. how Liz is being treated. Jack may not have been entirely in control of his actions, but Liz is essentially the victim in this situation. As such, I think she deserves more consideration than she is getting.

                  I’m also stuck, a bit, on the mental illness aspect of this. Because I do know that most people who struggle with mental illness are far more likely to be on the receiving end of violence than to be the perpetrators of it. And yet, Jack’s actions resulted in a serious injury to Liz; one that may well affect her for life. She has every right to be angry, and to not want to be around Jack. And that’s not about his illness, it’s about his actions.

                  If someone did something that resulted in a severe injury to me, I’m not sure I’d really care all that much what the reasons behind it were. Maybe somewhat, it might help me forgive them? But definitely not in the immediate aftermath.

                5. Loose Seal*

                  Institutional sexism is a thing, yes, but one can’t assume from names where the two individuals fall on the gender spectrum. So it’s kind of immaterial to the discussion which one is more perceived to have the most sexism levied at them.

                6. Anon for this*

                  While it’s certainly possible that Liz has PTSD as a result of this accident, you are not Liz and you are a mental health professional that she is working with. Your declaration that Liz at the very least has PTSD from the incident and how it was handled is incredibly out of line.

                  As a woman who has PTSD I’d like to ask you, sincerely, to not make wild off the cuff impossible “diagnoses” like this.

              1. Katelyn*

                What accommodation could he even be given if they work inside at a white collar job? (it sounds like they were returning from a meeting?) I’ve worked in many offices, and none of them have had birds on-site, even accidentally!

                1. Judy*

                  As an engineer with a 20+ year career at 4 companies, I’ve always worked in buildings that have manufacturing facilities with big bay doors for unloading materials and loading products. Birds inside the building is normal. Every year or so, a bird finds its way into the office area.

                  I had a raccoon pull up a ceiling tile and look down on me once in an office. And don’t get me started on the mice. I’ve heard the late shift here has had a few deer running through.

              2. A grad student*

                Possibly ensuring he was away from coworkers while outside, because birds are quite common in most places? They probably don’t HAVE to go together to offsite meetings, so they wouldn’t have been so close together when the bird landed. A bit inconvenient, but it beats feeling responsible for a coworker’s 4-day hospital stay. I think what’s upsetting me about this is that while in that moment, Jack may not have been responsible for his actions, he could have taken precautions to avoid being in that moment to begin with by accepting his own limits and making the appropriate arrangements to avoid being a danger to others. Surely he knew how he responded when a bird was around, and that birds are commonplace?

                2. Anna Pigeon*

                  This. So much this. Having a mental illness does not mean you are not responsible for the harm you cause others, especially when you have made no effort to make reasonable adjustments to minimize the risk of foreseeable harm.

                  Jack knows he has a bird phobia; he knows he reacts unpredictably when he sees a bird. He knows he is in a situation when bird contact is likely, and does nothing to minimize the risk of harm to others by keeping his distance. He was negligent.

                  My mother is severely mentally ill, and I suffered as a result as a child. The attitude from some posters that forgiveness should be automatic because the inappropriate behavior was related to a mental illness is dismissive of the pain suffered by Liz, by me, and countless others. I feel for Jack, but I’m also very pissed off at him.

                3. fposte*

                  @StopThatGoat–unless they’re a team of traveling salespeople, a “travel on your own” dictum isn’t going to isolate him from his co-workers in regular daily life.

                  However, I suspect that Jack either didn’t know he was likely to react in a way that endangered and harmed somebody or is so phobic he couldn’t even bring up the subject, so advance notice really wasn’t likely here.

                4. Detective Amy Santiago*

                  @Anna I

                  I don’t think anyone is saying that forgiveness should be automatic. In fact, if I were in Liz’s position, I would likely have difficulty working with Jack again.

                  However, that doesn’t meant that I think Jack is a villain or deserves to be drawn and quartered over this incident.

              3. Ginger*

                That’s what I’m wondering. I work in an office building with a lot of windows. We have many different kinds of birds that fly around our parking lot and building, including a couple of really large red-tailed hawks. I’m on the 5th of 6 floors and our building has an L shape, so I get a pretty good view of them when they land on the roof of the other side of the L. I find the hawks quite fascinating, especially when smaller birds get feisty and dive bomb them, but if someone came to me (I’m in HR) and asked for accommodation for a bird phobia, the only thing we could do is move them to an office or cubicle with no outside view. However, other than providing a reserved spot close to the building, there’s nothing we can do about bird exposure when they are outside where this incident with Jack and Liz happened. I feel bad for everyone involved.

            3. Batshua*

              What kind of accommodations would Jack have asked for? If his only phobia is birds, it doesn’t make sense for someone who is not likely to come into regular contact with birds to ask for accommodations. It doesn’t surprise me that it’s never come up before.

              1. Speechless*

                There is a list of them up thread where someone else had a boss with a bird phobia. She made them all aware if a bird came near her, she would run. She asked that no one walk in front of her in sitautions where birds might trigger her phobia. She made sure no one ever stood in her office door so that if a bird startled her at her office window, she had a free shot at the door of her office. She made them all aware that she couldn’t control her fear response to birds. Everyone could be more on guard around her in situations were birds could trigger her. That’s what can be done to help in this situation.

              1. Thlayli*

                What should have happened is this:

                “OP: jack and Liz, I want you to go offsite for a meeting
                Jack: can I speak you you privately. (In private) well I’ve never brought this up before but I have a phobia of birds. It’s not safe to be near me when there could be birds around. Going offsite obviously has a risk of bird encounters. We should make this safer by doing x, y, z which are things I have worked out with my therapist in the 2 years of therapy I have been having.
                Op: yes that’s fine no problem we can totally accommodate your mental illness and thank you for being reasonable and taking appropriate steps to protect others.”

                I don’t know what are reasonable accommodations for this specific circumstance. However I would assume any suitably qualified phobia therapist should have considered this within 2 years.

                Another commenter mentioned that she used to work with someone with a bird phobia. The phobic person had a range of coping/mitigation strategies which included being a certain distance away from other people out of doors at all times. That seems reasonable to me and is not particularly onerous for jack. It would even be easy to hide from other coworkers e.g. “Jack will meet you there and he has to go elsewhere after the meeting so you will have to take separate transport”.

          3. Gazebo Slayer (formerly I'm a Little Teapot)*

            She quit her job because she was required to be around someone who had endangered her life. After the trauma she suffered, who knows what seeing Jack makes *her* feel?

            Liz was essentially forced to quit her job for her physical and emotional safety. IANAL, but the phrase “constructive dismissal” comes to mind. Someone who quits because of a workplace hazard (whether that hazard is poorly maintained machinery, sexual harassment, or Jack’s uncontrolled behavior) is not quitting of their own accord, and at least in my state that counts as involuntary for the purposes of unemployment insurance.

          4. Mike C.*

            She needs a new job because the OP did nothing to ensure her safety when she was ready to return. That’s completely different from just up and quitting without notice.

            1. Amber T*

              OP says “we have tried to get her to come back…,” she doesn’t explain how, but just saying that the OP did nothing is pushing it.

              1. Mike C.*

                “Nothing to ensure her safety” is the key point I’m trying to make here. If there’s new information that’s fine, but the OP didn’t mention safety at all in their letter, when it should be the paramount issue of consideration.

          5. Anon today...and tomorrow*

            All of these comments defending Jack and his phobia are maddening. There was recently a letter that Alison responded to where the office was asking employees to accommodations for the employee with OCD. The general consensus seemed to be “Reasonable accommodations should always be made but it’s not reasonable when another person’s mental health issues negatively impact co-workers lives.” This man knocked a co-worker out of his way and into the path of a moving vehicle. That’s pretty negative. On top of that, the employee with the mental health issue failed to disclose it so no reasonable accommodations could be made prior to something like this happening. It wasn’t up to Liz to make arrangements prior to heading to the meeting, it was on Jack at this point as he was the only person aware of his issue. It shouldn’t have fallen to Liz to be reasonable when she wanted to come back to work. She’d been pushed in front a moving car. Jack and the office management should have worked something out. From the letter it looks like Liz is behaving reasonably given what happened to her. Jack should have, at the very least, been written up for the accident. He should be punished, not for being phobic, but for not revealing this ahead of time to have accommodations put in place for when he would be outside during working hours.

            1. Jessie the First (or second)*

              You are conflating very different issues and concerns in your post here.

              “Reasonable accommodations should always be made but it’s not reasonable when another person’s mental health issues negatively impact co-workers lives….This man knocked a co-worker out of his way and into the path of a moving vehicle. That’s pretty negative” – No one is saying that knocking people out of the way and injuring them is an accommodation. It is what happened in the past, but is not an accommodation going forward. If that is an accommodation he actually claimed to need (“I must be allowed to knock people around, even if they fall and get hit by a car after”) then sure, that would not be right and the company does not have to allow it. But that is not the actual issue because after the accident, presumably he will be seeking *other* accommodations and not claiming that pushing people is one of them.

              “Jack should have, at the very least, been written up for the accident. He should be punished, not for being phobic, but for not revealing this ahead of time to have accommodations put in place for when he would be outside during working hours.”
              Written up for not disclosing a disability is not acceptable, actually. Legally, it is not okay. You are not under any affirmative obligation to disclose disabilities. You are not required to ask for accommodations. And as he seems to have gone for a few years without incident, I think it is fair to say he believed his phobia was not an issue at work. So no, he can’t be written up for having but not disclosing a disability.

              I absolutely think that OP should not simply be satisfied with “he’s got a phobia and is in treatment, so that’s all we can do.” I think now that it has affected someone so drastically, they need to work out some new plan/safety measures with Jack. They can evaluate whether the safety plan is workable for them or not. I’m hoping they have done that, and not simply thrown their hands in the air because they don’t know what else to do – that’s negligent (colloquially, not making a legal judgment), and would be based on a big misunderstanding of the ADA.

              1. Tau*

                Written up for not disclosing a disability is not acceptable, actually. Legally, it is not okay. You are not under any affirmative obligation to disclose disabilities.

                Thank you for this. Cold shudders were going down my spine at that comment, as a disabled person who hasn’t disclosed to their employer.

        4. BananaPants*

          That’s where I am. He shoved a coworker into the path of a moving vehicle, he made zero attempt to assist her after she was hit by said vehicle, she wound up hospitalized and undergoing surgery (maybe incurring large medical bills) because of it. In her shoes there’s NO WAY I’d be willing to work again with Jack regardless of his phobia, so I’d be job hunting as well.

          I certainly hope the company paid 100% of the medical bills that Liz incurred, offered her paid time off/disability coverage to recover, and perhaps even offered a settlement for pain and suffering. She did nothing wrong.

          1. Retail HR Guy*

            Sure, she did nothing wrong. But neither did the company. So why would they pay out more than any other workers’ comp claim (assuming workers’ comp even applies under these circumstances in their state)?

        5. Jesmlet*

          He is not *fine* and a phobia is not “whatever”. You can have sympathy for both without minimizing the other’s feelings or situation. I could just as easily say, “Broken arm/surgery, whatever, it’ll heal and she’ll never have to worry about it again. He needs to go to therapy regularly because of a mental illness that has him terrified of something he has to see every day”

          Ugh… the last time I felt this angry about so many of the comments was that one where the woman brought her sick kid to work.

        6. Loose Seal*

          She doesn’t “need” to find a new job; she is choosing to find a new job.

          He is not fine. Not only does he have a phobia of something that is very commonly encountered, he has the guilt and shame of knowing that he hurt someone.

          Plus, she was not “almost killed.” A broken arm does not a corpse make.

          1. LBK*

            Agreed on all accounts. Surely we can have a modicum of sympathy for someone who unintentionally caused serious physical harm to a coworker; obviously sympathy for the victim of that harm as well, but I’d think this incident would be pretty psychologically scarring for Jack.

          2. Mike C.*

            Her “choice” is for the sake of her personal safety.

            Also, it’s only luck that she wasn’t more severely injured. Had that been a less attentive driver or a heavier vehicle, it could have been a whole lot worse. You can’t disregard that so trivially.

            1. LBK*

              But it’s also (bad) luck that there happened to be a bird there, and that they were positioned in such a way that his reaction knocked her over, and that there happened to be a car there. There are situations you encounter probably every day where things could’ve been a lot worse if X were true. Hell, any time you get in car you’re at risk for serious injury.

              If he’d just tripped over his shoelaces and knocked her over, would you still feel the same way? The only way this is any different is if you assume that this could’ve been 100% prevented if Jack had gotten his phobia cured, and I don’t think that’s reasonable or fair. How many steps back through the cause and effect do we go before we’re comfortable not assigning blame?

              And the big question I keep coming back to: why does this matter to how the OP should handle the situation?

              1. Loose Seal*

                I agree. I also wonder what if we found out that Liz has osteoporosis that she refuses to treat and consequently sustained a bad break when others might have just been bruised and winded. Would it now be Liz’s fault that it’s a huge issue now?

                Again, it doesn’t matter to the OP and we could “what if” all day (and we are, as far as I can tell). I think for the OP, my advice would be this: Give Liz room to walk-back her resignation after she has healed a bit. Go ahead and list the position, have someone Liz trusts get her personal stuff together and deliver it to her (assuming Liz is unable and/or unwilling to come to the office to do it herself), and talk with Liz about the reference you’re willing to give for her.

                But as the injuries heal and her trauma subsides, she may regret having said “he goes or I go” and it would be kind to let her walk that back and not refer to the ultimatum again. I’d chalk it up to pain, fear, anger, pain meds, and more fear and let her ease herself back into the job if you haven’t already filled it.

                1. Aveline*

                  “Eggshell plaintiff”

                  You take your victim as you find them. If they unexpectedly fragile, too bad.

                2. Loose Seal*

                  Is that really a thing? I am both amused in a “you learn something new every day” kind of way and saddened in a “hate that it happens so often there’s a name for it” way.

              2. ZTwo*

                The thing this (intense) comment section really helps the OP with is knowing that, regardless of what happens, this is something all the other employees will have strong feelings about. I suspect this was already known, but it’s essential to have a plan in place on how to respond when people (inevitably) ask and talk about it. It’s especially important to give managers coaching on how to handle people’s feelings on it even if they don’t explicitly ask about what happened.

                I’m not sure if Jack has only disclosed his phobia to Liz or if it’s now known in the office. And while I think people shouldn’t need to disclose their mental illnesses to coworkers, if it’s not known it will look like Jack pushed Liz over for no reason and then stood by and did nothing. If people are never informed otherwise, that’s going to make Jack’s working life incredibly difficult (even disclosing can still make it difficult–see this thread–so I can’t say what the answer is, only that I would rather be known as the accidental injurer over the intentional injurer).

                Basically, I’d consider rehiring Liz a lost cost and make sure she’s treated well (the reference you would have given before, severance, worker’s comp, whatever). Instead I’d focus on:

                1) Making sure Jack has the support he needs to continue to work with coworkers who are almost definitely gossiping about him and possibly very wary of him.

                2) Make sure that people understand that this outcome wasn’t about not caring about Liz’s safety, lacking empathy for what happened to her, or not taking her concerns seriously. There are undoubtedly people who are going to feel like someone got hurt and the react was CYA (again, see this thread) and it’s in your best interest to mitigate that as best you can because that could kill morale and retention.

              3. Caleb*

                If he’d just tripped over his shoelaces and knocked her over, how would that change his criminal and civil liability?

                A lot, I’m guessing.

                But, magically, his bird phobia means that his employer could face ADA violations for any punitive action.

                1. LBK*

                  We’re not arbitrating a legal case here, though. The OP isn’t putting them on trial, just trying to figure out how to navigate the situation as it is now, and as it stands I don’t see a reason why the law would be the best guide.

            2. Loose Seal*

              Well, the car was pulling into a parking place, as I understand it. So while she was severely injured, it’s not like she was pushed into the freeway. And plenty of people are responding like she was. Personally, I’m a bit mystified that no one is blaming the driver of the car that hit her. They were pulling into a parking space where people were walking on the sidewalk ahead of them. Surely they would have been very attentive because of that, going very slowly and keeping an eye out while having their foot right on the brake. Does Liz want that person fired because they could not stop before hitting her?

              I’m also a bit baffled that any reasonable person thinks this is a personal safety issue for Liz. I mean, I get that Liz thinks that was but she’s had a severe trauma. Mike, do you think that this convergence of events is likely to happen often enough to cause someone in the company to genuinely fear for their personal safety or are you just advocating for Liz here? I mean, sure, the company could move the parking spaces so they aren’t next to the sidewalk and/or install those concrete bumpers to prevent a car from going forward. And I guess, they could have every employee disclose phobias and their reactions to triggers and then have seminars on how employees can protect themselves when working closely with someone who might panic. Firing Jack is really the tip of the iceberg when it comes to making Liz feel safe enough to work there. And if it turns out Liz has traumatophobia? It’s like a phobia-mobius at that company!

              1. JHunz*

                Being hit by a car at any speed is life-threatening. They are multi-ton hunks of metal and plastic, and will knock an adult human off their feet at practically a crawl. It takes a relatively minor change in positioning in an incident like that for the force of the impact to be on her head, which is would likely be permanently disabling if not immediately fatal.

    6. A.*

      Did I miss it, or was there no mention of the OP taking steps to ensure that no employee would be put in this position with Jack again? Why on earth would Liz come back without any assurance she wouldn’t be sent to an off site meeting again with Jack where something horrifying like this could happen again, or have to witness it happen to a coworker? I think her “out” is this awful thing happened and her employer would not take steps to make sure it never happened again.

      I don’t think Jack should be fired, he has a legit issue. But some change needs to be made so no employees are in the position where they could be pushed into the parking lot by him going to or coming from a meeting.

      1. Shabang*

        I have to wonder if Jack had let his employer know of the “legit issue”. An employer cannot accomodate issues if it isn’t made known.

        Example:
        I have been in treatment with my therapist for punching people in the face. This gets triggered randomly when people are near me. I have a note from my therapist confirming this. I haven’t bothered to tell anyone this. I punch someone at work. I pull out note, ex-post-facto and use it to explain my actions.

        Sorry. Maybe I’m incorrect, I am not a lawyer, but it seems reasonable that pulling out a note after the fact is a bit of a sticking point for me. Maybe if I mention to my therapist that I am late to work, take extended lunch, feel an overwhelming need to wear bedroom shoes and a G-string to work, and get it documented, then I can pull out a letter after the fact and never be fired for – well, anything I can get my therapist to document that we talked about.

        I am not making light of having such issues. Maybe I’m wrong, but if a company is supposed to “reasonable accomodate” issues, they are supposed to be aware of them. Before something occurs.

        1. Mona Lisa*

          I think this is a false equivalence. Your “issue” of punching people in the face is triggered by being near people, which is something that is likely to happen over the course of your workday and should be reported to HR as a possible issue by exposure to your every day tasks. Jack’s issue is ornithophobia. Unless he works directly with birds or outside where he is likely to come in contact with the animal he fears, he has no real reason to disclose a mental health issue because it is incredibly likely the issue will never arise in his place of work. It sounds like Jack and Liz happened to be outside for a few minutes of transition (car to office), there happened to be a bird, and Jack’s phobia was triggered by a situation that was incredibly unlikely to occur in the first place.

          I am very sympathetic to Liz here, especially as the person who was physically injured, but this was a freak accident. I think Jack waiting to apologize with HR was actually a better move because they were able to get a handle on the situation and document the apology and Liz’s response. The company should offer Liz some kind of compensation and make every effort to help her secure new employment by being a glowing reference. There should also be a discussion of how they intend to move forward now that Jack’s phobia has come to light.

            1. Mona Lisa*

              But he was hired to work in an office, not outside. It’s highly unlikely that he spends most of his time around his co-workers outside. It’s possible even that this was the first time he’d been outside in close proximity to a co-worker. If I do 99% of my work indoors and then sometimes travel to meetings, which require a total of 5 minutes roundtrip walking from the car to the office, and until now, all of that outdoors time had been conducted alone, why would I inform my employer of a phobia that only is triggered by an animal that lives outside?

              1. Kyrielle*

                This. At my previous job, it would never have occurred to me to disclose a phobia of birds if I had one. I nearly never was anywhere outside with coworkers – when I was, it was usually random chance.

                At my current job, if I had that phobia, I’d have to disclose it for sure – we have multiple buildings here that we have to walk between, and a pond that the geese like. I got (my whole team got) hissed at by a territorial goose on Monday on the way to a meeting.

                1. Mona Lisa*

                  Thank you. Yes, at OldJob, I would walk maybe a minute from the office door to the parking lot, and it was incredibly rarely in the company of my co-workers. We had off-site properties (campgrounds) that I never visited. Had I this phobia and was required to visit the off-site locations, I would definitely have disclosed the possible issue, but for the office job I actually held, there was absolutely no reason my co-workers would need this information about me.

                2. turquoisecow*

                  Even then, I might not disclose. Firstly, phobias are embarrassing. I don’t want my coworkers to make fun of me for being afraid of geese. Secondly, maybe there’s a longer route I could take to get into the building, or I could just run past them really quickly. If I thought I could handle it myself, and it didn’t affect my work inside the building? I don’t see why my boss needs to know.

                  For the record, I don’t have a bird phobia, but geese can be aggressive, and I was somewhat nervous walking past them into my old office, where geese nested regularly and sometimes walked across the sidewalk.

              2. Anon today...and tomorrow*

                The very moment he was asked to go off site for this meeting with other employees he knew that he was at risk for a bird encounter. That was the moment when he should have disclosed the phobia, not after he’d pushed an unsuspecting co-worker into the path of a moving vehicle.

            2. LawBee*

              I am literally never within five feet of a bird unless I’m at the pet store, and I live on the coast where they are everywhere. Come on. Someone with a bird phobia isn’t likely to be triggered by a bird in a tree eight feet away, but by one that is close enough to cause fear.

          2. Browser*

            It’s not an unlikely situation at all. Birds are all over the place outside and if he’s going to panic when he encounters one he needs to TELL PEOPLE THAT so they can stay out of range.

          3. A.*

            The company does need to make some kind of plan going forward. The ball is in their court now that the issue is known. When they hire Liz’s replacement, are they planning to send the new person to off site meetings with Jack without warning, business as usual, while the coworkers are whispering “does she know”? “Should we tell her?” Are we going to see a new letter a few months from now from Liz’s successor?

            1. Mona Lisa*

              I completely agree that the employer/manager/HR should come up with a reasonable accommodation for Jack now that they are committed to retaining him. I just disagree with the fact that Jack was somehow acting maliciously or purposefully withholding critical information by not declaring his phobia.

        2. my two cents*

          But on that theme Jack MAY have already asked for ‘accommodations’ such as not being seated near a window to avoid any bird collisions while working. If Jack had told anyone in the company about seeing a therapist, particularly so if he had also mentioned ‘phobia’, I’d imagine that’d count as some sort of ‘disclosure’.

          If the two had an otherwise good working relationship, this would quickly get lumped under ‘awful accident while at work’ and presumably they could have worked through it. The idea that she immediately quit, and then tried to hold the management to firing Jack, signals to me that there may have been other interpersonal issues between the two of them.

          1. Retail HR Guy*

            Yep. The EEOC and the courts play fast and loose with what counts as disclosing a disability to an employer. Oftentimes telling a coworker counts, which is pretty messed up given that the company becomes responsible for knowing about something that management and HR never had actual knowledge of.

    7. Lynne879*

      I don’t think Liz would look bad by saying “I quit because my coworker with a phobia of birds pushed me into a moving car and he wasn’t punished for it.”

      1. Loose Seal*

        Well, I admit I’m a horrible person sometimes but if Liz said that in an interview with me, I would think she looked pretty bad. I’d probably refer to her as “The Bird Lady” as I was discussing her candidacy with the other interviewers and/or her potential co-workers. And I would absolutely think that Liz was the type of person who made mountains out of molehills and was generally an ass to work with. I agree with you in advance that my assessment of her and her situation is both mean and hateful but, just predicting in advance, is very likely what I would do and think in that situation.

        And my reaction would be as described because: 1) “I quit because my coworker with a phobia of birds pushed me into a moving car and he wasn’t punished for it” sounds so unbelievable that I’d think she made it up. I only hope that if that’s what Liz says, then HR or whoever is giving her reference tells the entire story and doesn’t just give dates of employment, etc. and 2) I don’t think adults should use the word “punished” when talking about other adults. This is the part of that sentence that would make me assume Liz is a pain to work with.

        If Liz does decide to look for other work, I think she should think long and hard about what to say. She is unlikely to keep the bitterness toward Jack and the company out of her voice for a while, at least while she’s still in treatment for her injuries. (I’m not blaming her for this but it is unlikely to score points in an interview.) Even though it is a true story, she is not likely to be able to pull off a one-line summary of it in a professional way and it’s such a sensational story that telling the entire thing would seriously distract from the rest of the interview.

        She’d be better off saying that she’s been wanting different responsibilities/a better promotion path/new challenges/etc. than to tell the bird story. If she’s still in her cast while at interviews, she could say that while recovering from an accident, she thought that now would be a good time to put out feelers and she came across this job posting and it seemed to be a good fit because of blah, blah, etc.

        That was a long response for something that doesn’t even pertain to OP. Except that I hope that if Liz does choose to quit that OP and HR and any other potential references discuss with Liz what they are planning to say when potential new jobs call for a reference. If everyone agrees to tell the same tale, it will sound more reasonable and sympathetic rather than salacious and gossipy.

        1. Tuxedo Cat*

          I could see someone thinking she made it up or at least want inquire further with the OP or someone in HR. If the OP is likely to be called, they should maybe think about how to address this in a way that doesn’t make Liz sound like she made or exaggerated the story and in a way that doesn’t make her sound heartless all while making sure the OP’s office doesn’t sound heartless too.

          Writing that out- wow, that’s a huge task.

        2. Nicki Name*

          It seems like she could leave the bird out. “My co-worker injured me in a panic attack, and due to the way it was handled, I don’t feel safe in that office anymore.”

        3. Falling Diphthong*

          “My coworker pushed me into traffic due to a mental illness. I didn’t feel safe continuing to work with him.”

          1. Loose Seal*

            That is technically what happened. However, your word choice makes it seem like it was purposeful and not accidental and that it was shrugged off by the company.

            If Liz chooses to say your exact words and then the interviewer calls HR, say, to confirm, what do you think will happen to Liz’s credibility at that potentially new employer? They are going to be told that, in reality, a coworker had a panic reaction to a phobia trigger and bumped into Liz, inadvertently pushing her off the sidewalk and into a car that was parking. Remember how I said I’d think Liz was an ass to work with because it looks like she’s the type to make mountains out of molehills? Now I’d have proof that she’s at minimum a drama queen — remember, as an interviewer, I don’t know her or the extent of her injuries and I’m likely to believe her reference’s story more than hers — and I’d likely move on to consider other, less fraught, candidates.

            Regardless of how good it might feel to describe the event your way, it’s probably better for Liz in the long run, to be able to appear to be looking forward — i.e. what I can do for your company — rather than looking backward as she interviews.

            Y’all, I get that Liz is traumatized and I also get that many, many people feel for her in this situation. (I do too. I just don’t think that Jack’s actions rise to the level of a firing offense, as described by the OP.) But if Liz Googled this issue, she’s gonna find this thread. Do you really want to encourage her to blow her credibility at a time when she is likely going to need a good job that will let her have time off to go to follow-up appointments and will pay well enough for her to cover her medical bills until insurance decides it’s going to pay?

            1. Alice*

              Perhaps Liz wants to screen for workplaces where four days in the hospital isn’t considered a molehill and being concerned about safety after breaking your arm isn’t being a drama queen.

              That said, you’re right that it will be important for Liz to try to keep an even and professional tone. “I was seriously injured at work and decided to move on after the accident” seems like a turn of phrase that might pass muster with people who have different opinions about the incident.

            2. Caleb*

              Man.

              You get run over by a car and then come back and tell people about what mole hills are.

            3. Lynxa*

              He may just have just bumped into her, or he may literally have shoved her out of his way and into the path of a car in his panic to get away from the bird. We don’t know that it was inadvertent.

              I had a friend claw up my neck and chest trying to get away from a spider because she was in such a panic she didn’t realize she could go *around* and thought she had to go *through*. While she didn’t fully realize what she was doing at the time, it was not inadvertent.

            4. Falling Diphthong*

              As others have said–four days in the hospital is a molehill?

              I didn’t say Jack should be fired. We know absolutely nothing about how he feels–whether he is drowning in remorse or resentful that Liz embarrassed him by falling wrong. We don’t know how the rest of the office feels about working with him going forward, which would probably be a significant factor in whether the company should fire him. (I think not telling anyone that he had a severe phobia that could cause him to barrel right over anyone in his path is enough cover for the company, if they want an excuse to fire him, which it doesn’t seem they do.)

              I do think Liz has every reason to plan to not be in a position where he can knock into her again. Even if people like you sneer “drama queen” at her for viewing a smashed arm and near death as some sort of ‘thing.’

              1. Loose Seal*

                I’m pointing out how an interviewer who doesn’t know Liz or this story might interpret your one-liner. So yeah, when someone says “pushed me into traffic” when they really meant “knocked me into a car that was in the process of parking and couldn’t possibly have been going more than a couple of miles per hour”, I’m going to have an issue with their tendency to exaggerate. As Alison frequently says, interviewers only have limited data when making a decision. If there are two semi-equal candidates, it would be natural to choose the one who hasn’t already raised your eyebrow.

                I’m not certain where people are getting “near death.” According to the letter she was no nearer to death than anyone else that day. That’s the exaggeration I’m referring to. Even if it turned out that Jack, with malice aforethought, shoved Liz into oncoming traffic, she was not “near death” or surely it would have been mentioned in the paragraph where OP detailed the injuries.

                1. Tippi Hedren*

                  @Loose Seal. It is absolutely breathtaking the amount of mental gymnastics your are engaging in because you feel a personal affinity for Jack’s mental illness. And you seem to have very little patience or empathy for Liz’s physical and mental state. The actions of her coworker resulted in a traumatic experience for her! Full stop. Imagine looking at Jack everyday and recalling the trauma of the injury. Why is her fear response irrational and his to be worked around? She was quite literally nearer to death that day because 3,500 pounds of metal and plastic hit her in such a way to snap her bones. Your response is for her to be a good girl, don’t get mad, consider Jack’s feelings, and not make a mountain of a molehill in future interviews. By your own turn of logic that you applied to Liz, Jack should have sucked it up and realized that he was not in any danger from an innocuous bird (I’m not saying that’s the case, I’m just saying that you are really in the can for Jack)

    8. Minister of Snark*

      “I was injured on site due to the actions of a coworker and I wasn’t comfortable returning to the workplace.”

      I don’t think that would make her look that bad.

  2. Leah*

    I’m not sure I agree with your response to #1. Yeah it’s a documented illness, but he pushed another employee into the path of a moving car. I really don’t think that there would be any ADA issue with firing/disciplining him- allowing assault to go unpunished is far beyond a reasonable accommodation. Maybe firing might be too much but just having him apologize is way too little.

    1. copy run start*

      IANAL, but doesn’t assault require some sort of intent to harm? Based on what we know, Jack was not trying to hurt Liz. He reacted out of fear (that is documented) and happened to unfortunately push Liz into harm’s way.

      1. Artemesia*

        So I see a gunman approach and I am terrified, so I pick up the 4 year old and hold him in front of me as a shield. Okay? Not assault. Because panicked?

        1. copy run start*

          I’m not going to debate wildly different scenarios with you, especially not ones using children to up the horror factor of your strawman argument. We can discuss the presented situation or nothing at all.

        2. LN*

          Okay, this is a stretch and you know it. Deliberately picking up someone to use as a human shield isn’t the same as accidentally knocking them over in the process of running away. He should have been more careful, but phobias don’t often allow for anything but a knee-jerk reaction.

        3. Forrest*

          I think you may know that since you keep having to resorting to using kids in your scenarios you’re reaching a little bit.

          If you’re arguing that what Jack did is bad and worth firing him over, then the age of the person he harmed doesn’t matter.

        4. Mookie*

          He didn’t knock Liz into the bird to protect himself. The physical contact was accidental, in the course of fleeing, and not intentional.

          1. Speechless*

            That very much depends how you read the letter. To me how it’s worded says he pushed her out of his way. Not that he bumped her as he brushed past. Now, I appreciate that he likely didn’t know who he was pushing or care in that moment due to his panicked state, but that doesn’t mean he didn’t deliberately push her out of his path, just that he did so without much or any conscious control over it. That isn’t an accident, it’s still a deliberate act on his part, it just means his actions and emotions were not under his control at that time due to his mental illness. We don’t allow people with other mental illnesses to go around harming people and blaming their conditions. It’s up to the person with those illnesses to inform their management what accommodations they need and to also manage their conditions well enough to keep the general public safe from them.

            If Jack was walking through a city square and a pigeon landed next to him, and he pushed over an old lady as he ran away, and she broke her arm, would we all be saying oh poor Jack should just get away with a forced apology because he couldn’t help it? No, everyone would be saying that Jack needs to pay for her medical bills and were it my grandma, I’d be saying Jack needs to be up on charges. His inability not to push people over while he runs away from whatever he’s afraid of is not the responsibility of the people around him. It’s HIS.

            1. Mookie*

              Again, I’m responding to an analogy about someone intentionally using a child as a shield. The OP writes that Liz was separated from Jack by less than a “step.” The language is quite clear. Nothing suggests a deliberate action and, anyway, intent doesn’t necessarily absolve people of responsibility.

            2. ThursdaysGeek*

              Right. The example of Artemesia was not that helpful, but Jack did have a responsibility to manage his disease in such a way that he doesn’t accidentally hurt others. He doesn’t have to tell the company, but keeping his distance from others, making sure he has a safe exit route while he is outside – he could have done that and did not. Perhaps he thought his disease was under better control, and the bird surprised him. But he did have a responsibility too, and he failed in taking adequate precautions. Being separated from someone else by less than a step, while outside, is something he could have known could be a problem, even if he thought the only danger was jostling the other person.

            3. Saucy Minx*

              Yes, I too have been wondering about the safety of all the people outside this building who are not Jack’s CWs, & people elsewhere that he may have occasion to be. His work cannot oblige him to acquire coping mechanisms in their behalf, so it’s to be hoped that he will get more helpful therapy than he now has & apply it generally rather than just for the benefit of current CWs.

        5. LawBee*

          That is an utterly ridiculous strawman argument. Accidentally knocking someone down who fell into the path of a car is not the same thing as deliberately grabbing a child and using him as a shield, and you know it.

        6. Amy The Rev*

          I think a better analogy would be you’re in a crowded space and there’s a gunman, and as everyone is fleeing, someone gets jostled and falls and sustains a trampling injury. Would the person who caused them to lose their balance be considered negligent in some way, for not taking care to avoid jostling other people as they flee? Would the crowd be negligent/at fault for not remaining calm in the face of danger? I’m deliberately using the gunman analogy because 1. you introduced it, and 2. at least for me with a phobia of bees, in the moment, when a bee is within 10 feet of me, it really does feel like my life is in danger (I’m also allergic to bees, so there’s that, too). I’m terrified that one day I’ll be driving and a bee will somehow get into my car, I honestly don’t know if I’d be able to stay calm enough to be able to pull over safely, because it’s (thankfully) never happened before.

      2. Gadfly*

        Which still, legally, can be charged for things like negligence. And there are hosts of civil things she could file for besides criminal.

        1. Mb13*

          I think pitbuls are supper cute dogs. But if a pitbul bites you, it doesn’t matter that it has been abused, you have a problem. And that problem is a bating pitbul. As such it doesn’t matter that Jack has a mental disorder, you have a problem. Luckily the other coworker solved the problem (though I feel like she’s the real victim here. Hopefully her next job will be fantastic)

          1. Forrest*

            Yes, but you can’t put Jack to sleep. So why is the automatic solution to fire an employee with an documented medical solution that has a “problem” that can be worked around?

            1. Doe-eyed*

              Well for one, the documentation occurred after the fact. If the employer had known about it before the fact, Jack may not have been sent to offsite meetings in uncontrolled environments, especially given the possibility he may have his phobia triggered and nearly kill someone. He exposed the company to financial burden (workman’s comp for Liz) without their knowledge or consent.

              1. Forrest*

                He’s not legally required to disclose his health to his employer. If Jack felt that he couldn’t manage his condition in uncontrolled environments, he should have told them. But he’s not required to do so and he may have felt he was in 100% control. Again, if this is the first time it happened and/or a very rare occurrence, Jack shouldn’t have his career limited because of a condition covered by the law.

                Everything is an uncontrolled environment for the most part and everybody exposes their company a potential financial burden.

                There are people who may react badly to a car back firing because it sounds like a gun to them. Are they required to give their company a heads up?

                2. Forrest*

                  How do you define “likely”? Once a week? Twice a year? Once every five years?

                  We have no information here about how common this is for Jack.

                4. Gadfly*

                  But how many of us are likely to panic in response to common stimuli so badly that we run away, pushing over anyone in our path? Sure, lots of us startle and might shriek or jump–but how many are running and pushing people over? (For common occurrences, not gunmen and escaped lions or alien invasions…)

                5. Forrest*

                  Well, depending on how long Jack’s been at the company and that this appears to be his first incidence…maybe as likely as him? I mean, if you have a guy who had one incidence in that two years he’s worked there, I think that may put him at the same risk factor as other people. In fact, his risk would be less because they know about it and can prepare for it and the fact that it’s so common and this is the first time it happens would actually put so comfort on it.

              1. Forrest*

                Are we really concerned that this will be a weekly occurrence?

                They know that they should keep their distance from him outdoors. Or ask him to keep his distance. I’m not seeing why this is a complicated problem to deal with going forward. ( That’s the key phrase.)

                1. TL -*

                  Honestly, I think once is too much. Even if it’s an accident (and it was), one incident that lands another employee in the hospital for emergency surgery is one incident too many.

                2. Forrest*

                  By that logic, he can’t and/or should never hold a job. And god forbid if any other employee causes an accident.

                  You can’t predict accidents. That’s the very nature of accidents. You can prepare for them and learn from them to prevent it from happening again. And I respect your thoughts on it but I don’t agree that Jack should lose his job over it.

                3. TL -*

                  @Forrest No, “Once is too much” means that if it happens, you get fired because it shouldn’t have happened in the first place, regardless of the reason it happened. It means you don’t get a second chance. It doesn’t mean you have to stop existing in public or can’t get another job.

            3. Gadfly*

              Can it be worked around when the problem now is that another employee cannot be reasonably expected to work with him or be anywhere near him? Depends on the size of the building, I guess…

              1. Forrest*

                Yup. But we’ll never know because it doesn’t appear Liz was settling for anything less.

                2. Forrest*

                  I think if you’re at a “him or me” point, it’s safe to say not much would change that.

            1. TheOriginalMags*

              Please do not perpetuate breed discrimination either! Why would you specify pitbull here??

            2. Anna*

              We are animals. We just seem to have more highly functioning brains.

              Although today I’m seeing that as more a working theory than a given fact.

          3. A Teacher*

            Please don’t stigmatize a breed of dogs or compare them to a human with a phobia! Breed discrimination is very real and very alive in the US and totally not okay.

            1. Anion*

              Dog breeds are and were deliberately created by man to do certain things or behave in certain ways (or in some cases look certain ways). Getting a retriever because you want a dog who will love retrieving things, or not getting a malamute because you don’t want a super high-energy dog, is not “breed discrimination.” If I say “Pointers point,” that is not “breed discrimination.” Using Belgian Malinois for police work is not “breed discrimination.” Those dogs were bred, those breeds were deliberately created, to do certain things, have certain traits, and behave in certain ways. Is a Pug exactly like a St. Bernard which is exactly like a Cocker Spaniel which is exactly like a Pekingese?

              The person comparing dogs to humans here is you, by referring to defining breeds by their man-created in-bred traits as “discrimination.”

              This is all very OT, can we not leap all over someone for mentioning a dog breed?

      3. Observer*

        In this context, I don’t think it matters. The reality is that if someone poses a danger to others, that’s a bona fide problem, and an employer has the right to act on a genuine safety issue.

      4. Turanga Leela*

        The rules about proving assault are different in different states, and “assault” can mean either hitting someone or deliberately scaring someone, depending on which state you’re in. But from the letter, it’s not clear whether Jack meant to push Liz or whether he accidentally pushed her out of the way as he fled. If he didn’t mean to push her, then punishing him seems extreme, just as it would be extreme to punish someone who was jogging outside of work and accidentally bumped into a coworker.

        I don’t think calling it an assault is helpful here. This isn’t limited to this situation—I think a lot of the time bringing in legal terminology doesn’t do much to clarify things. It makes sense to me that the employer wouldn’t punish Jack for something he didn’t mean to do. It also makes sense that Liz wouldn’t want to work with Jack after the incident.

        1. Turanga Leela*

          Also (forgot to say this): the ADA can get complicated. It’s not obvious that the company could discipline Jack without creating ADA issues. I don’t practice in this area, so I really wouldn’t want to say either way, but I think it’s a mistake to dismiss the employer’s ADA concerns out of hand.

        2. Princess Consuela Banana Hammock*

          Agreed re: calling this assault in the legalistic sense is not helpful, and also agreed that there could be legitimate ADA issues at play.

          But although we can debate whether OP#1 should have fired Jack, I don’t think it’s super helpful/useful in answering the question regarding whether or not to cajole Liz to work (I think the answer to that is no; she quit and the matter is closed).

          2. Turtle Candle*

            Yes, I agree: the question seems to boil down to “how can we get Liz to come back?” and at this point I think the best answer is “don’t try.” Even granting that it isn’t Jack’s fault that he knocked her in front of a car, it’s perfectly reasonable that Liz doesn’t want to work with him after that. (And, LW, please don’t give her a bad reference based on this, even if it is an inconvenience. I assume you wouldn’t, but just in case–this is very far from a usual case of ‘quit without notice.’)

            1. Tuckerman*

              Right. I think the question should be, how do we support Liz through this transition?

          3. Blue*

            This. There are separate issues here — how to handle Jack (it sounds like the company — and presumably police? — decided this was an accident, that he has a documented phobia, and already made a choice on whether to impose disciplinary action). And then how to handle Liz, the victim of the accident who quit and has issued an ultimatum that the company fire Jack.

          4. CM*

            No, don’t cajole Liz to work. Apologize profusely and give her a severance package and cover her medical bills.

      5. Princess Consuela Banana Hammock*

        With the caveat that the definition of the tort of assault varies significantly by jurisdiction and is often conflated with battery. Generally speaking, the intent requirement is intending to instill the fear of being harmed or causing “offensive or harmful contact.” Harmful and offensive contact have a pretty broad meaning.

        All that said, you’re probably in negligence territory for any civil action, and probably are looking at some form of misdemeanor assault (i.e., physical contact that a person knew or should have known would likely cause harm).

      6. GraceW*

        And then after she was injured he did nothing. How does this man walk on a public street–any time he’s outside, he might see a bird close to him. I think his actions are deplorable and he’s lucky Liz didn’t sue him.

        1. Anonymous for mental illness*

          You’re right that walking on a public street would be hard. Phobias have a pretty big impact on your life. That’s actually part of the diagnostic criteria for them.

          Not to defend Jack’s actions, by the way, just responding as someone with a phobia to a comment about phobias.

          1. Mookie*

            He’s allowed to exist outside in public. He is not imposing his phobia and anxiety on people or using it as a weapon. It was an accident. Anyone can be startled into accidental physical contact; nothing precludes this from happening to anyone. His inability to apologize at the scene does not suddenly make this a crime or him a selfish person. Nothing he was doing — walking — was reckless. You cannot mitigate against every possible, tiny risk and it’s unreasonable to suggest that he should do what no one else can.

            1. Temperance*

              This is not totally correct, in any way. He knows that he has this mental health issue, and he has the burden of protecting the public from his outbursts. Same logic has been used when people with intellectual disabilities harm others in public; it’s part of being in society that you don’t hurt others, and you are financially on the hook when you do.

              1. Princess Consuela Banana Hammock*

                That’s true, but I don’t think “reckless indifference” is an accurate description of his mental state.

              2. Mookie*

                Everyone is equally obligated to protect others from inadvertent reactions. He does not have a special burden to do that.

        3. Princess Consuela Banana Hammock*

          I understand that what he did invokes really strong feelings of contempt or anger, but I don’t think it’s fair to belittle Jack for “doing nothing.” Phobias that inspire this level of a panic response are real, and if a bird was indeed near Liz, then I don’t blame Jack for being in the throes of a panic attack that prevented him from “doing something” in the moment. I do wish he had apologized of his own volition, but perhaps he felt extremely ashamed by what had happened and didn’t know how to raise the issue with a coworker who was justifiably enraged.

          1. Speechless*

            What he could have done was ask for the accommodations he needed to make everyone including himself safe before this happened. If his colleagues had known this was possible they might have walked behind him, put him next to the curb, let him go into the building before or after them. There are all kinds of things Jack could have done in advance of this which would have prevented his colleague needing surgery because he pushed her in front of a car and it broke her arm.

            1. Mookie*

              His employer cannot wrangle birds or make them disappear and, presumably, he sometimes has to leave the office and that requires walking. He has no obligation, legal or ethical, to disclose a phobia and anxiety to his employer in this scenario.

              2. Speechless*

                Ok, but now he DOES have responsibility for his co-worker’s injuries. If she sues him she is very likely to win. If she had known not to walk in front of him outdoors where birds live this wouldn’t have happened.

                1. Sunflower*

                  Ok then she can sue. People sue people for accidents all the time and she can do so. It doesn’t mean Jack should be fired.

              3. I'm Anon for this too*

                OK, so just let the coworkers beware, they may be working with someone who has a secret disability that could harm them. No. The rights of the mentally ill must be balanced with the rights of others in the workplace. The seriously hurt co-worker is the victim here, not enough sympathy is is being shown for her in my opinion..

                That said, Jack’s illness is a tough one. Birds are everywhere. He could work at home and attend meetings remotely, I suppose. I can see and hear birds from inside my house though. I don’t assume Jack is an asshole who doesn’t care that he caused his coworker serious pain. But he should want a plan in place to avoid, as much as possible, this type of situation happening again. Including intense desensitization therapy.

                I say this as someone who has lived with anxiety and depression for decades, and who has a bipolar child. I do not allow her to use her bipolar diagnosis as a reason for mistreating me.

                If I were the hurt co-worker, looking at Jack would trigger something like PTSD. So let her go in peace OP. Its a shame that the victim here has to find a new job, but you cannot have them working together now. If you can structure the work so that these two would have minimal contact, maybe she would go she would go for it. Or a consultancy arrangement.

                Good luck to all involved.

              4. The Final Pam*

                And honestly, given the stigma mental illness still unfortunately has I can’t blame anyone for not disclosing that to an employer.

            2. Trillian*

              I can understand why he would not disclose. People do not get phobias. If this is a long-term phobia, he has probably experienced shaming, mockery, advice, and pranking. Worse, I expect, because he’s male, and men aren’t supposed to be ‘scared’. He misjudged, grossly, but the rest of us have to do better and make it safe to disclose these conditions.

              That said, if I were Liz, I would have quit, too. I would have been furious if my employer’s self-interest led them to push me to come back before I was both physically and mentally ready to face someone who had, even inadvertently, injured me. Liz saying fire Jack may be Liz’s way of shutting down the pressure, since she knows they won’t do it. Or it may be a “prove you give a damn” challenge. This required sensitive and compassionate handling of both parties, and it seems to me that it has been driven entirely by legality and self-interest.

              1. Anon for now*

                This +. If anything the comments here are making me wary to disclose my phobia. My god, if this is the way my co-workers would respond to my phobia of roaches, I’m never disclosing it.

                1. cercis*

                  Sadly, I think you’re wise not to disclose it. I had a coworker who had documented that she was seeing a therapist for her phobia of bugs (I don’t know if it was a specific bug) and yet coworkers were allowed to get away with placing plastic bugs on her desk and other areas of the office where she’d see them and freak out. In a healthy workspace, the coworkers would have been disciplined, but it didn’t happen.

                  I’ve seen similar in other offices where the coworkers just had a strong startle reaction. It was seen as a form of team building for the other coworkers to pull pranks involving the trigger (whether a plastic bug, paper airplanes aimed at the worker, sudden loud noises, etc) and laugh at the response.

              2. Nelle Jefe*

                +1

                While I can understand why he’d be reluctant to disclose, I think this illustrates why it’s better in general to disclose. I have a fish phobia, and I have always made sure that my coworkers (I do field work that could put me into contact with fish) and hiking buddies are aware of it, just in case something like this comes up. It definitely sucks that there are people who would use phobia knowledge as a way to be cruel to coworkers, but for me, that would be a reason to not work in a particular place.

                The fact that others know about my phobia helps enormously, because I don’t have to put up a brave front and possibly be startled into a panic situation — I can talk about it ahead of time with those around me, which tends to give me much better coping strategies in the moment, both reducing the chances of a panic response and giving others information that helps them protect themselves and me if they see a potentially triggering situation.

                I tend to bring it up in a light, self-deprecating way, and so far I’ve never had a truly terrible response from anyone I work with. Some light teasing, perhaps. I’m sure some people have rolled their internal eyes at me. But it makes a world of difference knowing that I can just say, ‘When I get in the water, I’m going to yell at fish. Deal with it,’ and that’s exactly what they do. (I do a lot of ‘Hey fish! Get away from me! No fish, stay away!’ — it helps.)

            3. AD*

              This is asinine. What plausible workplace accomodation could someone seek with a bird phobia? And this happened outside, not in an office.
              As others have said, feelngs of anger towards Jack are understandable, but the reflex to point fingers at someone with a documented phobia is a little cruel (and that is accepting that what Liz went through was awful).

              1. Gadfly*

                Well, how about starting with not requiring him to be outside on anything work related so the birds don’t trigger this?

              2. Lablizard*

                Off the top of my head, I would restrict off site travel and meetings as much as possible. If he is not outdoors on business, there is less chance of bumping into birds in the course of his duties.

            4. Princess Consuela Banana Hammock*

              I disagree—this approach focuses on how to punish Jack as opposed to determining how to prevent future harms. Presumably, until this point, Jack’s reaction to his phobia had not caused another person this level of physical harm. If he had been able to prevent catastrophic consequences in the past, it makes sense that he may not have disclosed or sought accommodation because he thought he had it under control. And I don’t support requiring individuals with mental illnesses to out themselves to their employers in order to show they’re “deserving.”

              Now that OP knows that Jack has less control over his reaction than might have been assumed, the focus should be on future prevention, not on beating Jack over the head for having a mental illness and for failing to disclose it.

          2. NW Mossy*

            It’s also quite common for people without a mental-illness diagnosis to find themselves unable to help in a crisis medical situation. Not everyone can remain cool-headed and spring into action to assist, or has the necessary skills to be of any use in so doing. And perhaps most of all, any of us who’ve never been a close witness to something like this (and I include myself here) can’t really know for certain how we’d react.

            Long story short, I don’t think we can definitively read malice into Jack’s non-action after the injury, and I also don’t think we can per se attribute it to his phobia.

            2. Anon today...and tomorrow*

              Agreed. My only phobia in life is a crippling fear of zombies. My MD thinks I’ll be okay with this unless there’s a zombie apocolypse otherwise I avoid places and things where I know I might run into someone dressed as a zombie. TV shows, movies, and any kind of costumed event are carefully vetted. I once saw a movie that had a zombie movie trailer and it freaked me out so bad that I literally climbed over my husband in a blind panic to get out of the theater.

              While this is my only phobia, I can let you all know that I am not a person you want with you in a crisis. My flight or fight almost always reverts to flight in any kind of stressful situation. A co-worker sustained a pretty nasty knee injury at a company I used to work for. She hit the ground crying in pain, everyone rushed forward except me, I ran in the opposite direction. I usually “come to” a few seconds later which was why I kept running and got to a phone to call 911, but it’s not always a sure thing. It’s weird to me what stressful situations will trigger the flight. My daughter fell once and was immediately caught by my husband and soothed…I ran. My daughter fell another time, couldn’t breathe and passed out…I ran in like a boss and handled it.

              Jack may not be my favorite person but his lack of response is too ambiguous to read into here.

            3. Carolyn*

              “It’s also quite common for people without a mental-illness diagnosis to find themselves unable to help”

              This is an excellent point and I agree completely. We have all heard of “fight or flight”, but there are actually 3, not 2 responses … the 3rd is “freeze” – there is a certain percentage of the population that simply shuts down in a response to danger or emergency. Has nothing to do with mental illness, it’s their natural response. Additionally, there are plenty of people who think that their best contribution is staying out of the way so that “someone else” can step in … even if there really isn’t anyone else around.

        4. Mustache Cat*

          Calling his actions deplorable is far too much. I think it’s clear that he did not do this deliberately, or even with conscious input

        5. Detective Amy Santiago*

          Yes, how dare he have a debilitating mental illness that he is seeking treatment for.

          From the way it’s described in the letter, this wasn’t just him seeing a bird close to him and freaking out, this was a bird flying deliberately at him, triggering his phobia, and resulting in what sounds like a panic attack.

          1. caryatis*

            Haha, I don’t think the bird “flew deliberately at him.” It just flew. Let’s not blame the bird!

            2. Anion*

              Hey, you don’t know! Birds remember faces! I bet it knew just what it was doing.

              Maybe this is just the beginning… *cue theme music to “the Birds.”

              :-)

              1. Dankar*

                And crows “hold grudges against those who’ve wronged them” according to one study this past year.

                1. Anon today...and tomorrow*

                  Interesting. Crows creep me out. I grew up near a beautiful and famous cemetery and there were always crows hanging about. I’d have to walk by this cemetery nearly every day and was also on edge (see above thread re: my phobia of zombies) and those crows would always watch me walk past the fence from their perch on the tombstones. I once asked one to warn me if a Zombie was coming. First time I saw a bird laugh.

                2. oranges & lemons*

                  I was glad to see this study, because this happened to me! I walked too close to a nest one time, and for a couple of years afterwards, I kept getting dive-bombed by crows all over the city.

        7. JB (not in Houston)*

          It’s unlikely that his phobia is triggered every single time he sees a bird close to him. Indeed, in this case, that’s not what happened.

      7. paul*

        You can sue for bodily harm that *didn’t* arise from assault though. People sue for injury incurred in accidents all the time.

        1. Katie the Fed*

          Absolutely. Assault – no. Negligence – yes. I imagine Liz will be pursuing legal action against him and the company, as she should.

          1. fposte*

            I don’t think the actual lawyers have weighed in here yet (though I may have missed it), but given that the company apparently had no preknowledge of risk, I’d be surprised if she had a case against the company; and of course if it ends up under worker’s comp, that will limit her remedy against them anyway.

      8. DArcy*

        No, assault doesn’t require intent.

        Under “normal” circumstances, pushing someone into traffic the way Jack did would be aggravated assault and/or attempted murder. Under the unusual circumstances which the OP describes, he’s only guilty of “regular” assault and battery, plus failure to render aid. In some states, he could also be charged with failure to render aid.

        1. Dweali*

          Your definition of assault is most likely specific to state and locale of where the incident occurred….at least if you’re trying to use it in the legal sense and not the colloquial sense

        2. Yorick*

          Any crime requires intent, or a willful negligence. Bumping into someone so that they fall into traffic would never be considered assault.

          (I understand some people are interpreting the letter as that he deliberately pushed her, but that’s not what my interpretation was)

        3. Detective Amy Santiago*

          Actually, if we want to get super technical, assault is making a threat and battery is the act of physically harming someone. And both actually do require intent.

          Jack could possibly be charged with negligence or reckless behavior.

          1. Gravel*

            “Actually, if we want to get super technical, assault is making a threat and battery is the act of physically harming someone. And both actually do require intent..”

            To get even more technical: That depends on the jurisdiction and whether we are talking criminal or civil assault.

            As for intent….depends upon what type of crime or tort. “Intent” also varies by jurisdiction.

            He may or may not have had “intent”. We don’t know enough to say one way or the other.

            We can’t tell from the letter what, if any, crime or torts were committed.

            Period.

            1. Aveline*

              “We can’t tell from the letter what, if any, crime or torts were committed.”

              +100000

    2. misspiggy*

      Yes – how can having a phobia be used to justify assault? Being in treatment doesn’t seem to be relevant if Jackson management of his condition is so poor.

      I think Liz is being very reasonable in not wanting to work with Jack, although demanding he be fired goes beyond what she has a right to request. If Liz had asked for Jack to be moved that might have been more sensible – I wonder what the response would have been then?

      2. Forrest*

        But you don’t know if Jack’s management is poor. One bad moment doesn’t mean he’s not managing to prevent 500 other moments.

        1. Starbuck*

          True, but it seems reasonable to assume that if one bad moment has already occurred, another is possible (perhaps likely) in the future.

          1. Forrest*

            I didn’t say otherwise. But you’re still talking about a potential future incidence that will (hopefully, if the company has a clue) have some kind of work around to prevent it.

            1. Starbuck*

              The fact that it’s already happened seems reason enough for legitimate concern. And the only way the company can guarantee this won’t happen again is by firing Jack. If I knew one of my coworkers had put someone in the hospital, I certainly would not expect to see them at work the next day (or ever again).

              1. Forrest*

                I never said it wasn’t a legitimate concern. Why would I say the company should create work arounds to prevent it from happening again if I didn’t think it was legitimate?

                There are a lot of mistakes people make that you can guarantee won’t happen again by firing that person. There was a letter a while ago about a guy who put scissors on a friend’s chair and he was injured. Should he be fired too?

                1. Starbuck*

                  I’m thinking of the travel booker who was fired for sending her boss to the wrong country. Just a mistake, and it probably never would have happened again- but she got fired and the commentariat seemed to be in agreement that was a reasonable course of action. The cost of that mistake was probably similar to the hospital bills Liz is going to end up with.

      3. nonegiven*

        We don’t know where he started 2 years ago. He may not have been able to tolerate seeing a picture of a feather on a hat 2 years ago.

    3. Anons*

      I agree. Pushing someone off a curb leading to serious injuries is a huge deal. It doesn’t matter if he has a phobia.

      I would have a hard time working with Jack after something like that. I’d probably have a hard time working at a company where all Jack suffers is a forced apology while I’m in pain, having to deal with a broken arm (which can make many basic tasks difficult), and possibly stuck with the financial costs.

      I’d be filing a workers comp claim against the company and/or suing Jack.

      1. Leah*

        It just occurred to me that Jack didn’t even pay for her hospital bills. The more I think about this the angrier I am. I have a mental illness that can cause me to be extremely upset, to say the least, and I would fully deserve and expect to get fired if I pulled something like this. OP, just because we have mental illness does not mean we are morally deficient and cannot face consequences for our actions. I know you probably don’t think that, but allowing violence in the workplace to go unpunished simply because the perpetrator had a disorder (which, if so severe to cause harm to others, should have been disclosed earlier) sends that message.

        1. Dizzy Steinway*

          I think Jack could really do with having strategies in place for while out in public where he might see birds. (Also, two years is a long time to be treated with so little improvement – maybe he needs a new therapist.) Not least because if she had died, he could have ended up in prison.

          1. Wow*

            That’s…pretty judgemental. Maybe give Jack the benefit of the doubt and don’t judge people for whom anxiety is a plus-two year issue.

            1. Dizzy Steinway*

              Sorry, you misunderstood me. I know anxiety can be a long-lasting issue. I’m not judging Jack. But being in treatment for a phobia for over two years and still having this strong a reaction suggests he’s not getting effective treatment. I’m judging his therapist, not him.

              1. Princess Consuela Banana Hammock*

                Very much agreed. The problem here is that Jack isn’t receiving adequate support to cope with common, everyday occurrences that are going to continually trigger him. Pushing someone in front of a car is a pretty bfd.

                1. JessaB*

                  I think the “pushing someone in front of a car” is a bit I don’t know how to phrase this but Inflammatory? He ran and bumped into her, she went off a curb, he is still panicking so his flight response is on utter high. I’m not even sure if he would have been aware that she had been injured or that if she called after him for help, he even registered her voice. Now I agree, he needed to apologise, and I agree asking her back with him still there is an absolute no-go unless you have another location you can send him to where she won’t have to see him. And YES he should be the one who is moved and inconvenienced by this mess.

                  But I mostly think that a lot of people are presuming he was in complete control of himself when he just wasn’t. That he was self and situationally aware which he probably was NOT. This was an accident not an on purpose.

                  I do fully support though that the office not argue a bit about this being a worker’s comp claim and her medical and therapy bills should be paid. Also a good reference and NOT fighting unemployement. Or maybe I’d talk to the corporate lawyers and question how to phrase a severance agreement, since it’s a big deal for her and HER fears, not to come back to a place where she can’t trust her coworkers. She was obviously a valued employee before this horrible thing happened to her. I think she should be treated as one.

                2. Princess Consuela Banana Hammock*

                  You’re right—I should have been more careful with my language. In my head I’ve been thinking of this as more of a shove, but it’s absolutely possible that this was a small “bump” that had big consequences.

                  I think this was an accident. But I also think it’s going to happen to Jack, again, and hopefully he’s getting effective therapeutic support to find ways to be able to cope more effectively with his phobia. But it’s also possible that the phobia is so deeply ingrained that traditional coping strategies are not effective for him.

                3. DArcy*

                  The OP explicitly states that he didn’t run and bumped into her, he shoved her directly into the path of a car that was pulling up to the curb to park and so close that the driver was unable to stop before hitting her. So yes, he very literally pushed her in front of a car and that is not “inflammatory” at all.

                  That he was not in complete control of his actions is what decreases this from aggravated assault and attempted murder to the far less serious offense of simple assault and battery. He’s still guilty of that, and it’s rather disturbing that OP seems to think it’s unreasonable of Liz to be traumatized by a situation where she was nearly killed by a coworker’s actions.

                4. Hrovitnir*

                  If we’re nitpicking wording DArcy yes, he *pushed* and didn’t *bump* but he also pushed her “out of the way” and she fell off the curb in the way of a car, not “he pushed her in front of a car”.

                  I don’t feel I should have to specify that I don’t think this was all OK because obviously I don’t. I just disagree vehemently with the vitriolic responses I’m seeing here.

                5. Zillah*

                  @DArcy – The OP said:

                  Liz was less than a step ahead of him and he pushed her out of the way when he was running. Liz fell off the curb and got hit by a car that was parking.

                  That is not explicitly stating that he shoved her directly into the path of a car so close that the driver was unable to stop before hitting her. I don’t want to parse words, but at the same time, the scenario you’re presenting brings to mind a violent push directly into a car, and while it’s possible that you’re right, it’s not what the OP explicitly said. We also have no idea if Liz was “nearly killed.”

              2. Chocolate lover*

                We have no idea where Jack started though in terms of severity of his phobia, so there’s no way to measure how far he has or has not come. Two years is also not necessarily a particularly long time in terms of treating some people and some phobias, and it’s not for anyone else to judge the efficacy of his treatment.

                1. Dweali*

                  Exactly…how many other instances has his therapy cause him to avoid…this is definitely a situation that he should speak with his therapist but to automatically say he needs to find a new one is extreme

                2. Jesmlet*

                  Exactly, clearly he has enough coping mechanisms to leave his house every day and go to work. There are plenty of people with phobias who aren’t able to do that. Unless you’re Jack or his therapist, you shouldn’t be judging the efficacy of treatment he’s receiving.

              3. JS*

                People In successful treatment can have relapses or breaks. Besides I’m sure phobia treatments are effective if the bird is nearby it overhead but would account for the bird zooming by close to someone’s head or diving at them or touching them. If he freaked out enough to run after receiving therapy for 2 years it’s highly unlikely he just saw one sitting on the sidewalk and flipped out. You cannot judge his doctor or call his treatments unsuccessful. Especially since the same knee jerk reaction could have come from someone who is highly allegeric to bees and Liz being knocked down anyway.

            3. Mike C.*

              Someone ended up in the hospital because of Jack’s phobia, so it’s not judgemental in the slightest to point out that his current coping methods may not being enough to help him. Because clearly it isn’t.

                1. Relly*

                  Intent isn’t magical. Just because I didn’t intend to punch that guy when I flailed my arms won’t make it hurt any less when I smash his cheekbone. Similarly, it being an accident doesn’t un-break her arm.

                2. Speechless*

                  He pushed his colleague out of his flight path without regard for her because he just had to run from his phobic reaction. Now I’ll take on board what people are saying about not being able to control your reaction to a phobia. But, he’s been in therapy for 2 years and is still a danger to the general public whenever he sees a BIRD. I’m not judging what he’s phobic of at all, I know phobias aren’t rational. However birds are everywhere. Pigeons, seagulls, sparrows. There is no way to avoid seeing birds while you are out and about in public. Jack needs to take some bigger steps toward coping skills. He cannot shove people going about their business out of his way no matter how panicked he is, and certainly not into cars. I just double checked and the letter says Liz and other witnesses indicate Jack shoved her, causing her to fall off the curb into the path of a car. He didn’t shoulder bump her as he dodged past. He shoved her. He then didn’t make an apology as soon as he was physically able to, HR had to make him do so. Normal people would be MORTIFIED that they had hospitalized a colleague with a broken arm and many cuts and bruises. The company is taking a rather cavalier attitude toward the risk Jack presents to the rest of their staff, even if they can’t fire him due to accommodations. Maybe Jack needs a different start time to the rest of the team so he is safely ensconced in the building before the rest of his colleagues are trying to USE THE SIDEWALK. Leave aside the fact that he’s got a mental illness and it’s real and he’s has to live with it. Other human beings also need to use the sidewalk to get to work without worrying their colleague is going to run off in a blind panic and push them into the path of a car over seeing a wild animal which will be prolific and uncontrollable in pretty much every environment humans inhabit. I don’t blame Liz in the slightest for not wanting to go back to work here and I think Jack did assault her, no matter his reasons. There is no justification you can give me which will make me say it was ok he put his hands on her and pushed her over into the path of a car. I don’t care what inspired that. It’s not really an accident. It might not have had malice or forethought to harm, but he pushed someone. He didn’t brush past too close. He pushed her. Not ok and Liz doesn’t deserve to suffer the pain of her injuries or worries about paying her bills or feeding her family for the crime of WALKING ON THE SIDEWALK!

                4. JB (not in Houston)*

                  @ Relly No, but in the law we have different standards for acts that are accidents vs. intentional, and for a very good reason

                5. Relly*

                  @JB it does, yes, but we’re not talking about the law here — we’re talking about whether or not it’s reasonable to say that Jack and/or his company needs to do more to prevent these events from reoccurring.

                  I’m not saying to punish Jack. I’m saying that, once someone’s arm is broken, we need to have a real conversation about safety.

                6. LawBee*

                  @Speechless
                  “But, he’s been in therapy for 2 years and is still a danger to the general public whenever he sees a BIRD.”

                  There is nothing in this letter to indicate that Jack is a danger to the general public just from seeing a bird. If he was that easily triggered, he wouldn’t be able to leave his house or watch television. Come on.

                7. Forrest*

                  “But, he’s been in therapy for 2 years and is still a danger to the general public whenever he sees a BIRD.”

                  Yes, birds are indeed very common, so the fact that this is the first time this has happened shows that he’s no more of a danger than anyone else with a managed mental health plan. Having a well managed plan doesn’t mean nothing ever happens and if it only works 99.5% then you need a new one.

              2. AD*

                Frankly, none of us are in a position (from this brief letter) to make a qualitative assessment of Jack’s therapy

                1. Mike C.*

                  Liz ended up with broken bones and a trip to the hospital. Maybe commenters on the internet can’t give a complete assessment of the treatment, but I think it’s fair to say that this doesn’t look good.

                2. Forrest*

                  Well, yea, if he’s in treatment to work on his need to push people, it would look bad.

                  But just because he has a management plan that has one known incidence of failing doesn’t mean it’s not a good management plan. Nothing works 100%.

            4. Dizzy Steinway*

              PS I work in mental health. I’m not judging. Just flagging that there is effective treatment out there and Jack doesn’t seem to be getting it.

              1. JessaB*

                This. And I don’t think at this point I’d have a problem telling that to Jack. There should be a new ADA process going and finding out how to support him without endangering anyone else is going to be a big part of that interaction. He absolutely needs to understand that even if he can’t get over the phobia (and some people never do,) he need adequate coping mechanisms to prevent himself from hurting others.

              2. Whats In A Name*

                But what if he is. What if 2 years ago he could barely leave the house and now he is working a job and walking back from meetings on his own.

                I realize that is a huge speculation on my part but I don’t think we have enough context to diagnose the effectiveness of Jack’s therapist.

              3. Jesmlet*

                As someone who works in mental health, you probably shouldn’t be speculating on someone’s progress based only on a couple paragraphs from a coworker’s perspective.

            5. Leah*

              I have OCD and it has been rather severe, though with intensive treatment it’s gotten better. It still comes with a great degree of anxiety. My colleagues that I work with closely are aware of my condition.

              I am very judgmental of how Jack handled this, and I don’t think it’s unreasonable to be.

            6. Mb13*

              He pushed a coworker infornt of a moving car because he saw a bird. That’s I think counts as clearly not handelig it well. Not to dismiss those suffering from mental illness, but it’s not an all purpose shield that gets people out of dealing with any consequences.

          2. Gadfly*

            Seriously, if you are that panicked when you see birds, it is on you to figure out how to not injure people. And if it is that bad, you need to talk about accommodations to help manage that long before you severely injure a coworker.

              1. Mike C.*

                Having a mental health issue does not excuse harming others. I’m not sure why you aren’t acknowledging this.

              2. Dizzy Steinway*

                It sounds like you’re maybe taking this line of discussion personally. But someone can understand mental illness and also point out that there are times when we might need coping strategies – and that a professional may not be helping someone effectively. If someone sees no improvement in a phobia after two years, they need a new therapist.

                Most people with mental health problems are not dangerous to others, but Jack evidently does need some strategies for being around birds as he may also be putting himself at risk of harm.

                1. Dweali*

                  If he has had another reaction like this (hopefully without the bad outcome onto someone else) then I agree he definitely needs to look into different treatment options as well as a different therapist BUT if this is the first extreme reaction he’s had in a while (compared to his baseline pre-therapy) then finding a new therapist may not be necessary

                2. Kj*

                  Agreed! Just my opinion here, but phobias are a pretty quick fix in therapy, generally speaking. I’m also be concerned that maybe Jack isn’t doing his therapy homework- phobia treatment always has homework to work on phobias between sessions and if a client is not progressing, it can be a sign that the client’s isn’t doing homework. But a therapist can and should address that as a clinical issue. I’m concerned from what I’m reading that maybe Jack wasn’t taking his phobia seriously or that the therapist wasn’t taking an effective approach or maybe something else. But something is off about this.

              3. Leah*

                No. If you have a mental illness you have a responsibility to do as much as you can to keep it from affecting others.

                If you had a contagious illness, it might not be your fault and could be out of your control, but you still would have a duty to try not to infect others.

                1. Karen D*

                  No. If you have a mental illness you have a responsibility to do as much as you can to keep it from affecting others.

                  This has always been the way I’ve handled my own situation. I did everything I could, including therapy and medication. Then I asked for the accommodation I needed to get me the rest of the way. Jack did seek therapy; that’s good. But if his phobia was that severe, informing his employer in advance would seem to be mandatory, from a practical and moral standpoint even if it’s not strictly required by law. I am not saying that Jack should have said “Oh by the way, I might push co-workers into the path of oncoming cars” but “I completely lose control of myself” is certainly something his employer needed to know.

              4. Anonymous for mental illness*

                Jack’s panic isn’t his fault. Jack’s decision to push Liz, though, is.

                2. Princess Consuela Banana Hammock*

                  @AdamV, I know you’re not saying this, but the way you’ve framed your response implies that people with certain mental illnesses lack the capacity to make conscious decisions.

                  I understand that you mean that Jack may have been in fight-or-flight mode, but let’s reframe the issue slightly. Let’s say Jack had PTSD with respect to certain loud noises, a car backfires, and Jack gets triggered. Would that absolve him of causing significant and potentially life-threatening bodily harm on another person? No. OP approached the situation with tremendous sensitivity to Jack’s challenges. But it’s entirely reasonable to let OP know that having a phobia does not insulate an employee, nor does it provide a reasonable basis for letting behavior that caused grievous physical harm to another person slide.

                3. Anonymous for mental illness*

                  Adam V: That’s true. Panicking definitely wasn’t a conscious decision, and running probably wasn’t, either. At the same time, when he needed to run, was that the only way to do it?

                  I’ve had that fight-or-flight reaction to anxiety triggers myself. I’m overall sympathetic to anyone who goes through that. But I think there is a little room for choice or accountability; there is room for considering an adult at least somewhat responsible for pushing somebody in front of a car.

                4. Mookie*

                  @AdamV, I know you’re not saying this, but the way you’ve framed your response implies that people with certain mental illnesses lack the capacity to make conscious decisions.

                  I disagree. Adam didn’t mention mental illness nor did he say anything about Jack lacking a normal human capacity. Everyone, at some point in their lives, has acted unconsciously without reason and intent. There is no reason to treat Jack differently here. Having a trigger does not imply abnormal capacity for self-control.

                  Likewise, Adam didn’t mention absolution. Sometimes, as you say, intent doesn’t matter in cases of negligence. Again, Jack can be treated here like anyone else. He recognizes that he has a phobia and anxiety, is in the process of treating it, and was not being negligent by being outside.

                5. Jesmlet*

                  When you accidentally touch something hot, you don’t think to remove your hand and then do it. I think what Adam is saying is this may be more in line with an autonomic nervous response to acute and unexpected stress. Jack probably did it without it even registering in his brain that it was happening until after.

              5. Princess Consuela Banana Hammock*

                Hard disagree. Individuals with mental illness are not absolved from taking responsibility for the foreseeable consequences of their actions. It’s fine to sympathize with Jack and to want him to receive support, but it is not reasonable to frame this in terms of “fault” because that’s not the problem, here. The problem is an inability to cope with one’s phobia. That doesn’t make Jack a bad person, but it also doesn’t make it ok to push people in front of moving cars as a severe panic response to one’s phobia.

                1. Mike C.*

                  Yeah, this. Of course I want Jack to get help, but that doesn’t exclude Liz from being safe as well.

                2. Lablizard*

                  It isn’t his fault but as an accommodation, if I we’re him, would request solo travel or no travel. The odds of something like this happening again are slim, but birds are out there.

                  I am not sure how this would have gone down if it hadn’t been a co-worker who was knocked into traffic and instead a stranger walking by. Lawsuit with the company paying because he was on work travel, perhaps? Maybe something more serious of the stranger was convinced the push was deliberate? Now that I think on it, maybe no work travel is the wisest course?

                3. AD*

                  Seeing a bird right in front of him when he just happened to be outside, right next to Liz, was a foreseeable occurence?

                  Hard disagree with you there.

                4. Xay*

                  Seeing birds outside is not an unforeseeable occurrence. Walking next to someone or in a group is not an unforeseeable occurrence.

                5. Princess Consuela Banana Hammock*

                  @AD, your description is not an accurate characterization of what I said. I specifically said people are responsible for the foreseeable consequences of their actions—that’s a legal standard. It has nothing to do with the bird, but rather, with whatever consequences might flow from Jack’s reaction to a situation that triggered his phobia. Again, it doesn’t matter what his intent was or that the phobia might be uncontrollable. It also doesn’t mean Jack is being deliberately cruel or careless.

                  A reasonably foreseeable consequence of pushing someone into the street, among other things, is that that person may be hit by a vehicle.

                6. Princess Consuela Banana Hammock*

                  Actually, upon reflection I think it’s totally foreseeable that if you’re outside, it’s likely that there will be birds and those birds may be near humans.

                  But parsing things to abstraction isn’t really helpful when it comes to figuring out how to move forward.

                7. AD*

                  @Princess You’ve characterized a really unfortunate accident as a foreseeable occurrence, which continues to make no sense to me. So all due respect but I’ll push back again. You’re more than welcome to take a hard line with Jack, if you want to. But the chain reaction described in the letter (Jack is surprised by seeing the bird, bumps/pushes/hits Liz aside unwittingly, Liz falls down, a car that is parking hits her) is not a foreseeable series of events on anyone’s part.

                8. Princess Consuela Banana Hammock*

                  AD, I think you would find an entire body of case law that disagrees with you.

              6. Gadfly*

                Actually I have a LOT of experience, professional and personal and as an activist. And it is a big deal in most of those circles that if you have a disability of any kind, unless it is one that prevents you from being responsible for yourself so that you need a guardian, you need to be responsible for making sure your needs are known and that you are doing what you need to do for yourself to avoid doing things like this.

              7. Mira*

                I have had experience with mental illness. A mental illness is like any other chronic illness – it’s on you to manage your illness and minimise its impact on other people. In fact, it shouldn’t be impacting other people at all, but I accept that that’s not always possible. But that’s why we have treatment – and if two years of treatment still have you reacting that badly, then it’s on *you* to recognise that your treatment is not being effective, that you may pose a danger to others, and take steps to prevent that.

                I won’t debate whether or not he was in any shape to help her on the spot – he may not have been, if he was in the full grip of panic. But I admit I would be a lot more sympathetic if Jack had firstly informed his employer of his issue – come on, he has a bird phobia and birds are everywhere! It was only a matter of time before he came across a bird when out with a coworker or even by himself on company business.

                He should also have offered to pay for Liz’s medical bills, and sent her a heartfelt apology of his own accord, instead of having been made to do it by HR. His behaviour all-round screams out that he just didn’t care. And THAT, to me, is the real trouble-marker.

              8. Mira*

                Also, this may be a bit black and white – but putting this out there so there’s some perspective. If having a mental illness excused you from harming others, we wouldn’t lock away violent schizophrenics and psychopaths when they hurt other people.

              9. Relly*

                I have a mental illness. Having the mental illness isn’t my fault. If I hurt people because of my mental illness, that is my responsibility.

                Please do not act like people with mental illness are incapable of being held accountable for their actions. It’s insulting and infantilizing.

              10. Stitch*

                As the daughter of a pediatrician specializing in developmental issues and someone with a compulsive disorder, I find it appalling that people see this as a sort of get out of free card. My compulsions are mine to deal with and hurting someone else, no matter the reason, would not be okay. Phobias or not he is an adult who cannot severely injure others like that.

              11. jasper_red*

                So it’s perfectly acceptable to push someone in front of a car because of their mental illness? That’s certainly an interesting perspective to have.

                1. Josiah*

                  No one is saying that this is perfectly acceptable. What some of us are saying is that it could be an accident, and that accidents are different than assault.

                  It’s like — I think some people are reading this as similar to road rage, where someone gets really angry and decides to try to hurt someone with their car. I think it may be more like making a split-second driving mistake and accidentally hitting another car.

                  When people make split-second driving mistakes, or a coping strategy for avoiding panic fails, it shouldn’t be taken as a serious character flaw.

                2. jasper_red*

                  Okay, I see what you’re saying (I think the comment I was trying to respond to was more strongly worded than that though)…I don’t think the initial incident is a character flaw but rather his actions afterwards that speak to his character. Not even immediately afterwards but in the days that followed.

                3. Josiah*

                  I don’t think the initial incident is a character flaw but rather his actions afterwards that speak to his character. Not even immediately afterwards but in the days that followed.

                  I think that there’s a lot we don’t know about his actions in the days that followed, and the context for them. I think that there are a lot of possibilities, which have different implications. It may well be that he’s a jerk who doesn’t care who he hurts, but that’s not obvious from the information we have.

                  I think that it would be completely terrifying to be in that situation, and that there’s no clear good reaction.

                4. Xay*

                  I think a lot of people are using intent to minimize the outcome. Regardless of Jack’s intent, someone was seriously injured as a result of his phobia induced reaction.

                  You can have sympathy for Jack’s situation and acknowledge that he is directly responsible for Liz’s injuries. And just as Jack is coping with his phobia, Liz is coping with a broken arm and probably her own trauma and resulting mental health issues. Jack’s phobia doesn’t change the impact of his actions on Liz.

                  I understand why the company wouldn’t fire Jack and why Liz would refuse to return. But long term, the company does need to consider how they can accomodate Jack and what assistance they can provide to Liz.

              12. Countess Boochie Flagrante*

                Dude. People in here who have mental illnesses are coming down on the side of Jack being culpable for his actions. Mental illness is not a ‘get out of responsibility free’ card.

              13. Temperance*

                Okay, no. This is not how it works. If you have mental health issues, it’s still on you to not impact others. He harmed another person quite severely, and we shouldn’t dismiss the seriousness of that just because he’s got a diagnosis.

          3. Tuxedo Cat*

            I agree with having better strategies… If he doesn’t, how will the work place handle this? Birds are really everywhere. If I had to go somewhere with Jack, I would be concerned for my own safety.

        3. Chocolate lover*

          We don’t know that Jack isn’t contributing to her medical bills.

          And “pulled something like this ” sounds like he did it intentionally, which is not the case.

        4. Dweali*

          We don’t know if the company or Jack are paying/not paying for any hospital bills. Just like we don’t know if Jack will end up facing a civil suit….none of that pertains to the OP’s question or is necessary info (and for the parts only affecting what Jack may or may not pay is none of OP’s business)….

        5. Kate*

          Yes!!! As a mentally ill person, the infantilization of the mentally ill is really getting to me in this thread. I might need to stop reading soon.

      2. mreasy*

        Absolutely fire a worker’s comp claim, and sure, sue Jack as well. But what you don’t do is quit your job and say you’ll come back only if another coworker is fired.

        This is a difficult situation for everyone, especially Liz. And Jack may feel ashamed and persecuted by the rest of the staff, as well. Perhaps he’s afraid an apology will look like an admission of culpability on his end and admissible in court?

        Regardless of how much fault you believe Jack holds here, Liz’s actions in response were not at all appropriate.

        1. Leah*

          I think due to the severity of the incident it isn’t really reasonable to expect an appropriate reaction from Liz. You’re right that it is rather dramatic, but her workplace where she previously felt valued now expects her to work with someone who physically hurt her in a severe way and went unpunished. I really don’t know how I would react if I were her.

          1. Turtle Candle*

            That’s basically where I come down. I think it’s totally possible that it’s both true that Jack genuinely couldn’t control himself for medical reasons and that Liz can’t now go into the office and work normally with him.

            4. Countess Boochie Flagrante*

              Yeah.

              I mean, my perspective here is as an abuse survivor — expecting someone to work calmly and professionally with someone who has severely physically harmed them is jawdroppingly unreasonable.

              Liz’s demand isn’t one that the OP can or should meet, but it’s also one I don’t find to be all that bizarre. If the OP really, really wants Liz back, and the company is big enough, the best they could probably do is arrange for either Liz or Jack to be moved to a position where they are vanishingly unlikely to ever come in contact with each other.

              1. AD*

                With all due respect, this situation isn’t analogous to abuse. Jack pushed Liz out of the way, and she was hit by an oncoming car. An awful situation, and one which I’m sure was horribly painful for Liz.
                But I have a big, big problem with framing Jack as tantamount to an abuser, or to justify the suggestion that Liz is correct to “fear” someone with a documented illness whose actions unwittingly led to her injury.

                1. paul*

                  I didn’t read it as framing his an abuser; rather as acknolwedging that Liz suffered serious injury because of Jack’s action and that such is a bit traumatizing.

                2. Temperance*

                  I really disagree with your last statement. Why shouldn’t Liz fear a person who severely injured her? That’s actually quite rational. It doesn’t matter that Jack has a “documented illness”, he harmed her, quite seriously, and she can’t be expected to trust that he’ll be able to keep himself from harming her going forward.

                3. Princess Consuela Banana Hammock*

                  I read the comment to say that it is normal for a person who experiences significant physical trauma, directly caused by another person, to experience psychological trauma when forced to see the person who caused their injuries. That’s a fair characterization, and I also think it would be reasonable for Liz to fear Jack.

                  AD, you’ve very strenuously argued about Jack’s lack of volition, which is fine. Countess is explaining, by analogy, that Liz is now in a situation where she, too, may lack volition with respect to her emotional/psychological reaction to Jack because of the consequences of this incident. It’s possible to be sympathetic to both employees, here.

            5. LBK*

              Agreed, and I’m really frustrated by the amount of hard-line partisanship I’m seeing the comments. This is not a good situation for anyone, and I honestly think Liz leaving and getting another job is probably going to be as good as the resolution gets. There’s not going to be any fix for this that’s going to make everyone happy – everyone kind of just has to do what feels right to them.

          2. Princess Consuela Banana Hammock*

            I think Liz’s reaction is entirely appropriate under the circumstances. But I also think it’s ok not to fire Jack. This is a situation in which both things can be true, but the outcome can feel unsatisfying.

            OP#1 has already made their choice, and they chose Jack. I think the only good faith possibility is to offer Liz a generous “severance,” ensure all her medical care is covered, and support Jack’s efforts to find effective coping mechanisms.

            1. AcademiaNut*

              That’s where I fall.

              They’ve decided not to fire or otherwise discipline Jack because he had a medical excuse for his actions. And I think it’s actually quite reasonable for Liz to not want to work next to someone who caused her serious physical injured (whatever the reason), or for an employer that made the above decisions.

              Give Liz a generous severance package, cover any out of pocket medical expenses (including any physical therapy), don’t contest unemployment, and give her a good reference.

              1. Falling Diphthong*

                I agree. There is not an outcome where the company won’t be inconvenienced, and OP needs to accept that.

            3. paul*

              Yep. I honestly don’t see any way forward that retains Liz tbh. Even if you do fire Jack, I wouldn’t be surprised if, after all this, she basically left as soon as she could.

              1. Gadfly*

                I don’t see being able to retain Jack either. I can’t see this being good for his relationships with other co-workers. It might mean not being able to retain some of the co-workers. There was a big public incident with no closure other than Liz is now gone. I predict people will be gossiping like mad.

                2. Trout 'Waver*

                  Totally agree here. Especially with the non-apology. I’d be looking for a new job.

                4. Jersey's mom*

                  Ditto. In addition, if I were a co-worker, I’d refuse to be with Jack if the work involved being outside or anywhere there was a possibility a bird might be seen.

                5. BananaPants*

                  If I was one of Jack’s coworkers I would refuse to work with him or be in his presence outside or anywhere else a bird might be. If that meant I had to look for a new job, so be it. I’m not going to take the chance of being seriously injured or killed because he can’t control his reaction to a phobia trigger.

                6. Creag an Tuire*

                  Yeah… I feel empathy for both parties in this horror show but if I were OP, I would have to reluctantly fire Jack. It’s not just about Liz — I think he’s permanently ruined his working relationship with everyone who knows about the incident.

                7. Gadfly*

                  And most of these responses are assuming the co-workers even know about the bird phobia. I wouldn’t assume that is likely. Many of them may just see it as Jack has the potential to suddenly panic and that if that happens it isn’t Jack’s fault/nothing happens to Jack. Which would, ironically as the place least likely to have birds, make me most scared to be anywhere I felt trapped with him.

            4. blackcat*

              This “ensure all her medical care is covered” is the big one. Do not fight a worker’s comp claim. Offer severance that should cover out of pocket costs for the surgery (if hers is like mine, she’s responsible for 20% of the costs up to the out of pocket maximum. Even for a simple surgery, that could be like $5-10k).

              1. yasmara*

                This!! I have excellent (uh, for an American) health insurance through my employer and I would STILL be responsible for 20% of my medical costs, which when you are talking about almost a week of hospitalization, surgery, anesthesia, aftercare, and possibly future physical therapy are not going to be trivial, and in fact could still be financially devastating especially if I did not feel safe to return to my job and was out of work. Not to mention, it’s very common for hospitals to use doctors and services that are considered out of network, even if the hospital itself is in network (very common with anesthesiologists & specialists). In addition, I’m willing to bet that Liz is going to have to fight the insurance company to even get her bills paid at that 80% rate.

                If I were the OP, I would expect the employer & Jack to be sued shortly by Liz. Sometimes this can even be somewhat out of Liz’s control – the insurance company may determine that someone was at fault (employer, Jack, etc.) and want to recoup their expenses.

                1. Gadfly*

                  Sometimes it is even required by the insurance, like that woman who was required to sue her niece.

            5. she was a fast machine*

              +1000

              I think your comments in this thread have been the most helpful of all PCBH, and I hope the OP takes them into consideration.

              1. Princess Consuela Banana Hammock*

                Thank you! I’m really trying to be empathetic and sympathetic—I think both employees were in an awful and unfortunate situation. But I also think there are concrete things OP can try to do to “make it right” for both of them, to the extent that it’s ever possible in a circumstance like this.

            6. Lynly*

              Agreed. Love the statement you make in your first paragraph. This is often the kind of nuanced and less-than-perfect outcome that can result in a very complex case. Black and white thinking typically doesn’t serve anyone very well in matters like this.

          3. paul*

            Yep. It baffles me that someone will totally excuse Jack’s reaction and pile on Liz. If you’re going to be empathetic try to be empathetic to all involved parties. It’s not like Liz got a minor bruise or hurt feelings here.

            1. Lablizard*

              I am trying to image all that time without use of my arms on top of the pain. It would have been highly disruptive too her ability to care for herself and I would bet that there was some anxiety about the success of the reconstructive surgery. This must have been a very scary time for Liz

            2. JS*

              It’s not excusing it’s just being understanding to his condition and the fact that this was not intentional. Accidents happen, he could have not had a phobia and just got the shit startled out of him, flailed and accidentally knocked her over too. Liz gave her employer an extreme ultimatum. Accident and ADA claims aside the employer might overall value Jack more as an employee. Liz is in her right not to want to work directly with him but as an employer I feel like it’s also going too far to demand he be fired and give ultimatums. I would still give Liz servance, a reference based on her performance and not this incident and make sure her medical bills were paid.

              1. Falling Diphthong*

                Without the phobia, his running off and lurking by the building until the ambulance got there, then going in to work, isn’t doing him any favors.

                The company is effectively saying “He badly hurt you–because of a bird phobia! And he stood at a distance and watched you scream–because of a bird phobia! And now we need you to come back and work with him, because the Culpepper project has deadlines and it would be inconvenient if you left right now.” That’s just not a very appealing job offer.

            3. Dweali*

              I haven’t really noticed people piling on Liz’s reactions (other than to say asking for Jack’s termination of employment is out of bounds–maybe OP not realizing that her reactions are for the most part (or even totally) expected) but I have kind of seen people trying to make Jack’s actions (and lack there of) as something more nefarious than what they most likely were.

              The situation sucks all the way around and ultimately I don’t think anyone’s reactions to it are justified or in the right (OP–shouldn’t be trying to cajole/guilt an employee to return that doesn’t seem to want to (giving options like moving one or the other, working from home (if possible), different schedules, etc are one thing but the argument of “but think of project x, we need you” shouldn’t be used), Jack–any actions that may or may not have happened (including whether he has sought out different treatment options/therapist) after the ordeal (but if he was following HR orders to not discuss without them present then that should get taken into consideration), Liz–in general I’m against ultimatums anyways–not saying she isn’t justified to feel how she feels…she totally is and she is totally in the right to look out for herself first but there’s a right way and wrong way to handle things). Realistically, at this point, I think OP’s best option is doing what they can to make a craptastic situation less crappy.

              1. BPT*

                I just don’t understand how her way of handling things is wrong. It’s perfectly fine for her to say that she cannot work with him anymore. She probably has her own anxiety around him now that shouldn’t be taken lightly. She said she could only work there if he didn’t. The company said no. So she left.

                She’s not the one who’s calling the company up and trying to get them to change their minds. The company is calling her up and trying to push past a boundary she has set. It’s perfectly fine for her to not be able to work with him again, I don’t see that is a “wrong way to handle things.”

          4. jasper_red*

            Bingo–If I were in her shoes I’d take that as a clear message that I wasn’t valued as an employee, and they would never have my back, no matter what the circumstances. I’m not going to work at a place like that, personally.

          5. Liane*

            If you can be understanding of Jack’s flight and inability to aid afterwards because he has a phobia–a medical condition–then you should be capable of understanding that Liz’s decision making might have been compromised by her fractures, being in pain, and probably being on prescription pain meds–all medical conditions and/or symptoms.

            1. JS*

              Valid point. Perhaps she will feel differently after she has time to recover but firing Jack in the meantime wouldn’t be a solution for to change her mind about later.

        2. Anons*

          I have a hard time characterizing Liz as being “not at all appropriate” in light of the circumstances.

          I agree with Alison that OP cannot allow Liz to dictate the firing of another employee. But I’m willing to cut Liz a lot more slack than Jack in terms of behavior that is “not at all appropriate.”

          1. Falling Diphthong*

            In pain and in the hospital and on drugs and exhausted have perhaps made her a bit snappish and not great at nuanced, diplomatic phrasing.

            Anyone who can find sympathy for Jack shoving her in front of a car should be able to find sympathy for her being pretty blunt through the resulting pain.

        3. Gadfly*

          Seems appropriate to me. Her wording is not the best, but it seems eminently reasonable to refuse to work with someone who injured me severely, did nothing to help, gave a forced apology, and where there is no plan being offered to prevent it from happening again.

          Some things are a deal breaker. Allowing a coworker to harm me for any reason short of their life ACTUALLY being in danger (had he pushed her because he needed to get to his epi-pen or die, for example) is a deal breaker for most reasonable people.

          1. Cary*

            The thing is when it comes to a phobia it very much feels like your life is in danger when confronted by your trigger. You can intellectually know that the bird isn’t a threat, but in the face of an all-engulfing panic, it doesn’t feel that way.

            1. paul*

              and from Liz’s standpoint that may well not matter. There’s a lot of commentators not understanding that and not extending the same sympathy to her that they are to Jack.

              Yes, Jack really, legitimately, wasn’t in control of himself…and that got her seriously hurt, and now she’s experienced trauma too. You don’t get to just tell someone who spent 4 days in the hospital and underwent surgery that that she doesn’t get to have a reaction or aversion to working with the person that put her there.

              1. jasper_red*

                Exactly, I really don’t like how people are acting like Liz is a horrible person for not just saying “oh Jack, it’s okay, all is forgiven” and pretending like nothing happened. I can speak from experience that having a crazy unexpected yet somewhat violent event like that can really mess you up and if you don’t deal with it there are long term ramifications.
                And after Jack got control of himself it doesn’t sound like he did anything but give a forced apology. So while I sympathize with his phobia I don’t sympathize with him as a person, if he was truly a good person he would try to make some kind of amends for what happened.
                Example, I was rear ended a couple years ago on the freeway. Okay that sucks, stuff happens. I have been in car accidents before. Instead of acting like adults, the driver screamed at me, threatened to kill me, yelled about his his kids were in the car and what was I thinking, and then drove off when I called the police. I was way more upset about the way he (and his wife) acted than the accident itself because they took no responsibility for what happened. That makes a big difference.

                1. Allison*

                  His kids were in the car, there were probably at least a few seconds where he worried his children might die. That would cause any parent to fly into a violent rage.

                2. Temperance*

                  Yep. I grew up with a very mentally ill parent, and it makes me ill to see all of these people excusing Jack’s actions. I was physically harmed, and it was excused because she “couldn’t help it”, which is what I keep seeing here. It’s making me pretty angry and, TBH, disgusted with a lot of commenters here today. Liz is the victim, not Jack, darnit.

                4. Browser*

                  Jack is not a victim. His phobia was triggered, but he did not suffer repercussions. Liz did.

                6. jasper_red*

                  Allison, are you seriously saying it’s justified to fly into a violent rage when you cause a car accident if your kids are in the car? Really? Please tell me I am misinterpreting that. Perhaps if you are so worried about your kids’ safety you should pay better attention when you are driving.
                  I realize I did not type out the whole story and so you don’t know what all happened in the situation. But basically, I was on the freeway and traffic came to a dead stop. My husband was driving and he stopped in time to avoid hitting the person in front of us, and they didn’t stop in time. They totalled our car and hit us hard enough to require us to get physical therapy (not as bad as Liz’s injuries though). It is 100% NOT acceptable to jump out of your car, scream at the driver “what were you thinking, my kids are in the car!!” call him the n word, offer to box him, and threaten to KILL him, and then drive off without giving insurance info. They acted like complete thugs. They even tried to file a claim against us (I stupidly gave them our insurance info assuming they were going to be adults, clearly they weren’t). BTW our insurance info has our address on it so I didn’t feel too safe knowing someone who wants to kill me knows where I live.

                  So now that you know the whole story (which I didn’t want to get into since it’s not at all relevant to the OP’s question but I felt it would explain where I came from a little better) do you honestly believe that’s justified because they were worried about their kids?

                7. jasper_red*

                  But seriously though, I’m still in disbelief that it’s okay to fly into a violent rage directed at the person you rear ended when it was your fault that you didn’t stop in time. I really really hope that’s not what Allison is saying.

              2. Stitch*

                I got punched in the face once when I was working as a camp counselor at a place for kids with various illnesses. This kid had a condition where he didn’t know what he was doing and literally.couldn’t apologize but that didn’t mean in the moment I didn’t walk away and that our director expected us to just take being punched. We had more protection in that situation.

              3. Kbug*

                Yes, the lack of sympathy for Liz is pretty dreadful (and fascinating). There’s little or no sympathy for any mental health issues, like trauma or anxiety, that Liz might be facing now as the result of a violent interaction with a coworker. Apparently only one person’s mental health matters here- and it isn’t the clear victim.

                1. jasper_red*

                  I’ve noticed this is a trend when you see a post like this where there is a clear victim as a result of something that, while being an accident, could have been prevented (in this case if Jack had been forthcoming about his phobia, like others stated in the comments, Liz would have known to give Jack more space when the birds started flying around). Did he intend to push her in front of a car, no of course not, but accidents that cause injuries and even death happen every day and the person “at fault” is still responsible even if they didn’t mean to do it. If I lose control of my vehicle and crash into someone, I’m responsible for the crash, no matter what the reason was that I lost control. This is no different. But for some reason we have a “blame the victim” mentality when things like this happen. I have seen that on drunk driving posts even. It’s not the driver’s (or in this case coworker’s) fault, so the victim should just deal with it and stop making their life more difficult. It’s something that truly alarms me.

                3. Hrovitnir*

                  I find this whole thread bizarre, because thus far (and I’m only this far down the page), I have seen zero minimisation of Liz’s feelings. A couple of people said her behaviour was understandable but inappropriate. A lot of people have defended Jack against statements about how callous and awful he is and since that’s the topic, not mentioned Liz at all, but that’s not the same thing as not being sympathetic to Liz.

                  I am sympathetic to Liz and think Jack shouldn’t have been fired and am disturbed by the amount of malice people are attributing to Jack (I’m sure people will insist they’re not but it most certainly is how it reads.)

                  Just like it’s possible to make a $20,000 mistake without being incompetent at your job up until then, it’s possible to panic and have a horrendous, unforeseen outcome without being a continuous danger to people around you. He may not have had a reaction like that for a long time and had every reason to believe he would never hurt anyone, never mind this badly.

                4. JS*

                  Jasper I think being responsible and being punished are not the same thing. Should Jack be responsible for Liz medical bills or expenses that workers comp doesn’t cover? Or the increase in insurance premiums? Yes. That doesn’t mean he should be treated like a criminal and thrown in jail. Likewise to use your example if you lose control of your car because the engine failed or breaks snapped and you were consistent on your checks will be treated differently than if you crashed drunk driving. People have sympathy for Liz but that doesn’t mean we have to agree with her demand or we can’t think it’s over the top.

                5. Gadfly*

                  However, JS, it also is different when you know your brakes are badly worn and you still were driving on them.

                6. Mookie*

                  On the contrary, plenty of people here agree that Liz made the right call for herself. This was a traumatic, painful event for her, has upended her career, and has probably made her wary of using this employer as a reference. This is a BIG DEAL. What she asked for is understandable, but her wants and needs don’t have to take precedence in a decision that will affect multiple people.

                7. AD*

                  Agreed with Hrovitnir. There isn’t a lack of sympathy for Liz, but there sure is a lot of judging of Jack here.

                8. JS*

                  Gadfly, thats why I put in “you were consistent on your checks” a lot of car troubles can be predicted but accidents happen so thats why I put that in there to cover for someone who made sure their car was up to standard.

            2. Falling Diphthong*

              And that is enough reason for other people to not want to be near you. Just like when you hallucinate and think they are evil demons that have to be throttled–you may not be at legal fault because of the illness, but other people are perfectly rational to not feel safe.

          2. Fish Microwaver*

            The forced apology and a lack of any effort at reparation from Jack make it difficult for me to have much sympathy for him. Yes accidents happen but a heartfelt apology and some cash towards Liz’s bills is the least he could do.

            1. Gadfly*

              And since it sounds like he knew he loses all control at the sight of birds, to me it sounds like a know risk. Not “I’ll push someone in front of a car”–that was bad luck. But “I will run and push” seems known.

              I briefly worked at a group home where one young woman had a phobia that she would do a panicked run if triggered–she never pushed anyone, but I heard that after I left, she did get hit by a car. Moving slowly and no major injuries, but still…

              This is serious on Jack’s part. And “I’m sorry” doesn’t cut it. That is only the start of an apology. Step 2 is supposed to address if anything can be done to make it better, and step 3 is supposed to address it not happening again. All we see here is what sounds like a VERY reluctant first step.

              1. EleanoraUK*

                We don’t know that he loses all control at the sight of birds. Presumably, if that was the case, his coworkers would know he had a bird phobia.

                It sounds more like he’s been getting treatment and broadly has a handle on it, enough to trust himself to walk outside with Liz, but in this instance utterly panicked, for whatever reason (and he’ll need to take that up with his medical professional now that he knows this is a risk).

            2. JS*

              There is no evidence that the apology was forced, only that this highly sensitive situation is being carefully regulated by HR. We also don’t know if he is coming out of pocket in anyway so to assume anything is wrong. We need more details before we assume Jack didn’t apologize of his own violition or isn’t paying anything (likely workers comp is tbh).

              1. Gadfly*

                This comes back to then HR screwed up by not first talking with Liz and just offering his apology and explanation like it was supposed to mean anything to her.

                1. JS*

                  HR did talk with Liz first, Liz found out he wasn’t going to be fired and then she made the ultimatum and quit. It wasn’t until after that HR and Jack called her to explain his phobia and offer apologies. I don’t think its reasonable policy for an employee to be able to dictate consequences for another employee. HR should have said (if they didn’t) “Liz let us know what you need from us in this time” as well as “Here are the protections we will have in place” (after phobia has been disclosed.

            3. JB (not in Houston)*

              There’s nothing, absolutely nothing in the letter that indicates Jack’s apology was forced or not heartfelt. Also, the letter doesn’t say anything at all about what Jack did or did not do as an effort at “reparation,” so you’re just making assumptions here.

        4. the other Emily*

          Even if he didn’t mean to push her initially, he left her laying on the pavement injured and didn’t help her. Between that and Liz requiring surgery for her broken bones and needing to stay in the hospital for 4 days, I can understand that Liz is angry and doesn’t want to be around him. I sympathize with both Jack and Liz.

          1. Yorick*

            It’s not like she didn’t get medical attention for some time because he left her lying there and went back to work. He’s not a doctor. An ambulance was on the way.

            1. Persephone Mulberry*

              Yup. It sounds like there were at least a few other people on scene who presumably immediately rushed to help her. Jack staying out of the way while he got his reaction under control seems like a wise move, frankly.

            2. Temperance*

              No, but he was the cause of her injury, so I can see exactly why she would have been very upset and angered that he left her in the street after a car hit her.

            3. Falling Diphthong*

              But it’s where the “YOU might accidentally bump someone in exactly the wrong way” analogy falls down–because presumably you would then offer immediate help, comfort, and apologies, rather than fleeing and then observing the fallout from a distance.

        5. Anion*

          So glad I’m not the only one who thinks this. Quitting and refusing to come back if he isn’t fired seems like a big overreaction to me, given the phobia/accident angle. I’ve done similar reflex actions when freaked out by something–as I said above, I once flung a soda can into my husband’s face when a big spider suddenly landed on me–and I’ve been on the receiving end of such reflex actions myself, though thankfully without it breaking my arm. An accident is an accident. This one was worse than many, but it was still an accident. I can see being upset if I was Liz, but the refusal to come back unless he’s fired feels unnecessarily vindictive, especially given that it’s a medical issue he’s been dealing with for some time.

          1. Doe-eyed*

            How is it an overreaction? Liz now ALSO probably has a huge anxiety/fear of going to work and dealing with Jack, and it is directly because of Jack’s actions. I’m not sure why Jack’s mentall illness deserves accomodation and sympathy but Liz’s (which was again, CAUSED by Jack) does not?

              1. Doe-eyed*

                It’s not her place, but I think it’s an understandable reaction within the context of the situation.

                Sort of like it’s not Jack’s place to push her under a moving car, but it is an understandable reaction within the context of the situation.

            2. Anion*

              Because we don’t know that Liz has a huge anxiety/fear of going to work and dealing with Jack. What we know is that Liz has not said any of the above, only that she refused to accept Jack’s apology, yelled at him, and now refuses to work there unless Jack is fired.

              I’m not saying she doesn’t have those or that she shouldn’t be accommodated if she does. I’m saying that accidents happen, and Jane’s behavior here seems unreasonable and kind of vindictive to me. She doesn’t want accommodation so she doesn’t have to see or work with Jack, she wants Jack to lose his job, period. Perhaps I’m just a weirdly forgiving person. It’s possible. But as I said, I’ve inadvertently hurt people out of shock or fear, and I’ve been inadvertently hurt by others for the same reasons, and when they apologize I accept it (and vice versa) because I believe in forgiveness and not holding things against people, and accidents happen. That’s my personal feeling and how I try to behave–it’s not wrong if others don’t feel that way or don’t see those two things the way I do (in other words, you’re not an unforgiving jerk if you disagree or see it differently, that’s not at all what I mean, just that for me personally that is who I try to be and want to behave).

              It also doesn’t mean I don’t think Jack is responsible for his actions or that he shouldn’t be on the hook for whatever medical bills might arise or whatever else, just that I don’t think he deserves to be fired for an accident and I personally think it feels a little odd that she’s demanding he be.

              1. Doe-eyed*

                First of all, the apology seems incredibly tone deaf from the company. It’s beyond me why they wouldn’t discuss with the employee if she wanted to speak with Jack before just calling her and putting her on the spot to deal with someone who seriously injured her. I would yell at all of them as well.

                It may be less that she wants him to lose his job and more that she’s got a fear something else might happen. Even if she’s not working with him, who’s to say she’s not walking to lunch or something, and he pushes past her again and injures her. It’s a somewhat freak occurrence that even he couldn’t predict apparently, so how is anyone supposed to reassure her that she might not get accidentally injured again. It’s not particularly rational, but PTSD/phobia/anxiety generally isn’t.

                Also realistically, Jack probably can’t be responsible for medical bills. What if this affects her her entire life?

              2. BeautifulVoid*

                Ultimately, I think this is where I’m coming down. I think it’s possible to be sympathetic to both Jack and Liz, and this really does seem like a perfect storm of events that led to something tragic. (I’m interpreting the letter as saying he pushed her aside as he ran and she just happened to fall off the curb into a parking space, not he maliciously shoved her into the path of a moving car.) But while I can understand the trauma Liz has suffered, and I can understand why she wouldn’t be comfortable going to work in the same place as Jack, going right to demanding he be fired over this doesn’t sit well with me. It probably depends on the company, but it seems like there are a few accommodations she could have asked for first that amount to “keep Jack the hell away from me, I don’t even want to see his face”. Would it be possible to do that? Maybe, maybe not. But I think it’s the leap directly to “fire him or I quit!” over something that was a genuine accident that’s rubbing some people the wrong way and maybe making them come off as less sympathetic to Liz.

          2. Yorick*

            I agree. I can’t blame her for it, but she’s seeking revenge by asking for him to be fired instead of asking how the employer will keep them separated or something.

            1. Falling Diphthong*

              Actually, she quit when she found out he was still there. She didn’t make any demands except as a condition of when she would agree to unquit.

              There are lots of people who suffered no physical injury whatsoever who quit because they don’t want to be around a coworker one more day. And if the company tries “but we need you to come back and work with Cersei to prevent the Wakeen Project being delayed” they rightly laugh and hang up the phone.

          3. Lizzle*

            But again, this is a serious trauma for Liz. Not seeing why, while his phobia is legit, her trauma (which could include anxiety, panics attacks, PTSD, etc.) is considered “vindictive.”

          4. Aveline*

            ” this. Quitting and refusing to come back if he isn’t fired seems like a big overreaction to m”

            Thing about trauma response from someone who has seen a lot of abused children and sexual assault victims: what is a “reasonable” response v. a “big overreaction” is highly subjective.

            I’ve seen people who were raped as children by their parents, sold on the market to other adults and “turned out” for child porn not react to that, but freak out years later from “relatively minor” trauma.

            Also, our brain wiring in response to trauma varies highly from person to person. I’ve seen people have digits cut off and be perfectly calm. I’ve seen people have massive PTSD from a parent dying.

            We are not all wired the same way.

            Responses to physical trauma like this vary from NBD to “OMG, I am going to die!” You sound like you are on the NBD end of the bell curve. Liz may not be.

            That does not make her response an overreaction.

            You are being very unsympathetic to someone who has been through trauma.

        6. a*

          If I were in Liz’s position I would be TRAUMATIZED. She had a near-death experience (and yes, I know people have said “but she didn’t die!”, but that’s not the point – she didn’t *know* that when the car was backing over her!). If we are going to respect people’s mental health, which we should, that needs to go both ways. I am so not here for Liz being demonized because she isn’t all sunshine and kittens with the person who nearly got her killed.

      3. KarenT*

        Agreed. This is a case where the OP is probably right, and Alison is probably right, but dear god if I were Liz I’d be mad as hell and unable to work effectively with Jack. He didn’t just run, he pushed her into the path of a car and she broke both her arms!

        1. Isben Takes Tea*

          She broke both bones in one arm, not both her arms.

          But agreed, I would have difficulty working with him, too.

              1. Hrovitnir*

                Eh, could be radius/ulna and humerus. :P (Radius and ulna seem more likely though. Ouch.)

      4. Hey Nonnie*

        Suing, nothing. I can’t find anything that says a phobia is an affirmative defense against criminal assault. There’s nothing about fleeing that requires shoving someone off the sidewalk.

        I’m pretty shocked that the fact that Jack *injured her so badly that she required surgery* is getting a big old shrug from anyone.

          1. Doe-eyed*

            I think it can be seen as somewhat shrugging it off because the OP hasn’t detailed in what ways they tried to make this right to Liz. She went to the hospital and got an apology. The biggest concern seems to be that they’re going to lose money on their project, not that Liz has the potential to lose major function in her arm.

            1. Forrest*

              Now that’s a very fair statement. It really is on the company to work out what they want to do and take steps to try to work out a situation that acknowledges Liz’s concerns while avoiding firing someone who had a backslide on his mental health management plan. If they can’t, they need to just come to Jesus on their decision and the ramifications of that decision.

              (Not saying there should be no consequences for Jack but I don’t think they should jump right to firing, especially if they don’t want to and believe that it’s an isolated incidence. And I can understand why if the company did decide to fire Jack – but I’m not getting behind the idea that it’s a foregone conclusion that this will happen again.)

              1. Lizzle*

                Yeah, I think I agree with you.

                I wouldn’t say they need to fire Jack but I also don’t think “Well, we won’t fire him so, bye” is a great response. How about the company spends the effort to come up with a plan to assure that neither Liz nor anyone else will be endangered by Jack’s phobia in the future? Then present that to Liz.

                If it’s not on Jack to control a fight-or-flight response that can seriously injure people, how is it on Liz to magically overcome her trauma and go back to work with the person who–from her perspective–just maimed her?

            2. JB (not in Houston)*

              The letter writers can’t put every single thing in a letter, and you’re making a leap from “the OP hasn’t said in detail exactly what they tried to do to make this right to her” all the way to people (the OP or the commenters) are shrugging off what happened to her.

              1. Doe-eyed*

                I fully admit this, I’m just saying from the “tone” perceived, the letter focuses on Jack – Jack brought in a letter, Jack is an otherwise good employee, Jack made an apology. The letter writer “seems” to side with Jack, and her only concern about Liz is that they’re going to lose money on these accounts that she left behind, dangit. I mean after all Jack apologized!

                Bottom line, a lot of excuses are made for Jack, and not many are made for Liz who is also now dealing with an emotional trauma and potential long-term, life-altering physical ailment… because of Jack.

                1. JB (not in Houston)*

                  Well, some people are saying that Liz overreacted, but nobody is saying she’s deplorable or should have criminal charges brought against her, so there’s not so much of a need to make excuses for her–and at that, I don’t think people are “making excuses” for Jack, i.e., saying what happened was fine, so much as they are explaining that the fact that this happened doesn’t mean he’s a horrible person who should be thrown in jail.

          2. Emi.*

            A lot of people are chalking it up to “Ehh, accidents happen, nothing to be done,” which sounds like a shrug to me. (It’s also infantilizing to talk like Jack is just totally helpless in the face of his phobia, but that’s a different issue.)

            1. Hey Nonnie*

              I agree with all of this. The OP didn’t outline anything they did to AT LEAST come up with a basic safety plan, to communicate this to Liz, in their attempts to woo her back. It seems a strange detail to leave out, if you’re asking what else you can try. (Also keeping in mind that given he was clearly dangerous to Liz, he’s potentially dangerous to everyone else who has to work with him, too. Not addressing that IS a big old shrug.)

              I also agree with the “infantilizing” part. Mental illness does not absolve Jack of responsibility for his behavior or the consequences thereof.

        2. DArcy*

          Based on the events described, Jack is guilty of assault and battery, maybe even aggravated assault depending on which state this happened in. His phobia serves as a defense against charges of attempted murder, but not against assault charges.

          It’s likely that the local district attorney simply chose not to prosecute. Not a totally unreasonable use of prosecutorial discretion, but Liz can and absolutely should sue Jack for civil damages.

          1. Gadfly*

            It hasn’t been that long so it could also be a lot of just the system grinding exceedingly slowly…

          2. AD*

            Are you a lawyer? My guess is not. Can we not throw around legalese, or make absolutist claims about legal issues without having a strong background in that field?

          3. Jessie the First (or second)*

            Please stop calling Jack guilty of crimes. Maybe you practice law in a state with wildly different laws than most and your statements really do accurately represent the criminal codes in your state, but in that case, your state is an outlier.

          4. JB (not in Houston)*

            Aggravated assault? Your state must have some unusual laws on assault if you think this could qualify as aggravated assault based on what the OP has written.

    4. Ask a Manager* Post author

      I suppose it depends on exactly what you’re picturing. I’m not picturing him deliberately pushing her, but rather pushing past her to get away. Which is still awful, but different than deliberating shoving her. But I could certainly be wrong. Either way, I totally understand why she doesn’t want to work with him, but I don’t think she gets to demand the company fire him if they’ve chosen not to.

      1. paul*

        His inability control himself in any fashion led to her getting seriously injured. I wouldn’t be shocked if she had a civil claim (any attorney want to chime in?). But regardless of his intent I don’t blame her. It isn’t like birds are some rare and esoteric phenomena, and if I have to worry about him literally shoving me into traffic anytime he sees one I don’t want to work with him either.

        1. Jamie*

          This is where it lies with me as well. Given how commonplace birds are how has Jack’s phobia not come up before now? That’s just utterly shocking to me.

          1. bunanza*

            Maybe his phobia is usually well-controlled, but backslides during times of stress or something similar. That’s how my own mental health problems are–after several years of treatment, my symptoms have largely faded and are easy to control, but sometimes, unexpectedly, I’ll relapse and really struggle. That’s what this looks like to me. And if that were the case, I could better understand Jack not helping Liz on the scene or readily apologizing (though I’m not sure where the consensus that he was forced to apologize came from), because he would be in an unusually low place with his mental health. It’s still ultimately his job to manage it, but that can be even more difficult when you’re used to your symptoms being ~totally fine now~.

            And of course, that still wouldn’t “justify” his actions, and Liz still has every reason to be furious. But I can’t help but have some sympathy for him. I think he probably feels horrible about it, like any of us would. I have lots of sympathy for Liz at the same time, though. It’s just a rotten situation.

            1. Gadfly*

              It comes from him waiting until after Liz has quit and HR is involved before he apologizes. It looks like he is doing it more because HR demands it than anything done willingly. (Some are arguing it is because he may also have conflict avoidance issues, which is a whole second set of problems at play. Or that he wanted witnesses, which just sounds like he is focused on CYA rather than Liz.)

              1. JS*

                We don’t know that he had an opportunity until then. Liz was likely rushed to the hospital where she spent 4-5 days (depending on if surgery was on the same day). We don’t know if Jack tried to call the hospital, even knew what hospital she went to or if it was HR regulations for them not to have unsupervised contact. There’s so many what ifs there and it’s perfectly reasonable not to have contact with someone who is a non family member in the hospital. She was upset enough to want him fired so I doubt she would be accepting to any hospital visits or calls (he’s not family anyway so likely not allowed). All of this is speculation though, we can’t say just because of the next contact they had was HR supervised that it was forced in anyway or he wasn’t truly apologetic. I’m sure if his attitude was flippant and uncaring OP/LW would have mentioned that.

                1. Mona Lisa*

                  This is what I see as the most likely scenario. Jack either couldn’t or was advised against contacting Liz while she was in the hospital, and once he was able to make the apology, HR suggested they sit in on the call so there was a witness to what transpired next.

              2. Trillian*

                It is also possible he was badly advised by HR or someone — advised not to apologize because it could be seen as taking legal responsibility. Maybe HR did not want him talking to Liz without witnesses.

                1. Trout 'Waver*

                  That’s the thing though. All that is CYA. If you hurt someone, you should apologize. You don’t go to HR first and walk through the scenarios to find the one that gives you and the company the least liability. You simply apologize.

                2. EleanoraUK*

                  You’d have to get an opportunity to talk to them first. I think JS’s comment just above isn’t far off the mark.

              3. Dweali*

                HR (maybe even security) could have also directed him to have zero contact with her without them present…rightly or wrongly a lot of people would comply with something like that

            2. Josiah*

              That’s definitely a possibility.

              Another possibility is that something about the particular bird encounter was unusual and triggering in an unexpected way.

              I’ve had completely humiliating public episodes of things I’d expected to be able to keep private before. That was terrifying, and I had a lot of trouble coming back and interacting with people afterwards.

              I’ve never hurt anyone for trigger-related reasons. I can’t imagine what it would be like to accidentally hurt someone under those circumstances, and then try to reestablish a working relationship afterwards.

              I have a lot of sympathy for everyone involved.

              1. Gadfly*

                We’re working with my stepson on some of this (severe anxiety). And dealing with things like school refusal over much smaller incidents and him not knowing how to come back from them/feeling humiliated. Anyway, one of our worst nightmares is that he panics and does anything to hurt or scare someone, in part because he is big (over 6′ now, with growth spurts left, and a muscular build.) It could easily end up with him being shot or hurt because he doesn’t respond well/as expected when panicked (by the scared person or a cop–a bad history there.) So a lot of his therapy has been focused on not going blind and out of control, even in a panic or if triggered. And it is hard.

                If it did happen, I doubt we’d EVER get him to leave his room again, and I don’t know if he’d process past the mortification to an apology (but that is a big part of his illness/triggers.) And I’d still want him (/his dad and I since he’s a minor) to at least be held as responsible as if it were an accident. Because ultimately that is safer and fairer for him. I’d far rather people see him as struggling but improving (and that he see himself that way) then broken and unfixable and therefore excused for it.

                1. Josiah*

                  I think that accountability means a lot of different things, some of which are appropriate and some of which are not.

                  Sometimes “accountability” means punishment; sometimes it means “punish someone in the same way you would if they did not have a mental illness”. I don’t think that’s a reasonable reaction.

                  Punishment only helps when someone is trying to get away with doing the wrong thing. When someone sincerely trying to do the right thing and doing the best they can, punishment is completely counterproductive. Contexts matters, and we do everyone a disservice by ignoring it.

                  That said, I agree with you that it’s a big problem when people see themselves as having no responsibility for their actions. I’ve seen situations in which people really do think that everything they do is ok if their mental illness is part of the reason they’re doing it — and that leads nowhere good.

                2. Gadfly*

                  And on the social end of things, it makes it easier for general society to see people with mental illnesses as not people. If you aren’t responsible, you aren’t competent (step one to losing a lot of rights). They become instead animals, scary animals and sometimes they seem threatening and we know they can’t be responsible/control themselves… (cue the ‘Kill the Beast” song…)

                  Treating it just like an accident gives it a context people understand. People can understand doing things unintentionally and then having to make up for it. Saying nothing can be done because they aren’t in control? We’re back to monsters. Scary ones who can hurt you and authorities will do nothing about it (so you have to defend yourself as best you can). And when it looks like there is no remorse, it is even scarier.

                  It doesn’t need to be the exact same thing, but there needs to be accountability and an expectation of accountability. One of the worst choices is appearing to do nothing because of a disability (this also applies somewhat to physical disabilities.)

                3. Hrovitnir*

                  What Josiah said. There’s a difference between “his mental illness means he’s not responsible for his actions” and “he hurt her in a reaction to an external force and unintentionally so punishing him would be unproductive and only to make you feel better”. If you’re interested in making it so it doesn’t happen again, you need to work with him to ensure it doesn’t.

                  Of course, firing isn’t as common in NZ as the US so I already side-eye firing as the answer to everything, irrelevant to this situation.

                  We also have zero information about his feeling or displays of remorse, and people linking “was still panicking and didn’t help her” with “apologised with HR” to form “he doesn’t care” is a bloody big leap. This may be the case, but there is no reason to assume it.

              2. cercis*

                I don’t have a fear of birds at all, but I was once walking in Main Plaza in San Antonio – which has lots and lots of pigeons just hanging out on the ground. No big deal. But for whatever reason one decided to literally fly up into my face – that’s never happened before or since. I reacted pretty strongly – as one will when something is suddenly in your face and dodged and tripped and knocked into a coworker. She was stable on her feet and it was nothing more than a “OMG – did that bird just try to attack you? LOL LOL LOL” moment (forgive my text speak -she was laughing so hard she almost fell over and it’s hard to spell that out). It really was that ridiculous. Had we been in a different area of the park and had it been a different coworker (ironically, I worked with a coworker named Liz who did have stability problems) it could have been really awful.

                So that’s what I’m picturing in this scenario. Not just a bird on the ground suddenly taking off, but a bird on the ground suddenly taking off directly at Jack. Maybe I’m wrong, but since no one knew about his phobia prior to this, it seems like it was pretty well controlled up until this point and it took a pretty strong trigger to force a reaction. Of course, once triggered, his response was way over the top – which is one of the things that characterizes a phobia.

          2. Forrest*

            I’m not sure why it’s shocking, unless you think he’s making it up because he really wanted to push Liz. In which case, it’s pretty impressive that he thought to get a note that verified his claims.

            Given how common birds are, this is why I’m kinda of rolling my eyes at people acting like this is going to be a common or on going issue. I get why Liz doesn’t want to chance it and I get if his coworkers keep him at a distance when they’re outside or around windows. But unless he’s been at the job for a week, I’m not seeing the whole “he’s a danger to everyone.” Clearly he’s demonstrated this is an isolated incident, unless they’ve never been around birds before, which, again, given how common they are, don’t seem like a logical conclusion.

            1. Gadfly*

              It actually makes it scarier, never knowing WHICH birds will set him off. It makes it almost random.

              1. Forrest*

                So ask Jack to keep his distance from coworkers when outside. And let his coworkers know. Done.

                2. Forrest*

                  Sure. But it’s not a crime that someone who thinks he has his mental illness 100% under control backslides. It’s an awful way to learn a lesson and he should have thought about it but he didn’t.

            2. EleanoraUK*

              Yup, I’m with Forrest on this one. It sounds like he was managing his phobia well generally, and for whatever reason this set him off.

              In that respect, it’s not much different to someone without a phobia suddenly getting a big fright and acting on it. If it makes Jack a danger to everyone, then we are all dangers to everyone.

          3. Victoria Nonprofit (USA)*

            Come on. We don’t know exactly what happened here, but I think we can assume that it wasn’t something that happens frequently (because it would have come up before). (For example, did the bird suddenly fly up close to their faces? Did it’s wing swipe Jack’s shoulder? etc.)

        2. JB (not in Houston)*

          Are there a lot of birds in your office? There aren’t in mine. I totally understand how the events shook Liz up so much that she doesn’t want to work with Jack any more. But it’s not like, on a day to day basis, employees have to worry about him pushing employees out of the way because a bird suddenly takes flight close to him.

        3. Aveline*

          Caselaw on seizure disorders states that if you have them and know you have them and they are not controlled and you do no other mitigation, you can’t claim the seizure as an excuse.

          So, yes, he’s probably liable for something.

          The civil case is highly state specific.

          He may have also acted criminally. As Gravel and the other llamas said above, highly state specific.

      2. Mike C.*

        I think she has every right to make that demand out of anger without being called out on it/called unprofessional/etc, but I don’t think she’s entitled to see it through.

        However, I think the OP should have had a good answer to the question of “how are you going to ensure that Jack doesn’t hurt me again?” We all have the right to work in a safe environment after all. For Liz, this workplace isn’t safe at all.

        2. Karen D*

          Exactly. Jack is a ticking time bomb. And now the company knows for SURE Jack is a ticking time bomb.

          1. Elise*

            I think it’s rather out of line to characterize Jack as a time bomb. Perhaps being less judgmental and being more empathetic would be helpful in accurately characterizing what happened here.

            1. Karen D*

              He is unable to control his behavior. One co-worker has already been badly injured as a result. Given the fact that birds are fairly ubiquitous, and that Jack has (according to him, and giving him the full benefit of the doubt for honesty) attempted to mitigate the condition that renders him unable to control his behavior, and failed, he poses a real danger.

              Tell me how any of the above is inaccurate?

              No amount of empathy is going to make those brutal facts go away. And I would say there’s zero empathy here for the next person who gets between Jack and fastest route away from a sparrow.

              1. Karen D*

                And if it seems as though I am being unsympathetic to Jack, it’s because – all cards on the table – I am absolutely unsympathetic to Jack.

                If I had a medical condition that made me a credible danger to others, I would do everything in my power to mitigate that threat. I’m not arguing the law now, I’m saying that’s my duty as a moral human being.

                Jack now knows – unequivocally – that his behavior can cause him to (albeit inadvertently and with no malice) seriously injure someone. His behavior is triggered by an extremely common event. Where is his sense of obligation to his fellow workers? He’s exhibited absolutely no regard for anyone’s well-being but his own.

                1. Anon for this*

                  People who believe/act as you are in this post are absolutely a significant reason I don’t disclose my PTSD unless I’m pushed into it. There’s a tendency to judge people who have a mental disorder as being “bad” or “immoral” or what have you that is just, well, it’s harmful and cruel.

                  Jack is in therapy and has been in therapy for two years to “mitigate” this issue and it appears that up to this point it was under control. He has been taking the correct steps here, working with a therapist and not ignoring his problem. The thing is, no matter how good the therapy, there simply is no way to ensure with a phobia or PTSD that a given treatment work with 100% effectiveness 1oo% of the time.

                  You have no idea what actually triggered this reaction of his nor how common it is. It’s probably safe to say that it wasn’t the simple act of seeing a bird as Jack is an adult human who leaves the house and has held a job for at least a while with no prior incidences of panic. If we assume from the letter that the bird taking flight near him was the trigger, well, how often does that happen? (Maybe it’s because I live and work in a more suburban/small city area with no buildings over 3 stories and lots of green & undeveloped spaces, but most birds seem to keep a healthy distance from humans.)

                  I’ve worked very hard over the last several years to diminish the triggers I’ve got from my PTSD. There’s really only three of them that I can be certain will result in panic/fight mode and they’re all unlikely enough to happen in a professional environment (hands on my waist/hips from behind, stroking my neck, and biting) that I don’t generally disclose my PTSD. (I am reluctant to do so for a variety of reasons, not the least of which is that it’s obvious from my triggers that I was sexually assaulted, a fact which I am not eager for people to know and which I do not think most people would want to know) All of that aside, I did have a coworker grab my waist at my last job and it ended with me reacting violently, knocking her flat, and giving her a black eye. I have no memory of this happening. Because of the panic attack I was having, I took the rest of Thursday off of work as well as Friday. I was unable to speak to my coworker until Monday – and after I spoke with my Boss, HR, and Grandboss.

                  Short of never leaving my house, filing for disability (which I would be extremely unlikely to get, given that I have been managing my issues with only one incident), or warning every person I encounter that I have PTSD (which would be deeply socially awkward, for everyone involved) there’s not much more I can do than continue to work and take my meds. I certainly don’t feel that I am a less moral person because I have this lingering disability thanks to being attacked, nor do I feel that it is my “moral duty” to disclose to people that I may, if X, Y, or Z unlikely thing happens, react in a violent way.

                  I will ask though, partly because I am curious and partly because I would like you to consider it, what exactly do you think Jack (or I, or anyone in this situation) would have to do (beyond the already established actions of therapy and/or medication) to ~exhibit regard for others well-being~ ?

                2. Anon for this*

                  Well, I just typed up a novel to you Karen, but it seems the site ate it.

                  Long story short: Those of us who are working hard to minimize our triggers are not immoral for not disclosing our issues if we genuinely and honestly don’t think they’re going to come up. We have no idea of knowing how common this trigger is for Jack, but we do know that he’s an adult who leaves the house and holds a job where up to this point has not been triggered at it. Given that information, it seems like a reasonable call that the trigger is not all that common and/or that he generally has a good handle on his phobia and reactions. That said, even the best and most effective treatment is not 100% perfect 100% of the time.

                  I bridle a lot at your implication that someone seeking medical treatment for an issue (therapy) isn’t working to mitigate the potential threat that their phobia may present, or that failing to disclose is somehow immoral. (I don’t disclose my PTSD and my triggers because doing so makes it very clear that I was sexually assaulted and that’s deeply awkward for everyone involved – me, because it’s not fair to have “rape victim” be part of people’s first impressions of me, and others because it’s frankly unfair to expect them to confront that kind of crime/trauma in their every day life be that work or social).

                3. KellyK*

                  I think it’s very easy to say that you would do anything and everything in your power to mitigate a threat to others, but much harder if you’re actually in the situation. Would you give up your job? Your social life? Your ability to pay rent and buy groceries? Is there ever a point where the size of the risk comes into play?

                  I don’t think “everything in your power to mitigate the threat” is your duty as a moral human being, because there’s pretty much no limit to how you could, potentially, restrict yourself. It also doesn’t balance what you have to give up against the level of risk to the people around you.

                  By your argument, anyone who has ever experienced a medical issue that would or could cause them to be unsafe driving (anything from a heart attack to a fainting spell) should proactively give up driving for the rest of their lives, unless the issue is definitively cured, regardless of the impact to their career and family life. Likewise, anyone who’s ever experienced such an incident should never again be responsible for the safety of minor children, even their own, since they could potentially become incapacitated and put the child in danger.

                  “Anything in your power” to avoid harm to others at all costs is not a reasonable standard. You have to balance the likelihood of harm against the steps taken to mitigate it. If Jack changes nothing in the future and has another very similar incident, it’s fair to say he has no concern for others. But depending on the severity of the phobia, and how exactly it was triggered, he may have had good reason to think it was under control in that situation. It turned out that he was wrong, but you can’t blame him for not being able to predict the future with perfect accuracy. If “just seeing a bird” was a major trigger that he couldn’t control, you might be right. But if the trigger was more like “having a bird fly into his face,” then assuming that he’s a terrible person with callous disregard for Liz is really unwarranted. From the letter, we don’t know either way.

        3. Princess Consuela Banana Hammock*

          Agreed. While I would normally find it totally out of bounds for an employee to demand someone be fired in order to return to work, this is one of the rare cases where I think that reaction is reasonable and probably at the border of the “ok-ness” bounds. I think OP has to move on and determine how to work with Jack to ensure this doesn’t happen again.

        4. Relly*

          I’m not sure this work place is safe for anyone else, either. There are presumably both birds and cars in the parking lot every day. What stops this from happening again?

        5. Hrovitnir*

          Aaaand Mike said what I said but better one comment on. All of that.

          I mean, I think accommodations could probably be made fairly easily for Liz, but she made her needs clear and is not willing to consider alternatives.

          1. Gadfly*

            Nowhere does it say any were offered. The OP only says Jack apologized and his issues were explained. That is all we are told they did to convince her to come back.

      4. Tuxedo Cat*

        This kind of happened to me, except it was a friend with a phobia of dogs. I thankfully just fell to the ground and wasn’t seriously injured.

        I didn’t ask my friend much about it, but I think she basically overwhelmed with the thought of getting away and I just happened to be in the path of getting away.

      5. Liz T*

        From the language in the letter, I pictured an intentional shove. Otherwise wouldn’t OP have said “knocked over” or something like that?

      6. Hey Nonnie*

        To be clear, I’m not imagining that Jack ran up to her, stopped, considered, and then shoved her into traffic. I AM imagining him deliberately shoving her out of the way while running, instead of choosing to run around her, or run in a different direction.

        I HAVE been in situations where I was terrified for my life/safety. (Traveling alone on a train platform with a very angry, possibly high, enormous linebacker of a man yelling at and walking toward me from behind.) I still would not have shoved any of the other passengers onto the tracks to run away.

        2. Hey Nonnie*

          And I say “deliberate” because he didn’t run into her and shove her forward, onto the sidewalk. She shoved her sideways, off the sidewalk and into traffic.

      7. Aveline*

        Even if he didn’t “deliberately” push her, if he knew he had a known dangerous issue and didn’t mitigate, there’s a problem.

        There’s lots of civil caselaw and ADA law and criminal law on seizure disorders. It isn’t as simple as “he didn’t intend to push her” and he’s got an ADA-covered condition.

        There’s a reason you don’t hire someone with a seizure disorder and them put them in positions where they could have a seizure and injure someone. Even though they are not “deliberately” having seizures AT their coworkers. If, however, they have a seizure disorder and are on medication and have been “clear” for six months to a year, you can put them in positions where a seizure might injure someone.

        The deliberateness of the action isn’t really the point with respect to his continued employment. It’s the likelihood of reoccurrence.

        1. fposte*

          That’s an interesting point from a management standpoint going forward–that maybe there could be a time frame on accommodations and mitigations.

          My problem with the seizure simile, though, is that seizures and phobias are hugely different; phobias don’t reliably result in loss of motor control and consciousness in general, for one thing. I’m not sure even a history of flight from birds (sorry) would necessarily be a precedent of his behavior being dangerous–but I bet it would make for some solid argument in a courtroom.

      8. Falling Diphthong*

        Subjectively, for Liz, she was shoved from behind and immediately hit by a car, and lay there in pain while the person who shoved her stayed well back and said and did nothing. (The phobia explains that last part, but it sure didn’t help in the moment–and I imagine I would need quite a bit of reduced pain and intervening time for ‘see, it was his phobia’ to be a warmly-accepted explanation with no harsh feelings.) I don’t think she’s going to objectively be able to judge “well was that a push past me or a push through me.” And she shouldn’t really be asked to.

    5. Isben Takes Tea*

      Would your answer change if he caused her to fall of the curb by having a seizure?

      1. Lissa*

        This is where my mind went too — it sounds like this was truly an uncontrollable response, and *yes* of course it’s on him to figure out how not to do that, but it is possible this was not a situation he could have anticipated or had come up before. It is possible that his phobia manifested in a way that was just as uncontrollable as a seizure. I have seen *a lot* of comments from people here and otherwise saying that due to PTSD etc. they react violently to being startled from behind, for instance, and that’s accepted as being truly uncontrollable because we see the startle-er as being kind of wrong to come up behind someone and scare them. But if the reaction is actually really not possible to be stopped, then it doesn’t matter if the person who was hurt was innocent or guilty.

        I also think it’s totally reasonable for Liz not to be able to work with Jack anymore, but it feels like a lot of people think that he’s exaggerating his phobia specifically because the consequence was so horrific.

        1. Mike C.*

          I’ve commented a few times, and I just want to make clear here that I don’t think this is a made up or exaggerated issue – quite the opposite of his reaction is so drastic.

        2. paul*

          I haven’t seen anyone suggest that he’s exaggerating; I’ve seen a lot of people point out that his inability to control his reaction makes him dangerous. And not just hypothetically at this point.

        3. Observer*

          No, I don’t think he’s exaggerating his phobia. But, there is a reason why people with seizure disorders are not allowed to drive cars. You can’t help having a seizure, but you can help whether or not you are in control of a vehicle when you have one, once you are diagnosed.

          If you have a a phobia of something that is so common outdoors, the first thing you work on is strategies for not hurting others when you have the inevitable attack triggered by that thing. If you get triggered anyway and hurt someone you explain what you thought would work, and how you intend to avoid a repeat. That doesn’t seem to have happened here. Which is much like someone with seizures insisting on driving.

          1. Josiah*

            People with seizure disorders *are* allowed to drive cars when they’ve been seizure free on medication for an extended period of time.

            Sometimes, people start having seizures again. Sometimes, this happens while they’re driving. If they had every reason to believe that their seizures were controlled, this is not negligence. It’s just an accident — which requires a new strategy.

            1. Mookie*

              Speaking as someone who had a head injury that necessitated such a course of medication, this is so. You’re allowed to privately and commercially operate non-commercial cars and machinery when bonded, but you’re obligated to inform the DMV if you experience certain reactions to the medication or the medication fails to prevent a seizure (occurring while driving or otherwise).

            2. Natalie*

              There have been multiple rather newsworthy accidents in my city where someone’s previously undiagnosed or previously well controlled health issue causes them to crash into a building. None of the drivers were charged, because that’s not how it works.

            3. Observer*

              Yes – but Jack hasn’t shown that his therapy has been working. That would have been the equivalent of being seizure free for an extended period of time.

              Not only has he not shown the equivalent of having been seizure free for any length of time, he apparently hasn’t shown any plan for avoiding “seizures” in the future or minimizing the risk to others till he finds a plan.

              That would be like someone insisting on driving while still figuring out which anti-seizure medication works, and even after an accident where he was driving during a seizure shows no plans to stop driving till he actually finds something that works.

              1. JB (not in Houston)*

                You are making some assumptions there. His therapy could well be working for him generally speaking. A bird suddenly taking flight near you can startle anyone, and if you have a phobia of birds, it could trigger that, even if you are doing well generally. And he’s in therapy, and has been, so he’s clearly continuing to work on it.

                1. Observer*

                  Sure, it’s possible. But, based on what the OP has said, that is either not the case or no one has addressed it at all. And that’s a problem.

                  That’s why I said that if he had reason to think he was in a better place with this, he should have explained that and explained what he is going to do going forward, since something clearly went wrong. At this point, the OP really needs to focus on the future – without Liz – by asking Jack what accommodations he needs to not shove people, and what he is doing to minimize the chances that something happens another time.

      2. Mb13*

        I feel that’s not the same though. Because let’s say he’s suffered a seizure and accidentally knocked her over. Now both of them are on the ground injured and unable to do anything. Jack’s panic migh have been involuntary, but shoving her, watching her raithimg in pain from a distance not doing anything, that was something he did on his own. I am a big defendant of mental illness but Jack is in the wrong.

        1. Isben Takes Tea*

          I can see that part, but most commenters are attacking Jack because of the first action, not the second.

          1. Mb13*

            But again he could have controlled who or even if he should shove someone. Feeling panicked is involuntary but everything after that was. It’s not the same as someone toppling over another person as their legs give from a lack of motor control

        2. JB (not in Houston)*

          It’s interesting to me how people are focusing so much on what he did after it happened. So we can all be ok with what happened if he gave the appearance of being sorry enough? I doesn’t make sense to focus on that because (1) it doesn’t have anything to do with his actions that actually hurt her and (2) we can’t know from the letter what he was doing in that time or why he didn’t help her.

      3. Jamie*

        I don’t think it’s the same as a seizure. A person having a seizure literally has no control over their body.

      4. PTSD sufferer*

        No it doesnt matter if it was a seizure or an involuntary run response. I say that as someone with PTSD and anxiety.

        He might not have known he would push someone in front of a car. But he knew that the involuntary run response occurs at the sight of birds. Considering the billions of birds in the world and the fact that he was already 2 years into treatment there is no way he didnt know. If you suffer from seizures you would inform your employer and have a plan in place.

        He knew he would be out in public going to sites with Liz. He knew that birds live outside and are going to appear eventually. He had a duty for health and safety to warn her if his condition is this severe. He failed to tell anyone. He knowingly put someone at risk by not disclosing and she got HIT BY A CAR. If it was a physical health condition in say a metal working factory that caused someone else to be seriously injured the employee who knew he had an issue and failed to disclose it would almsot certainly face disciplenary action for knowingly risking others safety.

        I understand that it was an accident and he didnt choose for this to occur. But he knew it was in the realm of possibility and did not warn anyone. I wouldn’t want to work with him either. If I was Liz or another colleague. If he had been forthcoming prior to this he would get a bit more leeway here. But he wasnt. I would find it difficult to work with him at all but especially if I was Liz. If I was Suzie the colleague I would have serious questions about working with him. I can understand how it occured but how can you trust him when he failed to tell people about such a major thing that resulted in someone being hit by a car?! And how can you guarantee the rest of your staff any safety???

        1. Josiah*

          Do you tell everyone you work with what all of your triggers are? Even the ones that, as far as you know, you’re completely able to manage discretely?’

          I know I don’t.

          1. PTSD sufferer*

            No but I tell them the ones relevant to my job or area of work.

            Birds are everywhere and he travels for work with colleagues. Thats within the realm of things they need to know.

            1. EleanoraUK*

              Then his colleagues would have likely seen him running around the parking lot before. The fact that they haven’t suggests that perhaps this isn’t his normal phobic response to birds.

              1. Mona Lisa*

                This is my thought, too. It’s likely that, when he sees a bird, he is able to use his coping strategies to keep his phobia in check. The LW says the witness claimed the bird suddenly flew at him. Perhaps the sudden movement of the phobia-inducing creature towards him in close-proximity changed the way he typically responds to the animal.

            2. Josiah*

              I have things to say about this that I’m having trouble putting into words. I just wanted to note that I think what you said is important and I’m not ignoring it.

              I agree with you that someone who freaks out every time there is a bird around needs to disclose that to his coworkers. I suspect that that’s not what happened here. And I’m trying to find the words to talk about some of the nuances of different kinds of triggers, and nuances of the risks and benefits of disclosure.

              1. Lissa*

                I agree. I think that many people have phobias and do not disclose them, because they don’t realize a situation like this could occur. It is really likely that nothing like this has ever happened to Jack before, because there’s never been that exact confluence of events. And yes, I have seen a lot of people upthread talking about “well, birds are everywhere” and that’s true, but just because Jack reacted so strongly this time with bad results does not mean this is something that he could have anticipated

                1. motherofdragons*

                  What strikes me is, yes, birds ARE everywhere – and this is the first time this has happened to Jack. Which means that previous to now, at least in the workplace, he HAS kept his phobia under control, and has managed not to hurt himself or others when a bird has crossed his path. If Jack was truly “unable to control his responses” as many commenters here seem to think, wouldn’t this behavior have happened before, even to a lesser extent? I feel like the OP would be saying “Now that I think of it, I’ve seen Jack flip out and knock over a trash can getting away from some pigeons in the parking lot.”

      5. Aveline*

        Not really for me.

        There’s a lot of civil case law, criminal law, and ADA related law that states if you have a known disorder likely to cause seizures and you do not take meds, you can’t do activities that might cause injury to others (e.g., driving). You only get to do those if you are on meds, under a doctors care, and clear for a specified period of time. (Usually 6 months to a year).

        It isn’t about intentionally harming someone/intentionally pushing. It’s about having a condition you know might be a danger to others and whether or not you can mitigate that condition through medication or other treatment.

        So seizures are actually the perfect analog.

        Say Jack had a seizure disorder and was under doctor’s care for 2 years but the seizures hadn’t went away. If he drove Jill to the mall and had a seizure and hurt her, he’s responsible. His intent in the moment is wholly irrelevant.

    6. Anonymous for mental illness*

      I agree and I do not think that firing would be too much. I’m honestly not understanding why firing wouldn’t be the right choice here. Am I missing something?

      1. Josiah*

        Possibly. This is what I think you’re missing:

        When people follow established safety procedures and someone gets hurt anyway, it’s not usually reasonable to fire them. It’s usually much more reasonable to revisit the safety strategy and find a new one that solves the problem.

        Jack is in therapy, and this does not seem to have been an issue at any other point at this employer. It seems likely to me that Jack was not negligent. It seems likely to me that he was following an established safety strategy that he had every reason to believe was reliable. It turned out not to be in this particular instance, in a way that it may not have been possible for anyone to anticipate.

        If that’s the situation, Jack wasn’t doing anything wrong, and it’s probably not reasonable to fire him. Probably what’s reasonable is to make a new plan — which it seems to me that Jack is likely doing.

        That doesn’t mean that I think it’s ok that Liz got hurt. I don’t think it’s ever ok when people get hurt, especially to that extent. What I think is that sometimes get hurt in ways that aren’t anyone’s fault. After the fact, both Jack and the company have major responsibilities, but before the fact, it’s entirely possible that no one did anything wrong.

        1. NW Mossy*

          I’m with you on this, and I think it’s why I’ve been finding the whole discussion somewhat unsettling. There seems to be this presumption that this incident could have been prevented if X was done, but that’s not necessarily the case.

          Many of the hindsight recommendations about what Jack/his employer “should have done” either don’t definitively prevent the issue (Jack disclosing his bird phobia) or result in measures that seem way over the top for someone that up until this incident had no history of injuring anyone (Jack doesn’t go outside, Jack always maintains a minimum distance from all other people while outside, Jack doesn’t go off-site/travel).

          Liz is perfectly within her rights to say “I’m never coming back, and Jack is the worst human being to have ever walked this earth.” Jack and his employer can certainly take steps to mitigate the impact to her. But I don’t think it’s fair to slag Jack and his employer for reasonably believing that his bird phobia was unlikely to result in significant risk to Jack or others. A colleague of mine happens to have a bird phobia also, and I’ve never had any reason to view her as a threat. Even after reading this letter, I still don’t view her that way, even knowing that a bird flying towards her might very well cause her to panic.

        2. Aveline*

          “does not seem to have been an issue at any other point at this employe”

          That’s irrelevant. If it was a known issue to Jack and he knew this severe response was possible, he’s still responsible.

          What if he’d had one or two “reactions” outside of work? What if his psych told him “a severe panic attack is possible?”

          It is exactly like having a seizure disorder. If you have one that can’t be controlled, you don’t drive or operate heavy equipment. Period.

          We, unfortunately, don’t know enough about Jack’s condition to say.

  3. DArcy*

    Liz has every right to sue Jack for civil damages for shoving her into oncoming traffic, regardless of his phobia. Under these very unusual circumstances he doesn’t deserve to be fired for his actions, but it’s also perfectly reasonable that she feels massively traumatized and is unable to work with him after what he did. You really have to let her go.

    1. LisaLee*

      I agree with you. This whole situation is just such a mess. I feel really bad for both Liz and Jack.

      Buuuuttt…I gotta say I feel a little worse for Liz. She’s gone through serious medical trauma, she’s now out of a job because she literally feels unsafe around her coworker, and there’s no mention in the letter of any sort of financial compensation for what is surely going to be a massive pile of medical bills. No, you shouldn’t fire Jack, but this really, really sucks for Liz. The OP should give her a good reference and try to smooth her path to another job if they can.

      1. Adam V*

        I’m also interested in the question of “what sort of reference do you give for Liz”. My immediate thought was “she quit without notice, yelled at a coworker who was trying to apologize for having a mental health issue and demanded he be fired”. The more compassionate thought is “she got hit by a moving car, broke bones and suffered a surgery and extended hospital stay due to the actions of a coworker, and quit because she felt unsafe working with him” (though technically OP didn’t say that Liz didn’t feel safe, she just said that Liz wanted Jack fired).

        In the end, I would also probably give her a positive reference, but I think I forgive Jack’s faults easier than Liz’s because to me, she comes off as vindictive by wanting him fired and he comes across as sympathetic by having a fear of something so commonplace and frequently encountered.

        1. Gadfly*

          But he isn’t, as far as the letter indicates, taking any responsibility–Jack loses a lot of sympathy from me for that. Apologizing when HR forces him to does not count. It seems to be all about Jack and his issues–not that he hurt a co-worker and her issues.

          Saying someone has free reign to hurt other people because they are ill–I wouldn’t want to work there. And that is implied here. I would refuse to work with him just like I would refuse to work with someone who went into fugue moments and started hitting people. If his phobia is so bad he is doing this, he may be beyond reasonable accommodations until he has better coping strategies.

            1. Ask a Manager* Post author

              That to me isn’t the big thing — because presumably if you’re in the middle of a panic attack, you’re not equipped to help someone else.

              1. Cary*

                I’ve had panic attacks that have went on for hours. Once through almost the entire length of Spamalot. Thankfully I don’t suffer from them anymore, but they when they kicked in I could do little more than keep breathing.

                Also, there were other co-workers there as well. It’s not as if Jack left her without any help.

              2. Gadfly*

                I’m not as concerned about the not helping/still being panicked (although from the description it sounds like he was watching and maybe could have done something more constructive like go into the building sooner for more help–even if true, not everyone thinks clearly in emergencies.) He has his explanation of there being a bird near her. If he had panicked enough to do this and then ignored the bird to help, I’d be more furious. (Although, it is a brave, brave bird if it is hanging out close to a group of people during something like this.)

                I think my bottom line, based on everything I know and have experienced regarding physical and mental disabilities, is I am incredibly concerned by not hearing anything that suggests Jack came forward with a plan to prevent this in the future or voluntarily apologized or that he is doing anything to pay for the damage done. Accident or not, that is what a decent person does. That the company does not seem to be doing any of it it seems like they are disregarding their basic responsibilities too.

                They don’t have to fire Jack because a different employee demands it. But they should be addressing why she wants him fired rather than focusing just on why they are choosing not to do so.

                Maybe they are doing it and didn’t mention it. But with that piece missing, it looks like they are basically just leaving it all on Liz.

                1. The Wall of Creativity*

                  “Leaving it all on Liz”

                  I think the figure of speech you’re looking for is “throwing Liz under the bus”.

                2. JS*

                  I think you have to pick up on the ques in the text. They said Liz wasn’t open to the apology so she likely isn’t open to any working solutions either. Also Jack has been in therapy for two years so it’s not like he hasn’t been seeking help or doesn’t have copping methods in place already. Those might need adjusting (we don’t know if he relapsed or is getting worse or was feeling just particularly stressed and worried). The issue is the ultimatum at this point so any other details aren’t important to the issue (provide context sure but we’ve already gotten to the point of no return with Liz). I’m sure this would be a different story if Jack’s attitude was “oh well” “that sucks” “not my problem” as you seem to be inferring. This is something he is actively getting treatment for so is likely very sensitive to how it effects his life and others.

                3. Gadfly*

                  I wouldn’t be open to an apology that didn’t come with a lot more than just an apology either–I’d want to also be getting answers as to how my needs and concerns would be taken care of and not just explanations of why it really isn’t is fault/responsibility.

            2. Forrest*

              If he didn’t care about her well-being, why did he stay outside around birds as opposed to running inside?

          2. Adam V*

            > Apologizing when HR forces him to does not count.

            That’s where we disagree, I guess. I imagine that given the situation, he wouldn’t want to contact her *without* someone else being present. He also agreed to divulge specific details about his mental health to a coworker, so I feel like he’s really making an effort.

            1. JessaB*

              I am not sure that he didn’t have HR on the line to protect himself also. I don’t actually see verbiage in the OP that says he was forced to apologise, just that he did it with HR. If that was meant well that’s different.

            2. Cary*

              I didn’t read this as being a forced apology, merely as HR being present when he apologised. If I were in Jack’s shoes I’d want a witness to the fact that I’d apologised, and as a witness to what was said. Also, in practical terms how do we know Jack had contact information for Liz?

              1. Gadfly*

                Although wanting witnesses makes it sound even more calculated and CYA versus sincere. And really, “I’m sorry” is at best the first step of a 3 step process to apologize. Steps 2 (making amends) and 3 (showing it won’t be repeated) seem to be missing.

                1. Katherine*

                  Because Liz refused his apology and demanded he be fired. So there is no chance for him to follow through to steps 2 and 3.

                2. BRR*

                  I don’t know if this is too hypocritical but maybe he was advised to not apologize at some point? I’m thinking of how my car insurance card says if I get into accident don’t admit fault. I’m also not sure if an apology counts as admitting wrongdoing.

                3. Gadfly*

                  Sounds like all she was offered was step one– and I’d tell someone where to shove that too. It isn’t like the last two steps are dependent on someone forgiving you, ever. You don’t get to hold those steps hostage “forgive me or I’ll never make things right and I’ll keep doing this”

        2. paul*

          I mean, she broke bones and got seriously jacked up; I can understand being royally pissed. That’s not fun at all. And Jack is the person responsible for it.

          1. Adam V*

            Sure, and I would completely understand Liz saying “sorry, I don’t feel comfortable coming back to work for you if Jack’s there” or even “sorry, I don’t feel like I can work in the same office as Jack any more; I’m upset at him over the accident, and I don’t see that changing in the future” – either of which is totally different than “fire Jack or else I won’t come back”. The way the OP worded it, it came across more like the last one to me.

            She gets to tell me “the situation is not one I want to return to”, but not “here’s the condition you’d have to agree to in order for me to return”.

            I’m reminded of an article quite a while ago about an employee who put in their notice, and a higher-up offered to fire her boss and promote her in order to get her to stay. That’s definitely an awkward situation to be in. But I couldn’t imagine that employee going in and saying “I’m quitting in two weeks unless you fire my boss and promote me to her spot.”

            1. Gadfly*

              They came to her and asked what it would take for her to return. Of course she gets to say what conditions would be required for her to return–even if they were unicorns and fudge sundae Tuesdays every week. She made it clear that the answer was no Jack. Fair enough. I don’t see them making counter offers like “Jack stays far away from you” or “Jack works from home or a different office” or anything like that.

              1. Adam V*

                I don’t read it that way. I see it more like they called her and asked “we’re sorry about the accident, we hope you’re feeling better, have the doctors told you when you might be able to come back?” and Liz responding “I’m not coming back unless you fire Jack”. They huddle, Jack apologizes with HR present – still no dice. At that point they say “I’m not sure where to go next” and consult experts – Allison (and probably an ADA lawyer).

                (Granted, this is all assumed. I have no idea how the conversations went. It would just strike me as very unusual for a company to call a (former) employee and say “you can have whatever you want if you come back…. oh, well maybe not that”.)

                1. Gadfly*

                  She quit. They called her. At that point she can ask for anything she wants. Doesn’t mean she’ll get it, or it is reasonable, but she is the one saying that is the line for her.

            2. Jael*

              But, according to the letter, Liz made her decision to move on to get away from Jack. Now they are trying to get her to come back. She can ask for whatever she wants. They are pursuing her.

              1. Adam V*

                Yeah, that’s true. I guess I just don’t think that’s in the realm of possibility.

                “I want to telecommute all the time because I don’t want to work near Jack.”
                “I want my office to be moved to the opposite side of the building as Jack.”
                “I want to be moved to a different team so I don’t have to have regular contact with Jack.”

                Those are the sorts of things I imagine might be available and within reason (and even they might be untenable – what if OP is in charge of all the projects that Jack and Liz might be assigned to?). I just think asking for someone else to be fired is a bridge too far.

                1. Gadfly*

                  Then those are the counter offers OP should have made. It shouldn’t be up to Liz to come up with variations on I want nothing to do with Jack ever again. Especially when she is dealing with serious injuries that could quite likely effect her for the rest of her life.

                2. Colette*

                  I wouldn’t want to run into someone who hurt me in the halls or at the company picnic. And this happened while she was still recovering – it’s possible she might be more sympathetic in different circumstances (like when she’s not in constant pain).

                3. JS*

                  This! I mean the end result might end up with them being fired or me leaving if reasonable accommodation can not be made but to be so presumptuous as to be like “me or him” given it was an accident is ridiculous to me.

                4. Gadfly*

                  Have you ever been hospitalized for a violent/sudden/painful/crippling injury and dealt with the pain and the meds and the awfulness of being hospitalized? It isn’t presumptuous to want the person who caused that, intentionally or accidentally, and appears to have suffered no consequences to also suffer. It isn’t presumptuous to want their head on a platter. It might not be likely, but it isn’t presumptuous to make unreasonable demands at a time when it is unreasonable to expect a person to be reasonable.

            3. DArcy*

              I think you’re being tremendously unkind towards Liz in expecting her to be perfectly diplomatic when put on the spot by her company when she’s still recovering from a severe, traumatic injury.

              1. paul*

                I can vouch that I was a cranky SOB for a good week or so after my major shoulder rebuild; I’d arranged PTO for the duration (because it’s hard to type when your arm isn’t working) so it didn’t impact colleagues but man if they’d called I’d have probably been pretty curt. Intense pain, and a brain addled by pain meds (that didn’t do much more than slightly take the edge off)

              2. esra (also a Canadian)*

                For real. I would absolutely, unequivocally not even think of giving Liz a bad reference here. No matter how sympathetic I am toward someone, I would still have very strong feelings about being shoved into traffic and suffering those kinds of injuries.

              3. siobhan*

                Especially since it sounds like there were at least a couple days before she heard about Jack’s phobia, so she had some time to stew in the narrative of “my coworker pushed me in the path of a car and did nothing to help me” while going through painful medical procedures. I would also not want to hear Jack’s voice on the phone if I were Liz. Which is not to say that as an uninvolved observer I don’t have compassion for Jack, who I’m sure is mortified, but I’m surprised that anyone expects Liz to be in a rational place right now. She was hit by a car!

        3. Shannon*

          I agree. It’s possible Liz demanded Jack’s termination because she doesn’t feel safe around him. It’s also possible that she demanded his termination as an emotional knee-jerk reaction to validate that what happened to her was horrible.

          While Jack has very limited culpability, it’s clear that these two people can no longer work together. It sucks for everyone, but the situation is resolved.

        4. LisaLee*

          I dunno, I would also be feeling pretty vindictive if a coworker of mine caused me serious injury (even accidentally!). I mean look at it this way–people get fired all the time for totally innocent mistakes that cause others physical harm. In factory work there is often a zero-tolerance policy for mistakes that *theoretically* could have caused an injury.

          I do feel for Jack and I’m totally sympathetic to what must be an extraordinarily debilitating medical condition. But it’s not at all weird to me that Liz expects him to face some sort of consequences at work. It’s also not at all weird to me that she didn’t have 100% control over her emotions days after unexpected surgery. She was probably in pain and on drugs and put in a stressful situation where she was pressured to forgive Jack. I’m surprised that the company didn’t attempt to transfer one or the other or do something else to mitigate the situation.

          1. Gazebo Slayer*

            It’s strange to me how many people seem to consider firing Jack an extreme response. People get fired all the time for mistakes – even ones that don’t hurt anyone. I’ve been fired for far less than this myself.

            Maybe it’s just that I don’t work in the privileged bubble of relatively high-skilled and high-paid, benefited, permanent jobs. In a lot of jobs, including most I’ve had, Jack would have been gone without question. Sadly, Liz would likely have been gone too if her broken arm interfered with her job duties for more than a few days. Sure, this is not great, but it’s reality for a large segment of the workforce.

        5. kb*

          I don’t think it’s entirely fair to consider Liz vindictive for wanting Jack to be fired in this case. I think she understandably feels she can no longer have a functional work relationship with Jack, but also understandably doesn’t think she should have to be the one to leave. This is really just a terrible scenario all around.

          1. kb*

            I’m not saying Jack should be fired, just that it’s not really sympathetic to the trauma Liz endured to cast her as vindictive.

            1. Adam V*

              I’ll be the first to admit that I’m reading “vindictive” into the limited text we have, but I’m taking it from a few things:

              “Liz is angry. She wants Jack to be fired”
              “she didn’t accept [his apology] and yelled at him”
              “his phobia and mental health issues were explained to Liz but she says she doesn’t care”

              But you’re right, it’s not sympathetic to her to read it that way. I agree that I’d probably have a similar “no way in hell” response to the company asking me to come back and work with someone who’d injured me so severely – and who couldn’t guarantee it wouldn’t happen again.

              1. Temperance*

                She was hit by a car. I’m sorry, but how does that make her vindictive? She was severely injured, will now at the very least have an unsightly scar on her arm for life (assuming that she won’t need extended physical therapy!), and because she wasn’t nice enough to the guy who injured her, she’s vindictive?

                2. Temperance*

                  Nailed it. You’re 100% right. I mean, the comments here are basically coddling Jack and suggesting that he face no consequences, and that Liz is like, so dramatic and unreasonable for being angry that he PUSHED HER INTO THE PATH OF AN ONCOMING CAR.

          2. Marillenbaum*

            I think that’s especially the case because she didn’t start with demanding Jack be fired. She quit first, and only said she wanted Jack gone once they asked her what it would take to get her back.

        6. Princess Consuela Banana Hammock*

          I would side-eye any employer who would pan Liz on a reference because of her reaction. I also don’t think she’s being vindictive, and I think it’s extraordinarily uncharitable to imply that she is or that she’s somehow “less sympathetic” because she reacted as she did. Would you want to come to work with someone who had caused you the level of physical harm she sustained? For all we know, she now has psychological trauma from her experience, and seeing Jack likely makes that worse or triggers it. I think trying to pin one person as more or less virtuous is a losing proposition, here.

          This is a case where there’s not clear good guys and bad guys. The best OP#1 can do is figure out how to move forward and to be as kind, understanding and supportive of Liz as OP was for Jack.

          1. Adam V*

            I completely agree that I wouldn’t want to work with Jack again either, and I’d be really upset that in the end, my coworker was back to his daily life while I was having to find a new job and start from scratch, all while recovering from surgery.

          2. Amy*

            Yes, this is on point. It’s totally understandable that Liz wouldn’t want to work with Jack after an incident like this. The only possible thing she’s done that might be unreasonable is asking that Jack be fired, and even there, we don’t know if she actually tried to demand that, or if she just offered “I really can’t handle being around Jack right now” as her reason for quitting and her employer interpreted that as its logical conclusion of having to lose one of them.

            It sucks that this happened. Considering the apparent severity of Jack’s phobia, how he reacted is understandable. Considering the severity of Liz’s injury, how she reacted is understandable. It’s bad for the company that it came to this, but I think their responsibility here is to 1) do the best they can by Liz (which definitely includes a good recommendation, and ideally some kind of assistance with medical bills), and 2) help Jack make a plan to keep something like this from happening again. Not to frame one of them as the ‘bad guy’ who gets thrown under the bus.

            1. Newby*

              I hope she gets a good recommendation. Quitting is a reasonable action in this case and she should not be penalized for it.

        7. Observer*

          Good heavens! She didn’t yell at a (former) coworker for having a mental health condition. She yelled at him for shoving her into traffic and nearly killing her! Sure, he didn’t intend to hurt her, but that doesn’t change the actual event that she is responding to. Acting as though that’s not relevant is just . . . incredible.

          1. Adam V*

            Note that I didn’t say “yelled at him for having a mental health condition”, I said “yelled at him while he was trying to apologize for having a mental health condition”.

            1. Observer*

              It just doesn’t matter. The fact that he was talking about his mental health condition is not relevant – she yelled at him because he nearly killed her, intentionally or not, and she doesn’t want to hear his apologies.

              Maybe not a perfect reaction. But, it’s not a terribly unreasonable one. His condition doesn’t change that.

            2. Temperance*

              Okay, but here’s the thing: he shouldn’t have been apologizing “for having a mental health condition”. He should have been apologizing for pushing her in front of a moving car, for putting her in the hospital, and for potentially causing her lasting physical damage.

              1. Adam V*

                Sorry, that was me putting words in OP’s mouth. It just says “he called her to apologize”. It’s quite likely he was calling to apologize for all of that.

          2. Anion*

            He didn’t shove her into traffic. It was a parking space where someone was just pulling in.

            3. Princess Consuela Banana Hammock*

              That doesn’t really change anything (although I take your comment to mean that characterizing it as “traffic” might be slightly inflammatory, depending on what people think about when they think of “traffic”).

            4. Temperance*

              We actually don’t know that it was a parking lot! It could very well have been street parking.

        8. Angry Anon*

          I work in health care (elective surgery) and some years ago I was assaulted by a patient. The patient was not frightened, demented, in a delirium or under the effect of drugs. He also assaulted some of my colleagues. I had to have surgery because of my injuries and I have been left with chronic pain. If I saw him on the street I would feel like running him down in my car. Does that make me vindictive?

        9. Katie the Fed*

          Adam, you should also keep in mind that she’s probably not mentally in a good place right now. She’s been through an accident, surgery, hospitalization, and is probably on a lot of medication. She might be scared how she is going to function for the next several weeks, how she’s going to get to physical therapy, who is going to prepare her kids’ lunches, etc. She might be worrying about scaring and permanent damage.

          You’re NOT in a good mental space after something like this, so please also have some compassion for what she’s dealing with.

        10. The Wall of Creativity*

          Liz isn’t being vindictive. Being vindictive is when you nick Jack’s car keys and lock a bird in there.

        11. Doe-eyed*

          I think it’s reasonable to take into account the mental state that Liz is in. Fractures that severe can cause nerve issues, long-term pain, and loss of range of movement. At least for me (my hobbies are handicrafts and my entire job involves typing and computers), this would severely limit my ability to function day to day. This may impede my career, depending on how much it hurts me to do my job from now on. There may be medical complications from this injury years down the line that she hasn’t even thought about. Probably she’s having to do physical therapy, and probably it is very painful.

          This is not a minor injury, and it doesn’t seem “vindictive” to me to seem frightened and angry that someone who may have changed the entire course of her life essentially has no repercussions to having done so. Psychologically, this anger response is pretty common to a very serious, potentially life changing injury that she had no control over nor did anything to contribute to.

          I empathize with Jack, I realize he didn’t mean to do it, but that doesn’t mean that Liz has to feel ok about it when she’s the one who’s life is impacted.

          1. A Person*

            This.

            I feel like Jack’s reaction so far comes across as ‘Woe is me and my manpain’ whilst ignoring the fact that Liz may have serious long term complications from this injury (I get that there could be reasons Jack is coming across that way- advice from a lawyer for example but that doesn’t make it right). Jack and the company need to do right by Liz, in the form of covering medical bills/extended physical therapy/golden goodbye/good reference.

    2. JB (not in Houston)*

      I don’t want to nitpick, but the letter doesn’t say that’s what happened. People are filling in the gaps there. He pushed her or pushed past her, causing her to lose her balance, which resulted in her falling in front of a car. It’s not quite the same thing as shoving someone into traffic.

      1. Newby*

        I don’t think there is much difference from Liz’s perspective though. She was pushed and got hit by a car. If she hadn’t been pushed she would not have been injured. Her anger makes sense.

        1. JB (not in Houston)*

          Of course her anger makes sense. And it makes sense without justifying it by using inflammatory language that misrepresents what happened.

    4. Retail HR Guy*

      Actually, if this falls under workers’ comp (and whether it does or not depends on the state; parking lots are iffy), she does not have the right to sue Jack for civil damages. Workers’ comp is the exclusive legal remedy for work-related injuries.

  4. Gadfly*

    In my opinion, but check with a lawyer, pushing coworkers for any reason, let alone into cars, doesn’t qualify as reasonable accommodation anymore than allowing them to pinch or hit coworkers would. As soon as they touch someone else, it stops being reasonable.

    1. New Bee*

      I don’t think anyone at work knew Jack had anything that might need accommodation until after the incident. To me it doesn’t sound like they’re saying, “We can’t fire Jack because {insert misunderstanding of the law},” but rather, “He’s a good employee and it was an accident,” with a side of, “We don’t want to set precedent of one employee determining the fate of another.”

      1. Gadfly*

        I know, but what I am saying is that it simply isn’t reasonable (that it wasn’t something brought up before doesn’t help it, it makes it worse.)

        Whatever their reasons, they have made it clear Jack is more important to them than Liz. If this were an accident, and simply an accident, it is big enough to be worthy of some discipline. At the least there should be a post-mortim of how do we avoid this happening again. As long as it simply ends with “Jack doesn’t mean to push people into cars, he can’t help it” it doesn’t matter if it is tripping, it is bird phobias, it is seizures or anything else–other employees are not being unreasonable to not want to work with him, especially the one he already hurt.

        My mother got in more trouble for running over people’s feet who (after many requests to stop) followed her too closely so she literally could not see them. That we don’t see any mention of a plan addressing it for the future REALLY bothers me.

        1. Mike C.*

          Accidents, even those where people are harmed or killed do not always mean that someone must be punished. They do however mean that the preventative action must be taken to ensure that it never happens again.

          1. Fish Microwaver*

            Sure, and Jack needs to offer Liz a heartfelt apology and an attempt at reparation.

            1. Gadfly*

              All that appears in the letter is circling the wagons around Jack to protect him from mean old Liz–I want to know what was done to try to make things right for her?

              1. Relly*

                Yes, this. And I want to know what’s been done to ensure something like this won’t happen again. I’m not seeing that, either.

              2. Hrovitnir*

                See, how are you (and apparently a lot of people) getting this from the letter? The LW says they have tried to get Liz to come back – which sure, could mean a bunch of “pleeease?” but I read as “offering alternatives to firing Jack”.

                Not firing Jack, having HR involved in Jack apologising to Liz and divulging the reasons =/ trying to protect him from “mean old Liz”, come on now.

                1. Gadfly*

                  Very simply: excuses/explanations for keeping Jack are provided. Nothing anywhere is said about anything being done for Liz beyond an HR (staged sounding) apology and an explanation of why Jack isn’t really at fault. And that is key to shaping this situation. I find it implausible that they offered her anything else–raise, never have to work with him, etc–and didn’t mention it while they are whining about deadlines.

            2. sstabeler*

              it sounds like he tried to. However, the issue is that Liz has made it a “either he goes, or I go” issue- which, fundamentally, means Liz has to go, regardless of what happens to Jack. There is never a good reason to demand someone be fired or you will resign. (demand not to have to work with them, possibly, but not demand a termination.)

              Particularly since “pushed into oncoming traffic” is not actually what Jack did except in the most technical sense. He pushed her out of the way, probably not noticing that pushed her into traffic.(The classic “stampede” response-also “flee in terror”- usually includes an element of tunnel vision. Jack probably honestly did not know Liz was being pushed into traffic, which is different from deliberately shoving her into traffic, which would justify having Jack be arrested, let alone fired)

              1. Colette*

                I think there’s a lot of interpretation about what Liz said (“I can’t work with Jack again” vs “fire Jack or I quit”). I also could easily see her being more demanding if she sees no attempt by the company to protect her or other employees from someone who has seriously injured her. If she were demanding Phil in accounting be fired, that would be unreasonable. But being asked to have sympathy for someone who put you in the hospital is asking a lot, particularly while she’s still recovering. And especially if the OP presented it as concern about what’s going to happen to her projects, not concern about her.

                1. Newby*

                  It sounded like Liz decided she couldn’t work with Jack anymore. When she found out he was not going to be fired, she quit. It was when they asked what would get her to come back that she said fire Jack. That doesn’t sound like “fire Jack or I quit” it sounds like “I am not comfortable working with Jack, so I have to quit.” That is a reasonable position to take.

              2. Gadfly*

                I can think of lots of reasons. Racists, sexists, hiring my husband’s ex-wife, people who have caused me serious injury and I am traumatized by…

              3. Anion*

                It wasn’t “traffic,” either. It was an empty parking space, into which someone was unfortunately pulling at that moment. Had no car been pulling into that spot, she would likely not have been injured.

                2. JB (not in Houston)*

                  @Anion
                  It does seem to matter to the people who are characterizing Jack as pushing her right into oncoming traffic

          2. Gadfly*

            There are three parts to an apology:
            1) A sincere “I’m sorry” or similar–Acknowledgement of responsibility
            2) Doing what can be done to fix what was damaged or in some way make amends
            3) Not repeating it/making concrete plans to avoid repeating it

            1. Forrest*

              Doesn’t seem Liz gave the company an opening to do #2 or #3 and for all we know Jack did do #1.

              Liz can’t be forced to work with Jack but the company can’t be forced to fire Jack. Both groups made their choice and unless the company is willing to reverse theirs, they need to move on.

              1. Newby*

                It doesn’t sound like Liz was trying to force them to fire Jack. She quit. She said she would come back if he were fired, but that is because they were trying to convince her to come back. She doesn’t have to be open to working with someone whose actions resulted in her hospitalization.

                1. Forrest*

                  I never said she did – I said the opposite:

                  “Liz can’t be forced to work with Jack”

                  You’re right that Liz may not be forcing them to fire Jack. I think the “either him or me” makes it muddy but it’s probably a little victim blaming to say she tried to force him.

              2. Gadfly*

                They really should come as a package–2&3 shouldn’t be held hostage to if the person accepts 1. It isn’t like you can’t do the others if the person isn’t forgiving.

      2. INTP*

        That could be true but the only options aren’t firing Jack or doing nothing. This was not at all a freak accident – it happened because there was a bird outside, a person near him on the sidewalk, and a car in the street. These are all ridiculously common occurrences and it could very easily happen again, and they absolutely need to put a preventive plan in place even if it’s embarrassing for Jack, like instructing him to maintain at least a 5 foot distance from all people when he is outdoors. (Hopefully they did this and it wasn’t just mentioned in the letter.)

        1. Tara*

          He could just as easily tripped on a rock and knocked her into the parking space. Would that be not a freak accident just because rocks and cars exist? I have a similarly severe phobia to Jack, and I have not in nearly 30 years harmed anyone and my phobia is to bugs which are far more ubiquitous than birds.

    2. Forrest*

      I’m going to go out on a limb and say Jack probably didn’t ask to be allowed to push coworkers if needed nor do I think the company would agree to that accommodation or even be legally obligated to agree.

      1. Jessie the First (or second)*

        Yes, this line of debate that “pushing a coworker into traffic isn’t an ADA accommodation!” is frankly silly, because literally no one is suggesting that it is. The ADA issues that may be in play here are not about whether pushing people is ok.

  5. Mustache Cat*

    #1 is sooo bonkers to me.

    I think Liz would have been well within her rights to demand some kind of disciplining, mental health issues or not, especially since you now cannot guarantee any of your employees that they are safe around Jack. I think that attempting to coerce you to fire him by withholding her labor is too far, and a sign that you should just let her remain a former employee.

    That said, you really need to consider how you’re going to prevent this situation from happening again, other than just hoping Jack improves with therapy. I completely understand Liz when she says she doesn’t care about Jack’s mental health issues (although I am personally sympathetic to them) because at the end of the day….it was her arm that got broken. That’s too much to ask your other employees to risk. Honest question, OP1, what would you have done if Liz had died? Because getting pushed in front of an oncoming car– that is literally a life and death situation.

    1. Isben Takes Tea*

      Why? It was an accident. It’s not like Jack is going to go around deliberately pushing people in front of cars every time a pigeon flies by. If he had tripped over his own shoe and accidentally pushed her into the path of the same car, is he still “too much to ask your other employees to risk”?

      1. Adam V*

        Yeah, I feel like there are a million ways this accident could have happened such that we wouldn’t blame him, it’s just that this one is… more action-based than others? so it makes people think it could have been avoided somehow.

        1. Turtle Candle*

          I think the thing that is (fairly or unfairly) influencing this is the fact that he didn’t help her after the accident and stood some distance away, and the fact that the apology happened in the presence of HR (which implies, though doesn’t prove, that he was apologizing under duress and/or pro forma). I think that people respond very different to an accident where someone then attempts to help the injured party and apologizes immediately, vs. not.

          (Which is not to say that he was lying when he said that he couldn’t help her because a bird had landed near her. It’s wholly possible that he genuinely could not do so. But that I think that the reaction from the commenters would be very different if it was “Jack knocked Liz into traffic because [reason] and then attempted to stop traffic, called 911, sat with her until the paramedics arrived, and apologized.” Or whatever. If I was Liz, that would be part of why I’d be having trouble, if I’m honest–and I have a panic disorder myself.)

          2. Mike C.*

            See, that part I don’t really care about because it’s consistent with having a major phobia. Personally, I find the sheer amount of harm to be what stands out for me.

            1. Turtle Candle*

              Intellectually, I agree with you; I’m commenting more on the emotional response to it, which I do think would be very different if the post-facto response had been different.

              BTW, I agree completely with your point elsewhere in the thread that the main issue here is that there needs to be some way of assuring that other people don’t get hurt. It’s especially difficult because this is a weird middle ground–if he had a panic response around crocodiles, it would presumably never come up, and if he had a panic response around, I don’t know, doorknobs or paper clips, it presumably would already have had to be dealt with, but birds are just uncommon enough that it might not pop up frequently but just common enough that it’s not quite like crocodiles.

              1. Turtle Candle*

                (Er, by which I mean that birds are uncommon in workplaces, not in the world in general.)

                1. Tuxedo Cat*

                  I would disagree that this is a middle ground. Maybe not to the same extent as office supplies (although I haven’t seen a paper clip in months), but I feel like it’s fairly common. I don’t know how Jack’s phobia operates or how long he’s been there, but I see birds all the time out of my window at work. Less so in the winter, but they’re coming back now that it’s spring.

                  I don’t think it completely hinders his ability to do the job, but I think it should be addressed as fairly common.

                2. Tab*

                  Going to address Tuxedo Cat’s comment here for a bit of explaining about phobias, because they are really weird things. I have a phobia of bugs which are sure to come up just as much if not more than birds.

                  Phobia incidents like this one won’t always come up every time you see the trigger for your phobia. The level of panic you get depends on so many things. People have suggested that the real trigger here is not the bird, but the fact that the bird took off and Jack had a fear of it flying towards him, which is much more consistent with my experience. It depends on distance, and how trapped he feels, how stressed he already was that day, what the bird is doing. These things lining up for a full on meltdown aren’t as common as you’d think if you aren’t experienced in phobias. I’d definitely say that a bird phobia is a middle-ground fear. Especially if he’s only scared of close up birds, which is definitely possible. He’s probably not super happy to see one flying in the distance, but that’s a level of fear where its possible to keep your cool and people don’t even have to know you’re afraid, let alone not a trample your coworkers to get out of the way kind of fear.

            2. paul*

              and how common birds are; it isn’t like you can expect to go years without seeing a bird. if I had to worry about that reaction any time a bird got close enough to trigger him? Hell no. Not working with him.

              1. Kj*

                I agree. If he had an elephant phobia, most people in the US/Canada/Europe encounter elephants very infrequently and usually by choice. So if he had an elephant phobia and responded badly to an elephant walking down the sidewalk, I’d be more empathetic. But birds? They are everywhere and hard to avoid.

        2. Observer*

          Actually, yes, it probably could have been. But it would have meant some significant proactive behaviorn on the part of Jack. And, the reality is that if someone has such issues with balance that he is likely to fall on people an knock them over on any random walk, that person either needs to not walk with people or needs to be in a wheelchair. In other words, that person would develop strategies for minimizing the chance that he’s going to fall on someone and knock them over.

          Jack needs to do the same thing. Otherwise, he really DOES present a real risk.

          1. Isben Takes Tea*

            Liz was “less than a step” in front of Jack. I’ve done half-trips that I can easily recover from, but that my automatic flailing might indeed “push” someone off a curb if they’re also walking.

            1. Observer*

              How often do you do these half trips that cause such flailing that you could know someone down or into traffic? If it’s often, then it’s on you to find out what the problem is, and till you find a solution, keep your distance from people while you walk.

              Birds are incredibly common. If birds trigger than kind of attack, then that person needs to find a way to deal with that that doesn’t endanger others. Going into a blind panic and knocking people over as you fell is NOT a good response to anything, but if it’s not a common thing you are phobic abour, it’s understandable to figure you won’t run into it on a random walk. But birds? They are all over the place. This a totally non-tenable reaction.

              1. JessaB*

                I don’t think it was traffic per se, I think it was a horrible coincidence that a car happened to be in the midst of being parked where Liz fell. There are a zillion ways where this happens where she doesn’t get hurt at all.

                By the way is anyone at all at the company looking after the poor driver of the parking car? I mean I would be freaked out to the point of nearly never driving again (one of my panic fears is to ever hit a living being,) seriously the driver of the car needs to be spoken to and at least made to understand that they couldn’t have stopped this.

                1. Observer*

                  There are also a zillion ways this could have severely hurt her or someone else without any cars being in the picture. While any given scenario is not highly likely, in the aggregate, it’s highly likely to run up against a scenario where someone being knocked over gets seriously hurt.

                  It’s simply NOT tenable to react to something by blindly running off willy nilly without even noticing that you are knocking people over.

                  And, I agree with you about the driver of the car.

                2. Gadfly*

                  Possible plausible problems:
                  1) Are there outside stairs? Someone being shoved down the stairs could could break a spine or it could kill them.
                  2) Jack runs into someone who is brittle in some way and just knocking them to the ground causes serious injuries.
                  3) Jack runs into traffic himself.
                  4) The bad luck is that there happens to be a rock in just the right place to crack a skull.

                  I could go on. If this is as uncontrollable as suggested (and if it isn’t than he is more in the wrong for this incident) any of these aren’t unlikely. There are zillions of ways where no one would be seriously hurt, but still hundreds of thousands of ways people could be hurt. And the bottom line is that someone was hurt. That they might not have been if things were different doesn’t matter as much as they were not different.

                3. Shiara*

                  I’m actually a little weirded out that there isn’t more focus on the driver of the parking car, but for the opposite reasons. I’ve been parking, had a kid fall into the space I was trying to park in, and while it was one of the more terrifying experiences of my life, I did not hit the kid. Because I was paying attention to who was where on the curb and going really slowly.

                  That doesn’t necessarily mean the driver should be blamed for the accident. Stuff can happen so fast and it takes time to process and slam the brakes. But if we’re going to say stuff happens fast and involuntarily for the driver, well, that was also true for Jack.

              2. Tab*

                I think you guys are overestimating the amount of times phobia attacks happen. Its not likely to be every time you see a bird. I have a phobia of bugs, which are far more ubiquitous, and though I have just as severe a reaction to bugs as Jack does to birds these kinds of incidents, where I would run away quickly, happen once every couple of YEARS. I have smaller incidents where I tense up and just yell to someone to help get rid of the bug. But its extremely likely that Jack wouldn’t react like this to seeing a bird flying off in the distance. There’s a lot of factors that go into the level of fear you experience due to phobias that they aren’t simply as common as every single time you see the thing mentioned.

                I’ve definitely tripped far more often than I’ve had full tunnel-vision reactions to bugs, and I’m not even considered to be an especially clumsy person.

        3. LessaW*

          Because it could have been. He could have arranged for taxi so he was not walking outside. He could have made sure he was not walking so close to her. He could have asked not to be sent off site. I am pretty sure all of those would be considered reasonable accommodations.

          Jack knew he had an issue that caused him to have an uncontrollable reaction in a reasonably common situation. He put himself in an environment where he could easily come across a bird without taking any steps to ensure he was not unduly endangering his coworker.

          He had not talked to his employer about an issue that made him a danger to others.

          This was not a random accident, Jack was aware of his phobia. It would have been preventable if Jack had taken the appropriate steps to manage his condition.

        4. Speechless*

          Pushing a colleague isn’t an accident. In this case it might have been involuntary but he deliberately pushed her out of his way so he could flee faster. He has a known medical issue that causes him to react with panic to birds. He didn’t bump past her and make her stumble. The letter says Liz and other witnesses said he pushed her out of his way into that of a car.

        6. TL -*

          I actually don’t think there’s a million ways this could’ve happened. Knocking a full grown adult off the sidewalk with such force that they land – presumably with arm outstretched – in the parking lot and with such speed that a car moving 5 mph can’t stop in time, and with the added evidence that she’s covered with bruises, is not going to happen because you’ve tripped or had a seizure or accidentally took a step or two too fast. Normally, healthy adult people fall straight-ish down and land on their behind or knees, legs somewhat under their torso, with their arms beneath them to stop the fall. Even a shoulder bump from a jogger is unlikely to provide enough force to do that.
          It’s possible, though unlikely, that the fall was just exceptionally bad. But it seems more like he forcefully pushed her into the parking lot – not bumped, not accidentally hit, but forcefully pushed her as hard as he could out of his way into the path of the car.

      2. paul*

        Deliberately or not, he *did* shove someone into a car in an effort to get away from a bird.

      3. Gadfly*

        I don’t think we can compare it to tripping over a shoe. Not unless he wasn’t wearing properly fitting shoes and was going to continue to wear shoes likely to cause him to trip. And was going places where he was likely to continue to trip.

        The big thing I see missing in all this is any plan on how Jack avoids ever doing this or anything similar to this again. And without that, it is a problem that he can be easily triggered.

      4. GraceW*

        But if he tripped over his own shoe, would he still have not been able to help Liz? He did nothing after she was hit by the car.

      5. Princess Consuela Banana Hammock*

        No, there’s more agency in this than tripping over a physical obstacle. It’s not tripping over one’s shoe—it’s a severe panic reaction to a phobia. Unlike tripping over obstacles, there are therapeutic resources and strategies for coping with phobias so that one’s reaction is not so uncontrolled/severe. Those therapies may not be effective for Jack, but I don’t think it’s reasonable to frame him as “helpless” with respect to his phobia.

        1. Amy*

          It sounds like he’s already been pursuing those, though. He’s been in therapy already, before this incident and working with professionals to get this managed. It’s not that he’s helpless, it’s that it sounds like he’s already doing what he can to get it under control.

          Sometimes with mental illness (as with physical illness), you do the best you can and it just is what it is. Even if therapy is working, it can take months or years, and sometimes all it takes is one random trigger to get an unpredictable setback. It can make sense to make adjustments in the meantime to keep it from affecting others too much (and that really should happen here), but I don’t think it makes sense to blame the person for having an illness that they’re trying their best to get under control but it isn’t quite there yet.

          1. Princess Consuela Banana Hammock*

            Of course! As a person with a mental illness whose treatment plan includes therapy, I empathize and know first-hand that therapy is not a full-proof panacea. And I agree that we shouldn’t blame or vilify someone for not having their reactions to their triggers under control. What I’m pushing against is the stream of comments that suggest Jack has no responsibility for what happened.

            Responsibility isn’t the same thing as blame. Everyone is responsible for the foreseeable consequences of accidents, even if they had no bad intent and are not bad or blameworthy people. But we also know that Jack cannot mitigate his reaction, so OP’s job is to figure out how to mitigate the potential harms that flow from Jack’s inability to mitigate his reaction.

            What I’m trying to convey is that there is wiggle room for OP to work with Jack or plan around the physical safety of other coworkers in light of the fact that Jack is not in a place where he can control his reaction to his phobia. There are sensitive ways to do that that do not require treating Jack like a pariah (and OP should be on high alert to monitor and quash any inappropriate backlash, bullying or ostracization directed toward Jack). I don’t think it would be appropriate or right/fair for OP to pressure Jack on his progress or demand behavior that is simply impossible for Jack to conform to at this point in time.

          2. cercis*

            I had a coworker who had a phobia about being trapped in an elevator. He was overweight and yet chose to always take the stairs – even up 16 flights. This caused considerable delays for meetings etc because it takes awhile for even people in GREAT shape to climb 16 flights of stairs. So he started going to therapy and managed to be able to take the elevator without having a full blown panic attack. Mostly he’d only go 2-3 floors at a time, so the 16th floor still took a while, but he did it. He’d almost made it up to 8-9 floors on the elevator when one got stuck between floors with him in it. By the time they got the doors open and him out, he was nothing but a giant puddle of goo – tears, snot, etc. I felt so bad for him because he was clearly panicked. In fact, they ended up calling 911 and taking him to the hospital because they thought he was having a heart attack (he wasn’t – but the panic attack was inordinately strong). Poor guy didn’t get on another elevator for more than 6 months and people who were there when they got him out still said things like “oh, just get over it already” and griped about how long it took him to get to meetings. Why they didn’t just schedule the meetings in our offices on the 3rd floor, I’ll never know, except that I do think it was to punish him for “being silly” and having a phobia.

        2. Admin Assistant*

          Exactly. I am in therapy for anxiety and a big part of my treatment is learning coping mechanisms and strategies so that I can exist safely and socially in the world. While I can understand and sympathize with Jack’s mental illness, that does not absolve him of responsibility for the actions that result from his phobia responses. I’m not saying he’s NOT trying as best he can to manage and overcome his phobia, but even if he were devoting all of his energy towards overcoming it, that doesn’t mean that he’s helpless or not responsible for the severe injury that he caused this woman.

      6. INTP*

        It was an accident, and I don’t necessarily think he should be fired or disciplined, but if by his own admission he has no control of his behavior around birds, he’s a hazard to the other employees and a plan needs to be in place to prevent this in the future. It was NOT a freak accident at all, in the sense of being a weird convergence of factors statistically unlikely to converge again. It happened because there was a bird outside, a person near him on the sidewalk, and a car in the street – all things which happen simultaneously on a regular basis when someone is on a sidewalk or in a parking lot. There are options other than shrugging and saying “It was an accident, he has a diagnosed condition, nothing can be done.” Instruct Jack to maintain a wide distance between himself and all other employees outdoors, for example.

        (It’s definitely possible something like this happened and wasn’t mentioned in the letter, but if it didn’t, I’m wondering if Liz would still be so insistent on firing Jack if she felt like the company took the whole situation seriously and was invested in preventing the same accident from happening again.)

    2. paul*

      I care about other people’s mental health issues, but that doesn’t mean I’m tolerating something poses a threat to me either. I value my well being.

      1. Stitch*

        That’sucks where I fall too. I was once with my dad on his day off when he was called in to deal with a patient in crisis. This was a kid (although teenager and big enough he could hurt people) who had severe mental issues and literally couldn’t help himself, BUT the doctors and medical staff also took steps to keep themselves from being hurt. Patients aren’t permitted to hit or flail and hurt staff even if they literally can’t comprehend what they are doing, no one should have to tolerate that kind of working condition.

    3. Mike C.*

      Punishment? No, because that wouldn’t change anything.

      I do think Liz (if she still worked there) or her coworkers have every right to demand a plan from the manager to ensure their own safety at work.

      1. Ask a Manager* Post author

        Yes! This is exactly it. Liz isn’t entitled to insist on a specific punishment, but she’s very entitled to insist on a plan to ensure her and others’ safety.

        1. Gadfly*

          And while just being out of surgery and hurt and angry, I’d probably demand firing too as the clearest way to feel safe but would listen if there was some sort of alternative plan offered–it shouldn’t be put on Liz to figure it out. It should be something management is telling her they will be doing that she can decide is enough for her to feel like her concerns are addressed sufficiently.

          2. Kbug*

            yes! your coworker caused you serious violent injury and you’re in recovery- what can we do to get you back? “fire him.” “okay, well, that’s an employment discussion with Jack. Would switching teams/not having to work with Jack anymore/other options be sufficient to retain your employment?” And of course this discussion would come separately from any other discussions regarding benefits and recovery, and at an agreed upon time decided in advance so Liz can have consulted medical/legal professionals,and with the understanding (hopefully in writing) that Liz will be properly informed of steps taken to make sure this situation does not happen.

            It seems like Liz is being held to a standard of behavior that neither Jack nor HR are being held.

            1. Liz T*

              “It seems like Liz is being held to a standard of behavior that neither Jack nor HR are being held.”

              Yes!!

              1. A Person*

                Definitely

                I’m sensing an element of (possibly unconscious) sexism here where Jack’s explanation is being used as a shield to deflect from the underlying root of the issue.

                1. JB (not in Houston)*

                  Alison has asked us not to assume sexism is happening when there’s absolutely no sign of it. Please respect that.

            2. Admin Assistant*

              Totally agreed re: your last sentence. I think a hell of a lot more leeway needs to be given to Liz w/r/t her “you need to fire him” comments. This man pushed her in front of a car and broke her arm, give her a g-d break.

        2. LessaW*

          Unfortunately the impression I get from the letter is that all the company offered her was his apology (and he should have done that long before HR got involved).

          I agree it was up to them to offer an alternative to firing, and an apology is not good enough

      2. Princess Consuela Banana Hammock*

        10000% agreed. The focus, now, should be on how to best move forward. The past is past, but Jack will likely need support, and his coworkers will also need to feel safe when they’re around him (given that some witnessed what happened, I have a feeling some feel leery but are not saying anything).

      3. Mustache Cat*

        Oh, I agree with you, Mike! I didn’t mean to imply that I actually think Jack should be punished in some way. I meant that would be something I would find more acceptable for an employee to demand, vs demanding someone be fired which is an automatic do-not-rehire for me (although it depends on exact circumstances of how the call went down, I suppose). But no, although I think it’s somewhat understandable for an injured party in this situation to want punishment, it’s the employer’s job to make sure isn’t meted out because it’s not merited.

    4. Shannon*

      I’m imagining a PIP for Jack that says he will no longer push co-workers into cars. I’m at a loss to figure out how to fairly discipline this. What would corrective action look like?

      1. Cary*

        Discipline doesn’t apply here, as we’re talking about a medical condition that resulted in a freak accident not a deliberate action, or a poor choice. The employer can choose how to accommodate this medical issue, or to not accommodate it, but “disciplining” for it isn’t a good move.

        1. Jamie*

          I don’t think this falls under ‘freak accident’ unless you make the argument encountering a bird outside during the springtime constitutes a highly unusual and unlikely circumstance.

          1. Josiah*

            I think it’s unlikely that the trigger was just “encountering a bird outside during springtime”. It seems more likely to me that he had a strategy for dealing with the general presence of birds that broke down in this specific set of circumstances, for reasons that we don’t know.

            1. Katherine*

              Right, I don’t think people are fully understanding the complexities of phobias like this or similar mental health issues.

            2. JS*

              Thank you for a reasonable comment on mental illness. I completely agree, I don’t think people realize this. The man has been in treatment for two years, he has coping mechanisms that obviously failed him. Besides I think people are framing it as “a bird flew by” OP wasn’t there so the bird could have dove at him or flew past his face suddenly. It’s one thing if you are triggered to extremes just seeing it in the distance and another if it is touching you/ startles you.

        2. Relly*

          Punishment, no. All the same, there needs to be a firm plan in place so that this does not happen again. Does Jack not go off site? Does Jack work from home? Do co-workers​ not walk within six inches of Jack when outside? I do not think “let’s all hope this doesn’t happen again” is in any way an acceptable resolution.

      2. Mustache Cat*

        I was thinking more like, can Jack take more wfh days? Can he be sent off site less? If there’s an alternate parking situation like an underground connected garage, can he use that? Can he use a special spot closer to the entrance so he doesn’t have as far to walk? (Wildest imagining) Can the company hire a guard dog to both improve morale and drive away birds? The possibilities are endless imo!

    5. Newby*

      I don’t think she is “attempting to coerce [the company] to fire him by withholding her labor”. It sounds like she went through a traumatic experience and cannot bring herself to work with him again. Therefore she quit and is not open to coming back if he is still there. That is not coercive. That is doing what you need to in order to protect yourself (both physically and mentally). The OP should gracefully accept her resignation and apologize that this situation happened.

  6. Isben Takes Tea*

    For #1, before we start visualizing Jack shoving Liz with both arms into oncoming traffic, I just want to reiterate that what we’re told is that Jack ran, and “he pushed her out of the way when he was running,” which could merely be a shoulder jostle. Because of that, she fell of the curb. It wasn’t an assault, it was an accident.

    Was Jack selfish? Definitely. I think the worst part that may seal most people’s opinion of Jack is the line “Jack didn’t try to help Liz after it happened.” However, I don’t see much good for OP #1 by piling on Jack here. He will forever be known as the Coworker with the Bird Phobia Who Caused Someone to Get Hit By a Car and Didn’t Help Her Afterword. He didn’t cause the accident because he was drunk or angry, but because of a documented medical condition.

    I’m genuinely curious at what sort of discipline commenters were hoping OP #1 would dish out to Jack. Would that change if Jack had caused the accident by having a seizure instead?

    1. Dizzy Steinway*

      Let’s be clear: I don’t think it’s good that this happened, Jack is lucky she didn’t die, he should have had strategies for bird-in-public situations. But we don’t know why he didn’t help as we weren’t there and neither was the OP. We don’t know if he stood around, or was busy hyperventilating, or what.

      I think he needs a better therapist!

      2. Shannon*

        That’s a good point. The way the original letter is written, it makes it sound like Jack was just lounging around, watching Liz lie on the pavement.

      3. Josiah*

        Why assume that he didn’t have strategies?

        It seems to me that if he had no strategies for dealing with this, his coworkers would have found out about his bird phobia a lot sooner.

    2. Wow*

      That’s a good point. I wonder if some of the commenters here aren’t familiar with mental illness and don’t realise that it’s a disease like any other. Blaming Jack for what happen only increases stigma against peoples struggling with mental illness.

      1. Wow*

        That’s agreement with takes tea, btw. I don’t agree with dizzy that we should be judging his therapist.

      2. vic*

        Tourette’s is an involuntary syndrome, yet I don’t think someone with Tourette’s would be permitted to involuntarily hit coworkers. Doesn’t matter the reason—if you can’t stop yourself from hitting or pushing people, you need a job where you’re not around any.

      3. Mike C.*

        No, I think this presumption you make is rather unfair of the commenters here. Why do you presume that we wouldn’t know this? This is a highly educated and experienced group of people and plenty of us have mental issues of our own to deal with.

        1. Julia*

          Of course people here are great. But some illness, mental or not, can only be understood when you’ve experienced them first-hand. If not, you get people who sometimes get scared or nervous telling those with phobias or anxiety disorders to “just control their fears”, same as women with mild to moderate menstrual cramps telling those with endometriosis to “stop being so dramatic over normal menstrual cramps”.
          I know I couldn’t fully understand depression before I got it myself.

          1. Dizzy Steinway*

            I disagree. You can have not experienced something personally but also have empathy and not make these comments. It’s just not as black and white as this.

            1. Julia*

              I completely agree with you. I was simply trying to point out that not everyone CAN understand the difference – just think of person XZ who complains about being soooo depressed when their favourite TV show gets cancelled, people throwing the words manic or bipolar around etc.

      4. Ellen N.*

        I am very familiar with phobias. Until I was in my 40’s I had an extreme phobia of hypodermic needles and medical procedures. I still hide my eyes when I see a hypodermic in a film or on TV. I don’t push other people out of my way. I also agree with other commenters that two years in therapy for a phobia should have produced better results. Phobias are known to be one of the easiest psychological problems to teach a patient to manage. I was able to get a blood test with less than a month of therapy. A phobia of birds that results in such terror that the sufferer will push someone out of the way is dangerous. There are birds everywhere.

          1. Princess Consuela Banana Hammock*

            I think that would be an overreach. I’m not sure we want employers dictating what kind of medical care employees seek/receive, and I think that’s especially true when there’s a wide-range of high-quality and appropriate treatment providers. And employers may measure whether a therapist is “bad/good/better” based on their interests and needs, which may not align with the medical needs and priorities of the employee.

            1. Josiah*

              Jack’s therapist also isn’t necessarily bad. Sometimes strategies fail, and need to be revisited — and it’s entirely possible that Jack’s therapist is providing completely appropriate support.

              1. Kyrielle*

                This. It’s also possible that Jack didn’t see the bird until he was very close and added a startle reflex to the phobia. (I think I can no longer say I am phobic of dogs – yay for working on it! – but when it was still at a diagnosable level, the dog I saw before I got out of the car was going to be a lot less upsetting than the one I saw after I was out of the car and next to it, all else being equal.)

                Being startled by what you’re scared of is a recipe for a really bad overreaction, because that first fight-or-flight moment kicks in before all that higher level thinking. I *suspect* Jack was standing there watching to make sure she was getting care/okay, and if someone had already called 911, entering the building wasn’t needed. I also suspect he was deploying every coping mechanism he had to fight down the panic attack. He may have been trying to get to where he could approach, but unable to do it, and at the arrival of the ambulance gave up on that and retreated because now she had professional care.

                I mean, any of the scenarios here could be plausible – the ones that are kind to him and the ones that aren’t – without mind-reading we don’t know which one it is. But that’s *one* plausible scenario I can construct from the facts as given.

                This letter is making me glad that the worst reaction I ever had because of my phobia only caused -me- grief, and not too much. (I ran into the side of a parked car, which, kinda embarrassing but not injurious. Kept me from going out in the street, not that it was busy, at least.)

              2. Princess Consuela Banana Hammock*

                Absolutely. It sounds like Jack’s phobia is extremely severe for him, and even if he had Cadillac therapy, it’s possible he would never be able to fully cope when faced with triggers (especially unexpected ones, like this).

            2. KellyK*

              Agree a thousand percent. It’s reasonable for the company to require him to be under the care of a relevant medical professional, but they should have absolutely no say in who that professional is or what kind of treatment he receives.

        2. Jeanne*

          You were lucky. There was a man on a dialysis discussion board with a needle phobia. It took him over 18 months and he worked very hard.

      5. Princess Consuela Banana Hammock*

        Given the commentariat’s extensive conversations about mental illness, as well as their personal struggles with mental illnesses, this remark is out of place. People can be sensitive and thoughtful and still disagree with you.

      6. Gadfly*

        I actually had a VP who had an extreme bird phobia (ironically enough). She was the one who hired me and my desk was outside her office door for years. I remember a time when an owl landed on her window ledge and she couldn’t go anywhere near her office until it was gone. But she also let us all know and had accommodations in place–like we all knew not to walk too closely to her outside in case a bird landed nearby and not to use bird themed decorations and to not block the exit to her office.

        From a co-worker who had worked with her in a previous location where there was a pigeon problem, I understand that she just had set up similar accommodations there. The big one being making sure people knew she had the phobia so they knew what to do/what she would do if they saw one.

        It was kind of like the guy with the shellfish allergy. It saved his life when he tried to order Thai (shrimp paste in almost everything) and a coworker saw it, went “oh crap” and took his food away. He still had to use the epi-pen for the bite he had taken, but it could have been MUCH worse.

        1. Jeanne*

          So maybe the guy shouldn’t have been cured in two years. It sounds like your boss wasn’t.

          1. Gadfly*

            But she was able to be professional about it for the four years I knew her and the 5 or so years my co-worker knew her before that. She didn’t just run and push people out of the way, and she made an effort to make sure that it wouldn’t be an issue–including asking for appropriate accommodations (although I never understood why she kept the office with the window…) It never was a big deal, but it took a lot on her part to make sure it wasn’t. And she did it.

            She may never have gotten past being afraid, but she got past being uncontrolled.

          2. Lioness*

            “like we all knew not to walk too closely to her outside in case a bird landed nearby ”

            But in Gadfly’s case, people knew, and she was aware of how she reacted. So when she was outdoors, people kept some distance.

            Jack could have been a half step in front instead of behind. Or could have been more to the side. If Jack didn’t want others to know, he could have taken steps (even physical ones) that didn’t put others at risk.

        2. INTP*

          I think setting up accommodations like those would be a totally appropriate response. I don’t necessarily think disciplinary action would be productive (and I don’t agree with unproductive discipline) because Jack probably had no idea himself that he was capable of shoving someone into the street. However, just because this was caused by a diagnosed condition and doesn’t warrant discipline doesn’t mean that Jack is entitled to a lack of consequences – he needs to be responsible for participating in a plan to prevent something similar from happening again. Don’t walk within so many feet of other employees when outdoors or in an atrium or somewhere that a bird could fly into, check cars for birds before getting into them with other employees, etc.

      7. Temperance*

        I disagree. What increases the “stigma” is when we say that adults with mental health issues are incapable of refraining from hurting others, and that they are not responsible for their actions. We either treat mentally ill folks as capable, autonomous adults, or badly behaved toddlers who can’t be expected to act right and who can hurt others.

    3. Isben Takes Tea*

      I realize I’m getting really worked up about this, so I’m going to stop commenting for a while.

      I’ll just leave it at a request to check yourself for bias against mental illness, as ridiculous as some phobias may sound to you, and as nonchalantly as the word phobia is tossed around, and leave advice for the OP, not for Liz.

      1. paul*

        It’s got *nothing* to do with a bias against phobias and everything to do with the fact that his phobia caused him to act in a manner that got someone else seriously hurt–and it’s compounded by the fact it’s a phobia of a very common thing that there’s essentially no way to avoid (seriously, how do you avoid pigeons in any city in the US?)

        1. Isben Takes Tea*

          I definitely agree that it’s reasonable to need a plan from Jack about how to prevent this from occurring in the future. I also agree that Jack isn’t described as being as apologetic or responsible as I would expect or desire from my employee. But the tone in a lot of comments is really scathing without being constructive to the OP.

      2. Karen D*

        I have a documented mental illness that I have in the past sought and secured an accommodation for. I am extremely vocal on erasing the stigma around mental illness.

        An incident like this is just … so far beyond the scope of anything reasonable that it actually makes me angry. Because now, when people in that office think about folks with mental illness, they’re going to think about this whole horrible mess. I just can’t imagine a world in which someone like Liz is so thoroughly victimized and the company just stands there and wrings its hands. My advice to the OP would be that this company better make dang sure they are on solid ground here. Because this situation defies belief.

          1. Gadfly*

            Yes, but the optics of this situation as we know it are that if someone with a mental illness does so, they will be excused and the other person will end up like Liz. And that feeds into a lot of stereotypes about people with mental illness having no control or responsibility which leads to we shouldn’t allow them to be in public without a handler (like a beast) arguments. And that historically has gone to worse places. and it puts people on the defensive because the sense is that they are going to have to take it into their own hands to defend themselves against the person with mental illness WHEN (not if) the person loses it and goes wild.

            Had it been someone tripping, do you think the outcome would have been the same?

            1. Josiah*

              Someone tripping is intentionally doing something irresponsible. That’s not comparable.

              I’m not saying that this should be excused or treated as insignificant. I’m saying that accountability looks different depending on what someone was actually doing.

              Someone who gets triggered and accidentally hurts someone needs to make a new plan for managing triggers, immediately.

              Someone who intentionally harms someone else needs to be fired.

              1. Gadfly*

                No, I meant if Jack had tripped and in doing so pushed Liz. Do you think that would have been treated this way, with what sounds like (from the OP) most of the concern going to Jack?

                Had it been just an accident, do you think Jack would still have a job?

                1. Josiah*

                  First of all, my concern is for both of them, and I hope that I’ve been clear in expressing that. I think that the reasons I am concerned for Liz are more straightforward and obvious in our culture, so I haven’t gone into as much detail about them. In case it needs saying: I think that the company owes Liz serious support. I think that they should give her severance, compensation, and a good reference.

                  In terms of Jack:

                  I don’t think people should generally be fired for accidents unless they were negligent. I think that people who intentionally injure coworkers should be fired, and I think that people who are grossly negligent in ways that injure others should usually be fired.

                  I don’t think that people who are following established safety procedures in good faith should be fired for accidents. I think that when this kind of thing happens, safety procedures should be revisited. I think that’s true whether or not mental illness is involved.

                2. Josiah*

                  On a related note:

                  I have post traumatic triggers. I acquired them as the result of abuse by someone who also had significant mental illnesses.

                  It has not been my experience that people make allowances for mental illness. It has been my experience that the abuse was only taken seriously because the person who hurt me was clearly crazy. It has also been my experience that it is dangerous both personally and professionally to be perceived as someone whose responses to the world are influenced by trauma.

                  I’ve also seen people make toxic allowances for mental illness in ways that create a lot of problem. So I think what you’re describing exists, and I also think I’m talking about something different.

      3. Princess Consuela Banana Hammock*

        I know that emotions are running high, but this is not a situation in which I think it’s appropriate to assume that people who disagree with you are all biased against individuals with mental illness, that they don’t understand mental illness, or that they don’t have mental illnesses. I also don’t think “check yourself” comments move our conversations forward.

        For the most part, it sounds like people would like OP#1 to really think through how they can work in partnership with Jack to minimize the risk of harm to third-parties going forward.

        1. Turtle Candle*

          Yes, thank you. There are a plurality of opinions on various mental health issues even among people with severe mental illnesses. I not infrequently disagree even with people who have my own same specific set of diagnoses.

        2. Hrovitnir*

          I know you are a very empathetic commenter, Pricess Consuela Banana Hammock, but reading these comments there is a lot of ableism coming through. I mean come on, even people with mental illnesses can easily be biased against people who are different to them; a lack of understanding of situations like this is very easily when you relate strongly to the person who was hurt and don’t have a lot of experience with strong phobias.

          A huge number of people are reading this uncharitably at best, with many many people angry that he “just stood there” and are unwilling to see “he was probably having a panic attack” as mitigating it – he clearly just doesn’t care.

          Disclaimer: I am not claiming Jack did nothing wrong, I don’t think anyone is.

          1. Natalie*

            Agreed. It’s certainly not all the commenters, but there are enough with a really harsh attitude that seems totally unwarranted. This is giving me unpleasant memories of the “co-worker with BPD” letter. :/

          2. Princess Consuela Banana Hammock*

            FWIW, the number of ableist comments increased exponentially after I made my post. I agree that, as of this morning (800+ comments after mine!) that there are a significant number of comments that seem like they come from a place of anger/blame/rage, and those comments have been framed in ways that are deeply problematic and yes, ableist.

            I apologize—I thought the commentariat would be better than what this thread has devolved into. :( And I am sorry if I made Isben feel invalidated for what turned out to be a prescient warning.

      4. Gadfly*

        I happen to have a lot of experience with people with physical limitations and mental illnesses, and this is far beyond what any of them have been allowed to do in the workplace. Many have been fired for much less, also caused by things they cannot control, on basically the understanding that it went beyond reasonable accommodations to deal with it.

        We can be sympathetic to Jack’s phobia while also saying that as things are, we don’t think he sounds like he is able to do his job (including not hurting coworkers or posing a danger to them) with reasonable accommodations.

        1. Dizzy Steinway*

          I don’t think we can be sure on your last point, actually, as reasonable accommodations haven’t been tried.

          1. LN*

            Yeah, I have to agree with this. He doesn’t work in a bird sanctuary, they can find ways to accommodate this. Some commenters are acting like he’s requesting accommodation to be allowed to shove people into traffic whenever he pleases, which is….uh, no. This was a freak accident that can be avoided with almost 100% certainty in the future.

            1. Gadfly*

              That is what we are missing–any information on there being appropriate accommodations put in place other than choosing to just over look this and hope it doesn’t happen again.

            2. paul*

              I’ll admit though, I’m kind of at a loss as to *how* you’d accommodate him in such a way you could be sure he wasn’t exposed to birds. I mean, they’re everywhere.

              1. Ask a Manager* Post author

                One thing is to let people know not to walk near him when outdoors, like another commenter mentioned her similarly bird-phobic boss had to do.

              2. Kyrielle*

                You don’t accommodate in such a way that he isn’t exposed to birds. If possible, that would be more enabling than accommodating. And it’s not possible, as you note.

                But you can accommodate. You can discuss with Jack whether he’s okay with birds on the other side of a window; if he’s not, he probably shouldn’t have a seat with a window, unless he has a plan in place to prevent any harm/problem from a bird on his windowsill. You can work out strategies like staying a certain distance away from coworkers when outdoors.

                I can understand Jack not wanting to share this with his coworkers, but I think the cat’s out of the bag on that, in which case if he is willing, another accommodation is for coworkers to know about his phobia – so that they can be aware of birds when near him also, either to give him a heads-up or just to get out of the way.

                And I’d argue no one should walk between him and the street, either, at this point.

    4. Searching*

      You make an excellent point, Isben Takes Tea, and I like your seizure analogy. I’m a little taken aback by the reactions about Jack. He did not deliberately shove Liz into traffic. He was in a complete panic due to his phobia, which in my mind also explains why he didn’t help afterwards – those panicked feelings did not immediately subside, especially with the bird still there.

      1. DArcy*

        In a seizure, physical action is both unconscious and involuntary, whereas in a phobia the panic is involuntary but the person’s response to panic is still conscious and voluntary.

        So in this case, Jack absolutely did deliberately shove Liz into traffic and he would do it again if the same situation was repeated; he just did it without malicious intent because he was in an irrational state of panic. That does not make his actions involuntary, which is where the seizure analogy falls apart.

        1. Expat*

          No. Anything on the fight/flight/freeze spectrum bypasses the rational mind. You don’t “decide” whether to run any more than you “decide” to jerk your leg when a doctor tests your reflexes.

          You can desensitize yourself to triggered fear responses, but it’s excruciatingly painful, grueling work. It can take years and it’s not always successful.

        2. Detective Amy Santiago*

          Have you ever had a panic attack? Because my physical reactions to mine are not remotely conscious or voluntary.

          Jack was triggered and was running. Liz happened to be in the way. It’s an unfortunate accident and I don’t blame Liz for being upset and feeling like she can’t work with Jack, but let’s not demonize someone with a legitimate mental illness.

        3. Jessie the First (or second)*

          “the person’s response to panic is still conscious and voluntary”

          Absolutely not. I do not have panic attacks – when I “panic,” I am entirely conscious and able to control what I do, and when I “panic,” I’m just feeling incredibly stressed and anxious.

          I have seen an *actual* panic, from someone who has a panic disorder. And nothing about how she responded to the panic attack was conscious and voluntary.

          1. No, please*

            This is right. I have a panic disorder. I can’t always control my triggers and reactions. But Liz has a right to feel safe at work. This whole thing sucks I do feel like Liz is being being short-handed.

          2. Dankar*

            Exactly. I’ve had panic attacks and, during my last severe one, by the time I had regained control over my body, I had scratched both my arms bloody. There was nothing voluntary or conscious about that.

            I really disagree with commenters saying they “understand” phobias without experiencing one. You can empathize, sure, but there’s no way you can really understand what it feels like until you’re struggling to breathe or waking up from a blackout or any of the other dozen debilitating effects of a real panic attack.

            1. fposte*

              Though plenty of us are saying that we do have phobias and panic attacks and that our actions remain conscious and voluntary. Let’s not fall into the trap of saying “my kind of panic attack is the only real one.”

              1. Dankar*

                That’s not really what I’m saying, though. There’s a spectrum to these kinds of disorders, as with all mental ailments, and you can’t boil this down to a situation where one reaction is always going to be expected or “normal.”

                I’m more concerned about the people who are saying that they’ve been scared or startled by things and that they were able to control what they were doing, so why couldn’t he? “Real” panic attacks are an actual thing. What I’m seeing here is equivalent to “Oh, I’m so OCD because I like to keep my desk tidy.”

                OCD, panic attack, anxiety disorder and phobia are all cultural shorthand now for minor discomfort or quirky habit, and it really takes away from and dismisses the people who are actually, honestly suffering.

                1. Temperance*

                  It is what you are saying, though. You’re comparing people who have identified themselves as phobic and having anxiety as not really having it, because they are able to control themselves.

                  I have a phobia of cockroaches. I have run into the street to get away from one. I hate them, and the sheer terror is crippling. HOWEVER, I learned how to deal because I work in a major city and can’t avoid roaches, even if I want to.

        4. Aveline*

          Actually, in seizure cases, there is a difference between the first *unexpected* seizure and someone who has a known seizure disorder and doesn’t/can’t mitigate but also doesn’t disclose.

          Kill someone accidentally on your first seizure? Excused. Drive if you know you have an untreated/untreatable disorder? Manslaughter.

          It’s not about whether or not he can control himself in the moment. It’s about whether he knew this was a possibility and took any precautions.

      2. Browser*

        Think of it from Liz’s perspective.

        She didn’t know he had a phobia.

        She didn’t know why he pushed her.

        All she knew at the time of the accident is that he pushed her and she was badly hurt because of that.

        Four days in the hospital. Surgery. Did anyone from work contact her then? Or was she still ignorant of the actual cause of the accident?

        So let’s say a week later the boss phones and says “it wasn’t Jack’s fault, he has a phobia of birds and didn’t mean to push you, btw you’re on speakerphone with me and him and HR so he can apologize.” I wouldn’t accept that apology either. She got shafted every step of the way, and the company only cares about protecting Jack.

    5. Gadfly*

      Which is a point for OP to consider–How long do you think Jack is going to last with his new reputation? And when co-workers refuse to be within a hundred feet of him anywhere birds might be?

      And a seizure? That pushed someone into traffic? It has more sympathy because there is less of an option to go around/go a different way/plan some responses. To be comparable, it would need to be someone dealing with uncontrolled seizures and not warning anyone and avoiding all the basic safety considerations all the people I know who do have seizure disorders do to avoid situations like this.

    6. LessaW*

      If someone who had seizures that were a danger to people around them and had not told their employer or taken any steps to prevent their condition hurting others, and that resulted in someone being hospitalised, then I would still argue they should be fired. (Or let go, under the circumstance I don’t think it is necessary to be punitive to Jack, but they can’t keep him on).

      He may not have been in control of his phobia, but he was in control of being outside and of how close he was walking to his coworker.

      1. Aveline*

        This is exactly how the law treats seizure disorders.

        If you know you have them and do nothing to mitigate (e.g., effectively treat or disclose), you are on the hook.

    7. Relly*

      I think what you’re misunderstanding is that some of us would like Jack to be held accountable — for the company and Jack to come up with a plan for this incident not to repeat, ever. That’s not anyone wanting him to be disciplined or punished. That’s asking that this not be brushed aside as just something that happened, because that won’t stop it from possibly repeating in the future.

      1. Hrovitnir*

        And I agree! But that is not what most people are saying, even if that’s what they mean.

    8. LisaLee*

      I actually think there’s a lot of things OP’s company could have done to keep both employees that don’t necessarily involve “disciplining” Jack.

      -Moving either Jack or Liz to a different department/office (imo they probably both have reasons for not wanting to work where they are right now)
      -Asking Jack to take temporary (paid) medical leave to work on this issue so he is able to better control his panic response.
      -Offering to pay for Liz’s medical care–tbh I think they should do this either way–and having a serious talk with Jack about the gravity of the situation and asking Jack to step up his mental health care to mitigate his responses to birds (and possibly paying for extra therapy/intervention).

      At the very least, they could have offered to have Liz do WFH for awhile to wrap up her projects and give her some time to find a new job. That would have cleared up some of OP’s initial question about how to handle her abrupt departure.

      I’m concerned that there doesn’t appear to have been a great deal of response from the OP/company beyond “Jack has a medical condition, so oh well.”

      1. yasmara*

        Yes, all of this LisaLee. Maybe the OP/employer offered some of these options to Liz, but they are not included in the letter. I would hope so.

  7. Dizzy Steinway*

    #4 Congratulations on your upcoming graduation and the fact you have the smarts to see you’re getting bad advice. The workshop might be worth mentioning if it’s relevant to a particular vacancy but not otherwise. Good luck!

  8. vic*

    Definitely disagree with Alison on #1. I don’t think my having a mental illness allows me to push someone in front of a car (or push them at all). If I’m afraid of spiders, is it okay to have a conniption fit when I see one and inadvertently slap the coworker next to me in the process?

    I wouldn’t try to get Liz back, but I’d definitely fire Jack.

    1. Lissa*

      Well…yeah, if by “OK” you mean “not something you could have controlled or stopped.” Not OK in the sense that it was good. But if this is truly a phobic mental illness and Jack’s reaction was uncontrollable it’d be more akin to you slipping and knocking someone into traffic due to a physical disability, it’s just that we tend to see mental illnesses as being controllable in a way that we don’t with physical.

      1. Amy The Rev*

        I think this is a great analogy, Lissa, which is why some of the ‘people shouldn’t walk near Jack when outside’ thing sits weirdly with me…if it were a coworker with CP who had balance issues, I personally would feel a little icky about a rule saying we had to maintain a certain radius around them lest they stumble/sway and knock us over. And maybe it’d be a case of ‘walk next to Jack at your own risk’, and I understand that uncontrollable body movements can pose a risk, but some part of it feels like…idk, treating someone like a time bomb, or othering them, or treating them like a pariah- none of these words accurately describe it for me, but it just feels a little dehumanizing and unless it was something that Jack himself thought were a good solution, it just….makes me feel icky

    2. Dizzy Steinway*

      It’s not ‘okay’ to do that, no.

      But it’s also potentially not okay to fire someone for doing that. (Or because they had a seizure or a heart attack or etc.)

    3. Princess Consuela Banana Hammock*

      Allison isn’t saying it’s ok for Jack to have reacted this way, and I’m not sure focusing on Jack is really helpful at this point given that Liz is not coming back.

      But I also don’t think firing Jack addresses any of the underlying issues that led to Liz getting hurt. OP#1 should certainly work on tackling those underlying issues, but “punishing” Jack for an extreme and harmful reaction doesn’t seem to provide anything other than retribution/revenge.

      1. vic*

        What if Jack’s phobia was of women who look like Liz and that’s why he knocked her out of the way? Should the company still keep him on?

        1. Princess Consuela Banana Hammock*

          What purpose does your hypo serve? Is it to try to determine the outer bounds of what’s an “acceptable” phobia or reaction, or is it to vilify Jack for a known medical condition?

        2. Naruto*

          That isn’t a thing. It’s not the case here, and it’s very possibly not a thing at all, ever, anywhere.

          Of course the company shouldn’t keep on someone who has a phobia of people who look like their coworkers and who hit or push their coworkers whom they have the phobia about. But that’s a strawman and it isn’t like the situation here.

    5. Bryce*

      I have claustrophobia (fortunately not something that would often sneak up on me or I’d need to run from) and I can understand this sort of thing happening. It’s written as a very deliberate “Jack ran, pushed her into traffic, and didn’t help” but I could also see it as a panic-flail leading to an accident, and then he’s stuck there, fear endorphins rushing, paralyzed not only by the fear of the bird but of doing more harm. The proper action to take for Jack definitely depends on the details of the incident and what happened afterward, and it sounds like those have been decided.

    6. IrishEm*

      There’s a difference between being “afraid of spiders” and having acute arachnophobia, which I have. If there is a spider ANYWHERE near me I completely freeze up, unable to move. If a spider drops down on its web from overhead I FREAK THE F*** OUT, scream, and run like Usain Bolt in any direction that is Away From Spider. (I’d just like to point out that in Ireland there are no native poisonous spiders and my phobia is utterly ridiculous from a logical point of view, which is why the definition of phobia is so important – it is not a rational fear).

      I have chronic pain and an encounter with a spider leaves my facet joints locked, my muscles in spasm and me generally feeling awful until I can drop €50 on physiotherapy (not always possible when I’m unemployed). And I keep getting abuse from relations and people who don’t want to understand or empathise that my phobia is beyond my control.

      I’m not physically big enough to actually knock another person into the street, even if I wanted to, unless they’re teetering/off balance on the edge of the curb – in other words already about to trip/stumble/fall, so the comparison with Jack stops there. I feel badly for both of them, because this situation reads as a perfect storm of awfulness.

  9. Observer*

    #1 I don’t entirely agree with Alison. I do agree that you can’t allow one employee to dictate who you hire and fire.

    I’m not sure that you are right not to fire Jack, though. Yes, he hasn’t had a problem before, but now you know he has a significant problem that actually poses a real risk to others. Even had he not pushed Liz into oncoming traffic, blindly knocking people over as you run away from something can have extremely severe consequences. His problem presents a real danger to his co-workers and a significant liability issue. (What happens if he knocks a frail person to the ground in another flight from a bird? You’ll get sued and probably lose.)

    The ADA simply does not require that you allow someone who poses such a danger to continue in your employ. So, if you keep him on, you absolutely need to have a plan in place that will keep him from being around birds at any time that he is on the job. Which almost certainly means never being out doors while on the job. If that’s practical, then that’s what you are going to need to do.

    2. lawyerkate*

      The liability piece is the most significant thing I am not seeing discussed in response to this question.

      The company has a serious problem on its hands if there is a viable theory under which they could be held liable for Jack’s actions. His failure to disclose his condition before this happened is a problem for him and for the company. The fact that the optics of this situation make it look like Liz had no choice other than to quit could mean she has a viable claim for constructive discharge. It really depends on the applicable laws in the state.

      The company is much more likely to be able to pay a money judgment than an individual – it makes sense that the company would be a target, whether that is legally tenable or not (there’s no way to know from a basic Q&A like this).

      I don’t think it’s okay for a worker to demand a colleague be fired. However, I also think that absolute deference to the ADA under these facts is a mistake. The company really needs a team of attorneys with different areas of expertise to properly navigate them through this situation, which is horrible for everyone involved.

      1. Gene*

        The company really needs a team of attorneys with different areas of expertise to properly navigate them through this situation, which is horrible for everyone involved.

        Except the lawyers.

  10. LawCat*

    On #1,I’m guessing HR was “wary” of firing Jack for the phobia perhaps because of the ADA.

    I’m not an ADA expert, but is bird phobia really a disability within the meaning of the ADA?

    1. Dizzy Steinway*

      Potentially, yes. A phobia is a type of anxiety disorder. If it severely affects someone on a day to day basis then it is. However silly or absurd a phobia may sound, it is a real and disabling condition.

        1. Princess Consuela Banana Hammock*

          The kind of panic response described could qualify as limiting a major life activity.

          1. LawCat*

            But what activity? Mu guess could be thinking and concentrating.

            Just genuinely curious. I’ve had very narrow phobias and was trying to imagine what exactly they limited in terms of major life activities (when the phobias did not involve major life activities in and of themselves). The ability to think straight was all I could think of.

            2. Princess Consuela Banana Hammock*

              With the limited information we have, it sounds like in the midst of a panic response, there’s significant interference with Jack’s ability to communicate, concentrate, and think. But I also think we’d need more detail to figure out if his symptoms add up to a condition that substantially limits a major life activity.

              I don’t want OP to actually give us that information, but just want to highlight that it’s hard to evaluate the ADAA’s applicability with the limited information we have.

            3. LN*

              Literally anything that requires being in the proximity of a bird. I know people with this phobia who’ve ended up trapped in their apartment stairwell while trying to go somewhere, for example – serious phobias are quite literally paralyzing. It’s not just a matter of feeling nervous or uncomfortable, you literally freeze and cannot do anything, in some cases can hardly breathe, and certainly cannot think or act rationally.

      1. LawCat*

        For sure, I agree on that.

        I’m just wondering what makes it a disability for ADA purposes. Maybe it’s impairment on the ability to think and concentrate?

        1. Stellaaaaa*

          I’m not sure it’s a protected disability in the context of this conversation. He didn’t disclose his phobia until after Liz was already in the hospital.

    3. Princess Consuela Banana Hammock*

      As Dizzy noted, it could be, but we don’t have enough information to know (and probably don’t need that information, tbh, since it doesn’t really affect our advice to OP#1). But folks are not really being fair to Jack or OP#1 by referring to OP’s decision not to fire Jack as an accommodation that states “it’s ok for Jack to push people into oncoming traffic.” It’s sort of a spurious argument that conflates a past event with the need for a prospective accommodation plan.

      1. Gadfly*

        The problem is that right now the plan appears to be wring hands, hope it doesn’t happen again. And that strongly implies that occasionally (or at the least, once) it is okay and accommodation made for the disability.

        1. Josiah*

          The fact that we don’t know the plan doesn’t mean there isn’t one. Part of the conversation after the fact involved Jack disclosing that he’s in therapy for a phobia — it could well be the case that Jack and his therapist have made a new safety plan that the company accepts as likely to be effective.

          1. Gadfly*

            That may be so–but it isn’t being presented as a factor and it should be a MAJOR one here explaining why they are not firing him.

  11. Seal*

    #1 – What bugs me about this is that there seems to be a distinct lack of empathy for Liz. The poor woman got shoved into oncoming traffic by a coworker, was badly injured to the point that she had to have surgery and be hospitalized for four days, is justifiably angry and undoubtedly traumatized by it, and yet the only thing the OP seems to care about is how inconvienent it is that she quit. And don’t get me started on Jack. I get that phobias can make people do strange things, but to not apologize to Liz immediately and profusely for his actions is outrageous. I don’t blame Liz one bit for quitting.

    1. Dizzy Steinway*

      That’s not fair to the OP, who is writing in about what to do to manage this in the workplace. From OP’s perspective, that inconvenience is a reasonable issue to mention as it’s a genuine problem they are facing.

        1. Lauren*

          I really think you are underestimating how negatively this is going to affect the office. I would not be able to work with Jack after this. He injured a coworker to get away from a harmless creature (and yes, I get that he has a phobia, I have a phobia myself, I understand how they work). I have no idea if he will have a similar reaction again, and frankly, he may well do. The OP/managements overall response would leave me, as a coworker of Jack and Liz, reeling and feeling like the company values its bottom line over safety.

          1. Victoria Nonprofit (USA)*

            Really? Accidents happen. I can’t imagine refusing to work with a coworker because of an accident.

            I’m unusually clumsy. Would you refuse to work with me because I might trip on an uneven sidewalk and knock you into the parking lot, where you might get hit by a car?

            1. Kbug*

              An accident that is actually preventable, like not being within shoving distance of coworkers, always having a clear exit, etc., when out where birds are going to be a common issue?

              This isn’t like he was in a conference room in the middle of a building and a bird came in through vent system and dropped down on him. It is his responsibility to manage his medical conditions and get accommodations.

              I would refuse to work with you if you knew you were unusually clumsy, put yourself in positions where that clumisness could cause direct harm to others, and didn’t see the problem with it, yes

            2. Temperance*

              This analogy isn’t quite fair, though. We have ample evidence that Jack is capable of hurting others due to his fear, and that evidence is the serious injuries he caused Liz. If you were so clumsy that you pushed someone hard enough that they went to oncoming traffic and broke bones, then yes, I would avoid you, too.

      2. paul*

        And like it or not, this *will* get around and it’ll probably be an issue in the office going forward.

        I know if I worked with them and heard about this I’d be a lot more leery of working with Jack anywhere there might be birds (outreach booths, anything that involves going outdoors really, including to and from offsite meetings).

          1. Stellaaaaa*

            Because the person I’m responding to mentioned that it was an inconvenience. And because OP’s actual question (“How can I get Liz to come back and do the work?”) implies that he views her quitting as an inconvenience that needs to be resolved by dealing with Liz. Liz is the one who quit. But OP isn’t fully acknowledging the WHY in a way that is respectful to Liz.

            1. Zillah*

              That’s not quite what the OP said, though, and I’m a little concerned that a lot of us are making assumptions that just aren’t there.

              The OP didn’t ask “How can I get Liz to come back and do the work?” – they didn’t even really imply that, IMO. The OP said:

              We have tried to get her to come back, but she refuses unless Jack is fired. Jack called her with HR present to apologize but she didn’t accept and yelled at him. With Jack’s permission, his phobia and mental health issues were explained to Liz but she says she doesn’t care. What should I do? I don’t feel comfortable firing Jack or recommending it given what he disclosed. I’m not sure where to go from here.

              “What should I do?” can be taken to mean “How can I make Liz come back?” – but that’s a pretty uncharitable reading of it, IMO; the answer could just as easily have been “Fire Jack.” The OP has no idea what to do with a really shitty situation. That’s reasonable, as is mentioning the business cost. Whatever our personal opinions about the right course of action should have been (or should be moving forward), the OP isn’t required to spend a paragraph convincing us all that they respect Liz to to get advice, especially since they’ve said that they understand why Liz is angry.

              1. Gadfly*

                Sure, if you skip the sentence immediately prior to the ones you quote which reads “Liz was working on a few projects, and without her the could be delays and extra costs incurred.” It does color those following sentences to sound like A) what they are trying to achieve is to fix this problem with the projects and b) do it by getting her to come back without firing Jack.

      4. Gadfly*

        It is reasonable to mention that. But the OP is offering a lot in defense of Jack without mentioning anything about taking care of Liz. I think that is why it feels lopsided. No “She’s been great and we don’t want to lose her either”. Instead it is just “What lousy timing on her part. She has big projects, why does she have to quit now?”

        1. Seal*

          My point exactly. As a manager, I get that it’s inconvenient to lose an employee abruptly regardless of the circumstances. But I think that going forward the OP is going to have much bigger problems than Liz quitting. As mentioned above, how did the rest of the office react to this? It’s hard to imagine that all of this went down without anyone noticing (a coworker getting hauled off in an ambulance is a very big deal). Phobia or not, how is the rest of the office going to treat Jack, knowing at the very least that his actions cause a coworker bodily harm?

        2. paul*

          I think you put your finger on something that was bothering me.

          OP, you come across as essentially dismissive of what Liz has dealt with here. You sound fairly sympathetic to Jack, but your biggest concern about Liz quitting is your deadlines–despite the fact she was hurt badly enough to incur large medical expenses (is workers comp covering that?). If I got that vibe as an employee, even if I couldn’t articulate it well, I’d be gone.

        3. No, please*

          This. Won’t these projects have to wait, even if she had not quit, because she had emergency surgery?

    2. Important Moi*

      I think by quitting, Liz has resolved the issue for Liz. I think OP should provide Liz a good reference for future employment.

      OP noted that Liz has some projects that without Liz there could be delays and extra costs incurred. As someone told me years ago, if you drop dead today your place of employment will figure how to function without you tomorrow.

      If I was a potential employer and OP gave this as a reason for giving Liz a bad reference, I wouldn’t look kindly on either OP or OP’s company.

      Finally, with the other workers, I’d tell them that Liz was moving on and that the situation with Jack is being handled. (I wouldn’t be surprised if other workers quit without mentioning this situation.)

    3. A Person*

      There does seem to be an element of *the man has his reason* and *the woman should accept it* here.

      I get that the OP is probably tangled in a legal web right now and has to watch their language, but that’s all the more reason for the OP to get onto Jack/HR/the lawyers to hurry up and come up with a settlement for Liz. Plus, I think it might be worth the OP keeping a closer eye on Jack because as the letter is written, it doesn’t seem like Jack is going above and beyond to resolve the situation, so far it all seems like damage control.

    4. 2 Cents*

      That’s what struck me about the letter too. (I’m not making a judgement call about Jack’s situation.) Liz was minding her own business till she was pushed in front of an oncoming car, probably saw her life flash before her eyes, had to be taken to the hospital, undergo emergency surgery, stay in the hospital for a few days (the worst place to get any sort of rest), then be begged back to work asap by a manager because “but your projects!” There’s no mention if a get well present was sent on behalf of the company, in addition to them assuming all of her medical costs related to this 100% (and I mean all of them) and giving her adequate time to ease back into work. The manager is, quite frankly, sounding less like an understanding human to Liz, who’s probably traumatized, hurting, recovering and just trying to heal.

      1. Zillah*

        I agree that Liz has been through an incredibly traumatic situation and deserves human empathy – but you’re making a lot of assumptions here. There’s no reason for the OP to have included a ‘get well’ present here or mention whether the company is covering her medical costs, because it’s not relevant to this specific question. (I feel like if it had been included, there would be people saying, “Liz doesn’t owe you just because you sent her a gift and are paying her medical bills!”) We have no idea that the OP begged [her] back to work asap… because “but your projects!” There’s no timeline given here, and the OP mentioning that as a consideration in this letter doesn’t mean that they mentioned it to Liz as a way to guilt her into coming back quickly (or at all).

        It’s entirely possible that the OP’s company has not acknowledged Liz’s injury and was immediately badgering her to get back to work – but we’re asked to give OPs the benefit of the doubt here, and it seems like you’re really assuming the worst without a whole lot to back it up.

  12. Helen*

    Letter number 1 is a tough situation.

    I empathize and feel for Jack, because he has a phobia that is out of his control, as well as anxiety.

    I also feel for Liz because it must have been scary to be hit by a car, not assisted by her coworker, ending up with broken bones needing surgery and a hospital stay.

  13. Sara*

    This is very traumatic for Liz, she not only was injured but it was caused by someone else. I understand how this happened due to Jack’s fears and it wasn’t intentional to cause her harm, but I would imagine Liz is experiencing post traumatic stress. It may not be reasonable to fire Jack but it could be reasonable to offer her other solutions, like working from home. But seeing as she quit, it might be best for Liz in the long term for her own mental health to move on.

  14. amanda_cake*

    If Liz had come back and decided to sue Jack so her medical bills could be made paid for, that would make for an interesting work environment.

    1. LessaW*

      I am really hoping that all costs were already covered by either company or Jack. Because if on top of everything they are expecting to pay the costs for Jack’s mental health issue, then they really suck and she is better off anywhere else.

      1. Katie the Fed*

        Doubtful. The accident is fairly recent so it’s going to take a while to get a full sense of the damages. Plus there’s pain and suffering, work time missed, etc. An accident like this takes a while to calculate the extent of the damages. A lawyer would probably advise her to sue the company since it has deeper pockets than Jack.

        1. Retail HR Guy*

          I don’t see any way to successfully sue the company here.

          If this is a state in which the parking lot counts as part of the workplace, then workers’ comp will cover things and there will be no pain and suffering damages and no lawsuit (workers’ comp is the exclusive legal remedy for workplace accidents, meaning you can’t sue if it applies).

          If this is a state in which the parking lot does not count as a part of the workplace, then the company wouldn’t be considered involved at all, unless you want to argue that they were somehow negligent for letting birds onto their property.

          1. MT*

            if they were coming from one work function to another, then it will. I am a traveler, and workers comp covers me driving my rental car from the hotel to get dinner at night.

          2. Serafina*

            I am a llama but not *this* kind of llama…just from things I recall off the top of my head, Liz might have a case for “constructive discharge” – i.e., making the circumstances of her employment so intolerable that she had no choice but to quit. The fact that her employer failed to discipline in any way the man who caused her a severe injury and expected her to go on working with him might well give rise to a constructive discharge suit, and even if it didn’t ultimately succeed, it could be a massive expense to the company to defend against it. So this isn’t just an issue of “failure to prevent” Jack’s condition from causing him to have a reaction to a bird or failing to warn, but simply that the company mishandled the incident that DID happen.

            A lot of commentors are focusing on “accommodations” that might have prevented the incident or “accommodations” that could prevent incidents in the future, but the elephant in the room is the incident that DID happen. Jack did harm someone. He didn’t mean to harm her, but he did push her voluntarily (no, that’s not the same as a seizure or a fall – the human body doesn’t push an obstacle out of the way as it’s running, a person chooses to do that – maybe under extreme emotional distress, but the person who does it is responsible for the consequences) and she suffered a severe injury.

            1. Retail HR Guy*

              Constructive discharge isn’t illegal. You can’t sue an employer for constructive discharge alone.

      2. Mt*

        Sounds like a work place injury, i would bet workers comp or the company is taking care of this

        1. Retail HR Guy*

          Depends on the state. Parking lots are sometimes considered part of the workplace and sometimes not.

      3. Grapey*

        Or the insurance of the driver? In drivers ed, I was taught that I am liable for ANYTHING my moving car hits, like a child going after a ball, a biker that doesn’t observe road rules, or a pedestrian that didn’t look both ways before crossing.

  15. Bork*

    So while I wasn’t a grown man when this happened…when I was a little girl I was so afraid of bees that one day I tackled my grandma off a very low landscape in our apartment building. One bee caused me to panic and I sprinted full speed and smashed my body into her. We tumbled into a tree and some grass and both ended up with scrapes and bruises. Thankfully I’m over my bee phobia, but I can see how this happened.

    I’m a little torn, but ultimately Liz quit. The End.
    Jack could have easily, and purely accidentally, killed this woman. Still, what happened was a huge Unfortunate Series of Events. And Liz’s unwilling to hear Jack out (she doesn’t have to forgive him, but it doesn’t sound like she’d be civil with him either).

    Also, I expected to read “Liz is instrumental to our company!” at some point…not just, “eh, she was working on some projects that have deadlines.”

    1. Gen*

      I once bit a dentist over a fear of needles (and kicked a doctor who administered an injection without good reason and against my permission) but since I know this is a fear that is likely to make me lash out I work very hard to contain it and only harm myself to get through. I hope for Jack this incident leads him to work with his therapist to try to get away from his current panic response.

      I suspect that part of Liz’s reaction is that the apology only came once she was out of hospital and fit to return to work, with HR present. However sincere he might have been waiting so long and having ‘legal’ representatives present is going to make it look forced and for the sake of CYA. Especially if she’s incurred medical bills for emergency surgery etc and didn’t even get an acknowledgement then she’ll have had time to stew on her anger.

      1. Katie the Fed*

        Yes on the stewing. When I was recovering from my accident, I really worked myself into tizzies about things. I was used to being so busy at work, and with all this time I just sat and got angry and depressed and frustrated. I was not in a good mental place. The pain medicine doesn’t help either.

        1. Josiah*

          I really hope the company is doing more to support her than pressuring her to come back. Nothing about her situation is ok.

            1. Stitch*

              Which their insurance company will almost certainly settle pretty much immediately. The optics are bad.

            2. Manders*

              Since it happened on the clock or at what seems to have been a work function, it’s very likely to be a workers comp claim, not a lawsuit. But yeah, Liz absolutely should not be responsible for paying for surgery and lost work time.

      2. Managed Chaos*

        I wonder if HR directed Jack not to have any contact with her until they could be involved. I don’t know that the lack of apology on his own is something he can be blamed for or not.

        1. Ktelzbeth*

          I was thinking this myself. I’m also not sure how Jack was supposed to get in touch with Liz to apologize while she was in the hospital to offer an earlier apology. It’s not impossible, but it wouldn’t be easy and I can potentially see a thread on Jack’s unmitigated gall vs good intentions exploding if he sent apology flowers or a note to a hospital bed.

      3. Minister of Snark*

        This. My daughter had an extreme aversion to needles when she was little. It wasn’t a phobia, per se, but she lashed out when someone is about to give her an injection. She didn’t intend to cause injury, she was just trying to make the person with the needle go away. Knowing this about her, we warned all medical personnel as they were planning to give her an injection of this tendency and we worked through techniques, such as the “roller coaster hold” to keep DD still and the medical personnel safe from a toddler ass-kicking. It was our responsibility to keep innocent people safe from the possible outcomes of DD’s fear/behavior.

        It wouldn’t matter to the nurse she kicked that DD was a little girl or that she was scared. Being kicked HURTS.

        Jack took no measures to protect the people around him from the outcomes of his fear/behavior. He put his coworker in danger and instead of trying to help her or make amends, he is focused on himself. His physical aggression in the face of panic and his lack of action to help would make it very difficult for me to ever be comfortable at this workplace again. Deadlines be damned. I don’t blame Liz for being angry and I don’t consider her response inappropriate. She is traumatized, in pain, and it doesn’t seem that the people around her are putting a big priority on helping her.

  16. Stellaaaaa*

    Liz is going to have permanent scars on a visible part of her arm because of what Jack did. Her demand might not be out of spite or anger, though those feelings would be 100% justified. She might be legitimately scared of Jack now. Is OP prepared to accommodate something like that?

    And what about the person who was driving the car? What about their insurance? Are they the ones on the hook for this? Is that why OP’s foremost thought is, “But what about Liz’s documents?” Is it because someone else covered the bill? This isn’t just about Jack and Liz, and I’d be interested in getting more info about what happened on the driver’s end. If nothing has happened yet, that shoe might still drop and then OP will have to make an actual decision about Jack.

    I have to wonder about the notion of retroactive accommodations. Is this still part of the ADA purview if the documentation was only produced after Jack caused serious harm to someone?

    As in all cases where there’s a clear victim (Liz – even when the perpetrator’s guilt is up for debate), doing nothing or “staying neutral” has the effect of punishing the victim and implicitly telling Jack that his actions were okay, or at least forgivable. I’m not surprised that Liz quit her job when she saw that OP and the company did not actively have her back.

    1. Gadfly*

      Hopefully scars are the only lasting problem–that arm easily might never heal fully.

      1. Stellaaaaa*

        Seriously. I had surgery on a bad arm break when I was a kid and tbh the scars are a complete butcher hack job. You’re not going to have neat little laproscopic scars when the doctors are rearranging your bones. The only reason I’m not self-conscious about the scars is because they’ve been there for almost 30 years. The tendons healed a little tight though and I can totally predict the weather in my elbow.

        Cutesy stories aside, it was a major surgery that required full anesthesia and pins to set the bones in place. It was a huge ordeal. I can’t imagine having to go under anesthesia and have my arm cut open because of a “Jack” and then have my boss call me like, “No really, when are you coming back to go over the excel sheets with Jack?” Liz doesn’t have to be nice to any of these people.

        1. Gadfly*

          I’ve a cousin who got a multimillion dollar settlement due to a compound fracture that never healed right. It was a car accident where the driver wasn’t paying attention and hit him (in a rural area, on a 4 wheeler, in a place where they are allowed on the road). The guy didn’t mean to hit a kid, but he made it so my cousin has a leg that isn’t right.

      2. anon for personal history*

        I came here to say that, reading down through the thread, getting madder and madder. I broke my arm badly 20 years ago. I went through extensive PT. I never got back full mobility in the arm and never will. *It’s my dominant arm*. And I don’t wear short sleeves ever because the scar is bad, even in really hot weather, because I get stared at.

        Breaking an arm shouldn’t be treated like something she can just get over, especially not quickly. There’s the hospital stay. There’s the cast. There’s PT. There’s dealing with it around the home — this is bad both if she lives alone, and also if she doesn’t, for different reasons.

        This is not a minor injury. This is a big deal. And I say that as someone with two mental illnesses that I am in therapy for and are not “fixed”. If the company isn’t paying her medical bills, I’d be seething. Insult to injury to possible *bankruptcy*. Yeah, she lashed out at the coworker who caused this. Don’t blame her. I don’t think you should fire him, but there needs to be a long hard look to make sure 1) this never happens again, and 2) the victim is taken care of.

        1. Stellaaaaa*

          That’s really lousy :/ I’m sorry you went through that. For what it’s worth, your scar probably isn’t as visible as you think. Mine are definitely prominent but other people never notice them, even when I wear tank tops in the summer.

    2. Fish Microwaver*

      Good point about the driver of the car. They are another victim here. They might be liable for extra costs on their insurance or even a driving citation. They are probably feeling terrible about hitting someone with their vehicle, even if they did not intend to.

  17. Nikki P*

    The events of the day the incident occurred (Jack’s actions in both pushing and then not responding), have been thoroughly covered but what stands out to me is the next thing Jack did: which was cover his own ass! He spoke to his boss and the boss above his boss, brought in a letter from his therapist, met with HR, apologised by phone etc. absolutely none of which shows any empathy towards Liz.

    Why wasn’t he sending her flowers, organising a meal service, offering to mow her lawns, apologising profusely (by letter if need be)? If I tripped and fell and knocked someone over, even if I was injured myself, I would feel terrible. I would do what I could to make amends. I would not go to great lengths to protect myself, completely ignoring that the other person had been hurt, even though it was an accident. Did Jack feel bad? Or did he just scramble to make sure everyone knew it wasn’t his fault?

    Things happen. Accidents happen. Jack didn’t meant to hurt Liz. But it is totally reasonable that Liz is really angry at Jack (phobias are hard to understand), and the lack of compassion that came AFTER the fateful day. I wouldn’t want to work with him either, and I wouldn’t want to finish off the projects.

    1. Dizzy Steinway*

      I disagree 100%. It was appropriate to speak to his boss, bring in a letter, etc. Sending her flowers, contacting her directly in the way you describe, is outside the bounds of what may be professionally or reasonably expected here. You think he ‘should’ do it. I think I’d actually feel harassed by what you describe. He can’t ask how to make amends, as Liz has quit. But if he did want to ask, it should be via HR and his boss.

      1. LN*

        I think a lot of this depends on his previous relationship with her, too. I might be overreaching, but based on the events described, I have a feeling they weren’t work-besties before this happened. If they already had a strained relationship, and Jack felt mortified by what happened (as most people would), then it explains his behavior.

        Liz also sounds like the kind of person who might not take well to friendly gestures after something like this, and Jack probably knew that. For me personally, if this happened to me? Even if with a coworker I disliked? I would not, under any circumstances, shout at them in an H.R. meeting or ask management to fire them. It’s just not my personality. (Not that I’d be ok with it, or wouldn’t want the situation to be handled in some way, just that I’m not a screamer or someone who wears negative emotions on my sleeve.) But Liz *is* that kind of person, and without any value judgments assigned to that, she’s clearly got the sort of personality that might be intimidating to others who’ve wronged her. Jack probably handled this in the best possible way, given the circumstances.

        1. Speechless*

          Liz sounds like the kind of person who might not take well to friendly gestures after something like this? That’s a lot of assumption to make about someone who’s mentioned for five lines in a letter written in by her ex boss who’s trying to cover the companies keaster over projects which now may go over deadline without her.

          This poor woman is in the hospital with a badly broken arm because a colleague (who she LATER) learned was in the throws of a phobic attack but DID NOT know that at the time because he never disclosed it) pushed her into the path of a moving car. Liz has every right to be upset and scared of ever again encountering Jack, who never made her or his bosses aware he had a phobia which might make him run in mindless terror when he encountered a bird. Not to make light of Jack’s issues but birds are literally everywhere. If other colleagues have to go out in public with Jack they had a right to know he could be an inadvertent danger to them in public due to potential bird interaction. Jack left his colleagues and the company unaware of this until he’d injured a colleague bad enough to require an ambulance and major surgery and people are siding with Jack? Jack, no matter what challenges he faces with his ongoing mental health has a responsibility to make those around him safe from him by whatever means he has to use. If he has to get better therapy, if he has to not work with others, if he has to arrive at the premises at a different time to everyone else so he’s not walking with them, if he has to tell others like the boss up thread did that he has a phobia of birds and this is what he needs them to do to protect him and themselves from any phobic reactions. He does not get to keep this potential danger to himself, injure his colleage and then get all the sympathy in the world while said colleague now unemployed and laid up in the hospital. I wouldn’t work with this guy if I was just a random third colleague of Liz who heard about it after. I’d be job searching pretty hard knowing Liz is out of a job, hospitalized, scarred for life and all Jack gets is a forced apology in the presence of HR.

          Liz is very much the victim here and the amount of metaphorical grief she’s getting for not being willing to forgive Jack due to his mental illness from her hospital bed post major surgery and feeling forced into quitting her job over being assaulted by a co-worker who isn’t’ going to face any consequences is mind boggling to me.

          Advice to the OP is let Liz go peacefully. She rightly does not want to work for you anymore and projects and deadlines are NO LONGER her issue. Make sure she isn’t suffering financially for this at all. Expect a lawsuit you deserve as Jack is still your problem. And then let her go with your full support and if her work warranted it before this, a GLOWING reference from you.

          1. BethRA*

            “Liz sounds like the kind of person who might not take well to friendly gestures after something like this? That’s a lot of assumption to make about someone who’s mentioned for five lines in a letter… ”

            Liz insisted Jack be fired, and quit her job when he wasn’t, despite Jack and HR trying to apologize and explain his phobia and what happened. She has every right to be angry and upset, but no, this does not strike me as soemone who was going to respond well to a friendly gesture, either.

            1. Speechless*

              You do get that Liz had to have major surgery, may never have full normal use of her arm back, will be scarred for life, and may get PTSD from this due to being run over by a car after a coworker pushed her into it’s path, don’t you? Jack could ultimately now trigger panic in her. She’s the one who was pushed. She’s the one who might now have a panic trigger associated with this person who pushed her and suffered no consequences. I think she gets to decide that either he goes or she does and I don’t think that makes her a bad person or someone who isn’t typically rational. Without the letter writer stating that Liz has a history of flying off the handle and not accepting people’s more typical mistakes and apologies I don’t think we get to decide that she’s not the type to respond well to a friendly gesture.

              HR didn’t try to apologize. They were present in the room when Jack, after taking the time to produce documents about the phobia he’d never disclosed and the treatment he was having for the same eventually called to apologize. Whether he did that because HR made him to try and mitigate the situation or not we can’t say. It reads that way to me as I know I would have been off to visit her in the hospital and asking if it was ok for me to come in and explain myself as soon as she was feeling up to visitors. Not waiting until I’d fully documented myself to HR and then calling with the company appointed legal team in attendance.

              Liz is the victim here. She’s had a life changing injury inflicted on her (for whatever excuses he’s given) by a colleague. She is entirely entitled to decide working with that individual again is beyond her and doubly so when the individual has been given a free pass for what he did to her.

              She gets to be irrational about this. She’s never going to be back into the condition she was before. She will have a scar. She may have metal plates in her body. I broke my arm in three places as a kid and I have arthritis in my wrist now, and a weird dippy gap thing that will never go away. She may have any of those as well. I didn’t even need surgery and no one pushed me over.

              Liz has all the consequences for this to live with, no job, scars, surgery and Jack got away with causing actual bodily harm to someone by producing proof he has a bird phobia after he’d maimed a coworker. I’m sorry but I’m not buying it that Liz has done anything wrong here. For the crime of walking on the sidewalk she’s gone through all this trauma and Jack did nothing but make a phone call it sounds like HR forced/walked him through.

              1. BethRA*

                Who said she didn’t get to be angry about this? Or did anything wrong? I said her actions suggested, very strongly, that she “might not take well to a friendly gesture” from someone who caused her injury. Not that those feelings are irrational or unreasonable.

                She absolutely gets to decide how to respond to the situation. That doesn’t mean she gets to dictate how the company responds.

                (And think for a minute how you would respond to a colleague walking around informing the office about his mental health history and what he’s in therapy for. Absent this accident, we’d all be filling the comment section with “TMI” and “oversharing.”)

              2. nonegiven*

                Since HIPAA, you don’t get to visit someone in the hospital just because you want to. They can make a white list, only these people may visit, they can make a blacklist, keep x away from me.

            2. Judy*

              I think Liz heard that Jack wasn’t fired, quit, and when asked what could be done to get her to not quit said she would only return if Jack was fired.

        2. Alice*

          She might be an intimidating kind of person who wears negative emotions in her sleeve… because she yelled at someone on the phone while still in pain from the broken arm he caused?
          I mean, it’s true, she might be. Or, like a commenter further down suggested, she might have been hungover. I don’t think we have much evidence for either one but it’s possible.

        4. AndersonDarling*

          I’ve been wondering how I would react if I was Liz, and I’ll admit that there are two scenarios based on who “Jack” is. I have co-workers that I trust and have great relationships with, and if they pushed me because of a phobia, I would accept it and forgive. But if it was a handful of people that I don’t trust, I would have the same reaction as Liz. I would quit and demand retribution.

    2. Tuxedo Cat*

      Part of me agrees with you, but at the same time, I also have some friends with anxiety disorders. They’ve screwed up majorly in the past and according to them, they have difficulty apologizing in these situations. Not because they aren’t remorseful, but they’re worried about so many different things that they get overwhelmed.

      It’s definitely something Jack needs to work on, as my friends still do. But I could see them not apologizing in this situation and not simply covering themselves. I could also see my boss being proactive with the aftermath and talking to Jack and getting the other steps happening.

    3. Katie the Fed*

      Completely agree. His lack of remorse or compassion after the accident is really bizarre. It sounds like he didn’t apologize until HR made him.

      FWIW – I was in a hospital for weeks after an accident and several coworkers visited, brought food, sent cards, etc. And that wasn’t even a work accident.

      1. hbc*

        Did he even have a way to contact her without HR though? She went from street to hospital to home, and if he didn’t have her personal number or address, he’d have no way to directly express remorse. And if I was running HR, I certainly wouldn’t be all “Here’s the home number for the employee you just injured, have at it.”

        1. Speechless*

          She was in hospital for four days. Could he not have called in and asked if she’d see him?

          1. nonegiven*

            The hospital is not supposed to even acknowledge you are a patient if you directed them not to. How many hospitals should he have called?

    4. Gen*

      that was my thought too. I understand the fact that he was unable to act immediately after the event because the animal was still present but it looks like he took days to give her any kind of acknowledgement. In my country that would look really bad not to send a card and flowers the next day, but we don’t have immediate medical costs so perhaps he had legal advice not to contact her?

    5. Emi.*

      Yeah, I agree with this. The fact that Jack apparently didn’t apologize and see how Liz was doing as soon as he had gotten through his panic attack (?) is really, really strange to me. Apologizing for pushing someone, even if it wasn’t in front of a car, is definitely a reasonable expectation for managing an anxiety disorder or phobia.

      1. A Person*

        This stuck out to me too. I guess there could be legal advice staying his hand, but even then I think the overall content and tone of the letter would have been different if Jack was working to make some form of amends.

    6. Roscoe*

      So at what point is CYA not appropriate? I mean if I got into a car accident and injured someone, and they went to the hospital, calling my insurance would be the first call I’d make. So I don’t see why in this situation, going to your boss, HR, or even a lawyer is any different.

  18. MommyMD*

    I side with Liz. Jack physically pushed her off a curb in front of a moving vehicle which hit her, seriously breaking her bones resulting in surgery, a hospital stay, pain, recovery, mental anguish and possibly lost wages.

    Nothing happened to Jack but a pat on the head. I don’t care if he is afraid of birds. He’s still a grown man. Many people have all kinds of phobias and don’t shove others into the path of traffic. Jack should have been disciplined at the very least. He could have been arrested for this. Luz could have been killed because of his push.

  19. MommyMD*

    Also, Jack could have fabricated the entire excuse since he came up with it after the fact.

    1. Gadfly*

      Including falsifying the therapist’s note? The one that stated he’d been in therapy for 2 years? I wouldn’t go down that route unless going to court over it…

    2. LN*

      He had a letter from his therapist dating back years, that would be a pretty elaborate hoax to cover up whatever you think he actually did. Deliberately, maliciously pushing a co-worker into traffic is actually a much wilder scenario than what he described.

      1. Stellaaaaa*

        Jack brought in the note after the accident. I think it’s *possible* that he asked his therapist to fudge the details in the note or to make it seem like a more serious phobia than it has been diagnosed as…but I don’t want to go down that road.

          1. Stellaaaaa*

            There are lots of bad therapists out there. There are a lot of therapists out there who don’t comply with the laws and rules of their fields – every weekend the open post is full of comments from people whose therapists come really close to violating their professional ethics.

            I’m not going to go further with this and I don’t doubt Jack’s diagnosis, but I’ll admit to initially thinking it was fishy that Jack suddenly popped up with this note after the accident, since it shouldn’t have any bearing on things that happened before the company knew there was a phobia to accommodate. But of course the OP thinks that Jack has stronger legal standing than Liz so it sounds like no one in that office (besides Liz) is as on-the-ball as they should be.

            1. Josiah*

              I don’t think that’s strange — before this incident, Jack could have thought that he didn’t need accommodations and could keep this private. Once he’s had an episode that resulted in harming a coworker, that’s no longer an option, and accommodations need to be discussed.

    3. Katie the Fed*

      Jack could also secretly be an alien from Planet Rigel VII. Really anything is possible. But it would be a pretty big leap to think he made all this up so he could get away with shoving a coworker in front of a car.

      1. Managed Chaos*

        Not much more ridiculous than him falsifying the whole phobia to cover for a deep-seated desire to push Liz in front of a moving car.

  20. LessaW*

    As someone who has run in front of a moving car because they saw a wasp, I have every sympathy for Jack, but hospitalising a coworker is not a reasonable accommodation for his employer to have to make. If I caused a coworker serious injury because of my issues, I would rightly expect to be fired. A reasonable accommodation would be providing a taxi so he is not travelling outside, or not sending him to off-site meetings.

    He does not seem to have advised them of his disability so they could take steps to avoid this happening, which makes him even less sympathetic. This could have been avoided, he knew he had this phobia that could cause him to be danger to those around him when outside, and did nothing to mitigate the risk. (Even something as simple as being the one to walk closer to the road could well have prevented this, as she wouldn’t have gone off the curb and would probably just be dealing with some minor scrapes and bruising).

    Expecting Liz to keep working with a man who pushed her into the road and then just stood by after she was hit by a car is completely unreasonable. If you weren’t going to fire him, then you should have arranged a generous severance package for her and offered every assistance in finding a new job. I am certainly hoping you or Jack covered her medical costs, and she was paid fully for any time she had to take off without it coming out of her sicktime/pto.

    I don’t know if it is the case, but the impression your letter gives is that she was supposed to accept an apology as the only recompense. Did you explain to her what measures were being taken to prevent a re-occurrence of this? Offer her any kind of accommodation?

    But honestly, I think letting Jack go would have been the best solution all round. Because he is now the guy who pushed a coworker in front of a car and didn’t help her. He is going to really have trouble within the company from now on. Whose going to work with that guy? Liz is probably going to be just the first of many if you keep this guy around. You are going to have a morale issue and a pariah employee.

    Given his situation, a more reasonable sympathetic response would be offering to call it a lay ff and give him a good reference and severance.

    1. the raven*

      I agree about the morale issue. If I found out my employer decided to keep the guy who caused harm to another employee instead of the employee who was harmed, I’d be seriously considering finding a new employee.

      Phobias aside, personal responsibility would dictate that he needs to face the consequences of his actions.

  21. LawCat*

    Whether Jack should be fired is independent of Liz’s demand. Maybe Jack should be fired.

    I am unclear on the source of OP’s firing wariness. Is it because OP wants to be supportive of Jack and he’s an otherwise great employee? Is it only because of the fear of a lawsuit from Jack? Talk to an employment law specialist if it is the latter.

    But stop asking Liz to come back and pulling her into this drama. Her quitting is understandable and reasonable. Offer her a positive reference. I hope the company won’t fight her if she files for unemployment.

    1. Stellaaaaa*

      Your second paragraph is why I wondered whether the driver ended up having to pay Liz’s medical bills. I think OP would be less genial toward Jack if this played out more like a typical “violent act committed/employee injured on company premises.” The fact that Liz needed major surgery for something that a coworker did to her on company grounds, and OP is still acting like Jack isn’t a problem, that makes me think that the money issue just hasn’t come to fruition yet. OP doesn’t seem to be worried that Liz might sue the company, which makes me think that someone else already paid up.

      1. Katie the Fed*

        I’m involved in a personal injury lawsuit right now – it’ll take a while for that stuff to shake out. If she has physical therapy she probably won’t file suit until after it’s completed and she reaches maximum medical improvement. I would think she’ll be bringing legal action against Jack and the company – I definitely would.

        1. Gadfly*

          There is a reason you often have years to file–it can take that long to get a clear idea of how much it will cost going forward. It takes time to figure out if bones will heal properly, if the muscle and sinew and such are all right, and how bad the scarring is.

          1. Katie the Fed*

            Yep. I waited almost the full two years before filing, and I STILL have problems.

      2. LawCat*

        Oh yes, if someone other than Jack, Jack’s insurer, the company, or the company’s insurer has paid or continues to pay, there’s a lot of potential exposure.

  22. The Wall of Creativity*

    Lucky there’s not a sex club going on at that workplace. Quack! Quack!

  23. Cary*

    Having chewed this over if I was in this situation, and based on the information presented, I’m thinking,

    1) Discipline isn’t appropriate in this situation as it assumes that at the time of the incident there was some behavior that was in Jack’s control.

    2) Liz is entitled to feel aggrieved, and ask for a plan that makes sure she is safe. She doesn’t get to insist that Jack is fired.

    3) The employer should accommodate a medical condition up to the point of undue hardship (note a lot of people seem to be assuming that this is in the US and since we have an international audience on this site that isn’t necessarily the case, so the op needs to consult a lawyer who can advise on legal issues in her jurisdiction). So, yes the employer doesn’t have to tolerate harm to other employees resulting from a medical condition, but the solution doesn’t have to be firing Jack. I mean if Jack’s condition is so debilitating that you can’t guarantee his co-workers safety which makes it near impossible for him to work then surely going on a long-term disability program is a better option than firing him.

    4) The op (after taking with her manager, HR and taking legal advice) could go to Jack and ask him what is going to change given what happened? Will he be changing his current treatment, does he need to tell people when he’s feeling particularly anxious and in need of space (emotional and physical)?

    5) Give Liz room and then go back to her and talk with her. Explore why she feels Jack deserves to be fired. I know the answer seems obvious, but is it because she’s so angry, does she no longer feel safe, or is she now suffering from PTSD (in which case you need medical proof before you need to begin the accommodation process? Once you know where Liz is coming from then you can try and build a solution that isn’t just Liz quits, or Jack gets fired.

    6) If Liz is willing to return, it won’t necessarily avoid missed deadlines. She might not be back for weeks or even months depending on how her injuries heal, the need for pain management, and her overall energy levels ( feeling drowsy and needing more sleep is a common side effect of a healing fracture).

    1. Gadfly*

      (assuming US) Long term disability is usually for new disabilities, not pre-existing ones. So if the insurance wasn’t started before the phobia, it likely wouldn’t apply. It isn’t the employer’s decision if Jack would qualify unless they are self insured

      Going on SSD or SSDI is a whole other kettle of fish and process and I don’t know if he’d qualify (the rules are strange). Again, however, the important thing is it would not be the employer’s decision.

      1. Retail HR Guy*

        Our LTD plan covers pre-existing conditions and is not self-funded. For whatever that’s worth.

    2. Stellaaaaa*

      2) Liz is within her rights to demand that Jack be fired. She’s allowed to demand anything she wants. OP, in turn, is allowed to NOT fire Jack.

      To be less extreme about it, Liz isn’t actually demanding that OP fire Jack. She’s saying that firing Jack is her condition for her continued employment. If the company doesn’t do what she wants, she’s not going to do what they want.

      1. Marillenbaum*

        That is a very important point. Liz already quit, and when they asked what it would take to get her back, those were her terms. That’s entirely fair on her part, and I think the only decent thing for the OP to do is let Liz go and provide her a good reference.

      2. Manders*

        Yes, I think this is a very important part that people are overlooking. Liz has the right to quit any time she wants. The OP wants her back, and asked what it would take to get her back, and she answered honestly. She’s not an employee of the company anymore–how could they even punish her for saying whatever she wants to say?

    3. Princess Consuela Banana Hammock*

      Re: Assuming this is in the U.S.—We always assume U.S. unless there’s a clear indication in the letter (or in follow up comments) that the writer is based in another country.

      (I agree with all your other suggestions, except that I don’t think the employer should inquire into whether Jack has changed his treatment.)

      1. Observer*

        This is one of the few cases where the employer has a legitimate right to ask. It’s not so much are you going to Dr. X vs Dr. Y type of thing, but “What has changed that will give us some assurance that we don’t have a repeat performance?”

        1. KellyK*

          The details of the treatment are private, though. They can say that they need assurance it won’t happen again, but that doesn’t have to be through his getting different treatment. It could be through accommodations he requests from them that keep him out of that situation, or it could be through his maintaining physical distance from coworkers while outdoors. It’s okay for him to volunteer that he’s seeing a different therapist/seeing his therapist more frequently/taking meds/whatever, but it’s not okay for them to ask for that info.

    4. LessaW*

      While discipline may not be appropriate for the incident itself, I do think it may for not informing his employer that he had a medical condition that made him a danger to those around him, and not taking and steps to minimise the risk. My issue is not that Jack has a mental illness, but that he does not seem to have made even the smallest effort to avoid harming others.

      While I do agree that she doesn’t have the right to insist he be fired, I don’t think she was unreasonable to think he would be and be surprised and angry he wasn’t. Bear in mind at the time she first expected him to be fired, she did not know about his phobia (she was told that later). From her point of view, he had pushed her in front of a car and then watched as she lay on the ground. That would usually be an immediate firing. And to be told that someone who had assaulted you was keeping their job, is definitely grounds to quit.

      And after that it was the company asking her what it would take for her to come back, at which point if the answer is to lose Jack, she is well with in her right to tell them that. They don’t have to do it, but if she is not willing to work with him (which is reasonable), she should tell them that when they ask.

      The OP makes no mention of what they offered to do for Liz except the apology, and an apology does not cut it here.

      1. Josiah*

        We don’t know what efforts he did or didn’t make. All we know is that they weren’t effective in this case.

        It could be like driving — even the best and most cautious drivers get into accidents, and sometimes make split-second driving errors that hurt people. It doesn’t necessarily mean that they were negligent.

        1. Gadfly*

          But they still end up paying for those mistakes, being responsible for them. Sometimes even criminally liable. Because that is part of driving a car. And sometimes those mistakes cost you your license. You never just get to say “oops, accident, not my fault, the victim is SOL”

          1. Josiah*

            Context matters with driving mistakes. Some of them are more-or-less entirely bad luck, which is a reason all drivers are required to have insurance. Not all actions that harm others are assault, and not all actions that harm others are negligence.

            I’m not saying that he has no responsibility here. I’m saying that he may well not have been negligent.

            1. Gadfly*

              And having insurance is part of that responsibility–as would be paying for it out of pocket if your insurance didn’t cover it. Regardless of the context, you don’t get to just say that the victim gets to be the only one to pay. You just maybe don’t pay as much.

        2. LessaW*

          We know he did not tell his employer, and was outside and walking only half a step in front of someone next to road. We know he didn’t make the effort not to be right next to someone in a situation where he could be exposed to his phobia.

          Given how easily this could have been avoided, it does not seem like he made any effort. And nothing was mentioned in the letter about it, and if he did have suitable measures in place, that would be relevant. If it happened despite appropriate preventive measures, that is a different situation to what was described.

          1. Josiah*

            That doesn’t necessarily mean he was negligent. It depends on how foreseeable his reaction was. If Jack’s phobia is such that he always panics and runs away whenever a bird shows up, I absolutely agree that he was negligent.

            But his phobia might not be like that. It might *not* have been a reaction he reasonably should have expected to have.

            It could easily be that he had every reason to believe that he could handle day-to-day bird encounters without problems. It could easily be that something about this situation in particular triggered his phobia in a way that he could not have anticipated.

            (And now that he knows, it’s his responsibility to make a new plan after the fact.)

        3. Observer*

          We don’t know what efforts were made, but I would have thought that if anything had been done the OP would have mentioned it.

          OP – are you willing to offer some clarification?

        4. Aveline*

          Yes, but if you know you have untreated seizures, you do not drive. Legally, you aren’t allowed to do so.

          If you know you have a condition that makes your driving dangerous per se, you do not do it.

          We don’t know enough about Jack, but he may or may not have known he was dangerous.

    5. AFRC*

      I’m really struggling with the undue hardship thing – birds are literally everywhere. I understand the phobia, but I’d be terrified (if I were the OP) that this could happen again with another employee. Has an employment attorney commented on this?

    7. Hiker 1546*

      Cary, I’ve been mulling this over, too, and I have come to the exact same thoughts that you have. A very unfortunate situation for Liz; but similar to how accommodations for ADA should be aimed toward the person who needs them and not having adverse effects for their coworkers, accommodations for Liz should be aimed toward her and not being negative toward Jack (e.g. move her workspace far away from him, not require her to be anywhere near him, etc). Firing him for this incident (without anything else negative from his work) seems too punitive to me.

  24. Mira*

    I think Alison dropped the ball on this one. Jack may suffer from a documented mental health issue – but this does not entitle him to disregard other people’s safety to such a degree that he lands them in the hospital, requiring *surgery* as a side effect of *his* problems. Liz is absolutely correct for being furious that management will not discipline Jack in any way.

    Look at this from her perspective. If she ends up working outside with Jack again, what’s the guarantee there won’t be a repeat occurrence of the exact same scenario? And she may not get so lucky as to get away with a compound fracture next time! And if I were Jack’s coworker, I’d absolutely refuse to be outside with him after seeing what happened to Liz.

    And Jack may be under treatment for his phobia, but I’m wondering how effective that treatment actually is, considering the extremity of his reaction. What if this had been someone’s child, or an elderly bystander, or someone with pre-existing severe health issues, that Jack had shoved away in his panic? Wouldn’t that open up the organisation to a lawsuit, and wouldn’t then people think what Jack did was utterly unjustified? Phobias are understandable, but if yours makes you unable to function this badly when confronted with a trigger, perhaps you need to change up your treatment, or stay home where you won’t put other people in hospital as a consequence of your phobia.

    I’m generally quite understanding of mental health issues – due to personal experience with one several years ago. But at no point did I imagine that my issue gave me the right to willy-nilly harm other people just because I couldn’t cope with X or Y triggers.

    1. LN*

      You’re overlooking a pretty big piece of this. “IF she ends up working outside with Jack again.” There are probably a lot of ways to avoid this, and I’m going to assume the OP has talked those through with Liz, but she is not comfortable working with him again under any circumstances. Since they don’t work in a bird sanctuary, it’s a bit overreaching to say that Jack is putting everyone in the office at risk during all moments of the day simply by existing in their proximity.

      It’s not reasonable to say that anyone with a severe phobia needs to stay home and cannot work or leave the house. This is one of those one-in-a-million accidental things that can just…happen sometimes. Even to people without documented mental health conditions. The fact that something awful happened here, and that it was preventable, doesn’t mean somebody needs to be punished for it.

      1. Mira*

        Perhaps I have a different perspective on this because I don’t live in the US. In my country, birds are EVERYWHERE. And if you’re out on any city street, you’re going to find birds and cars in equal abundance. Someone like Jack, with a phobia as severe and uncontrolled as that? You bet he’d pose a massive risk to people in his surroundings every time he got out of the house. Example – my workplace has wall to wall windows and there are usually anywhere between one to five pigeons roosting there. Now take Jack, and take this office – and pretty much any office with windows – and you see the problem this poses?

        I don’t mean to say that people with phobias should lock themselves away – I don’t. But I do feel that they have a responsibility to take measures to NOT hurt people in the event they are faced with a trigger. In Jack’s case, he doesn’t seem to have taken any of those measures – he didn’t inform his employer of his phobia, he didn’t make appropriate restitution to Liz after the fact, and he doesn’t seem to be realising that whatever treatment he’s undergoing isn’t helping him so he probably needs to find a new therapist.

        I don’t think Jack needs to be punished. I’m saying he needs to be held accountable for not managing his illness properly, not behaving like a decent human being after his illness got someone put in the hospital for an injury so bad it needed surgery to fix it. And we still don’t know how long Liz’s recovery period will be, and the financial hardship this will no doubt be causing her, to say nothing of the mental shock and trauma.

        It’s simple – to me, Jack may not be a deliberate culprit, but Liz IS a clear victim. And so I’m coming down on her side of this whole scenario.

        1. Josiah*

          Jack had one uncontrolled reaction with catastrophic consequences. That doesn’t mean that his phobia is uncontrolled generally, or that he freaks out every time he sees a bird. It doesn’t necessarily mean that his therapy isn’t helping, or that he needs a new therapist.

          It could easily be that his phobia had seemed well-controlled for a long time, and then flared up again in the worst possible situation.

          Jack is also very vulnerable in this situation. He just got publicly exposed as someone with a mental illness that others are afraid of. That could easily cost him his professional reputation and have many other serious consequences for him.

          Liz is the victim of Jack’s actions; Jack may well also be the victim of a culture with no constructive response to mental illness. Both of them are dealing with things no one should have to deal with.

          I feel for both of them, and I hope the company is supporting both of them.

        2. Speechless*

          Yeah, that’s what gets me about this too. Birds are literally everywhere. There is no avoiding them. If he is going to go this far into uncontrollable panic over them, people surrounding him need to know as it’s on him to take steps to protect others from his reactions. This isn’t a seizure where he lets limited or no notice. He knows if I see a bird I’m not going to be able to stop myself from freaking out in a blind panic response. He thus needs to take the responsibility of protecting others. IE, I will tell colleagues not to walk in front of me in the outdoors as if a bird flies past or lands near me, I will go into a panic state and could inadvertently injure them. I will tell the boss I need to be removed from the windows in case a bird lands on the sill. There are things he could have done to help prevent this from happening. He chose not to and he chose not to apologise to this lady until forced. He’s a liability.

        3. EleanoraUK*

          See, this is what makes me think Jack thought he was OK to walk outside with birds, so he may have thought he had a fair handle on his phobia and wasn’t a risk to anyone.

          We don’t know whether he has a habit of shoving people out of the way when birds are present, or whether he normally wets himself and cries and this is the most extreme reaction he’s ever had, that has taken him by surprise completely.

          1. Mira*

            Fair enough, but what was preventing him from apologising – of his own accord – and offering to make restitution or at least promising some measures to prevent this happening again? That’s the part that jumps out to me the most.

            1. EleanoraUK*

              Oh yeah, I’m not sure Jack is helping himself necessarily.

              But with Liz in hospital it may have also just been a general shambles, he might not have known how to get in touch or whether she’d even want him to. I don’t want to excuse any less-than-ideal behaviour after the fact, but I do wonder if the whole thing was just messy in terms of lines of communication.

        4. paul*

          I’ve been over most of the western and southeastern US and birds are *everywhere*. If nothing else, pigeons are incredibly common in metro areas. I have to wash bird crap off my car every week or two to keep it from looking mottled.

    2. Princess Consuela Banana Hammock*

      Re: what if the victim were different, none of those scenarios would create liability (i.e. a lawsuit) for the employer unless the incident occurred on the employer’s premises. It’s unclear from the letter whether the sidewalk in front of the building is public or private, and it’s unclear whether OP’s company owns the entire building or occupies part of it.

      But Jack is certainly subject to liability right now and would be in the scenarios you’ve presented. And if the employer were aware of their employee’s panic responses and failed to take reasonable actions to protect bystanders on-site, that maybe would create a bit more liability for the company (but even then, it’s a stretch).

      2. Observer*

        If it happens again while he is at work, it most definitely WOULD create liability, even off premises. The only out here would be to prove that the company and Jack took new measures to prevent this from happening again.

        1. Princess Consuela Banana Hammock*

          It honestly depends on the state. Generally employers who are aware of known dangers to employees or third-parties are required to take reasonable steps to prevent or mitigate those dangers. But in some contexts, a second occurrence would likely fall under workers’ comp. And some incidents might fall beyond what a reasonable person would expect the employer to have known, even after this incident.

          1. Observer*

            Yeah, but if he’s going outside while at work, he IS going to encounter birds. If that triggers another such panic attack and he hurts someone who is NOT an employee, that’s not going to be a workers comp case. And, it’s going to be very hard for the employer to argue that they couldn’t reasonably foresee that he might panic and shove someone, since he already did that once.

  25. Dizzy Steinway*

    I’m getting the feeling that some people think OP needs to pick a side and square everything away so it’s really clear who was right and who was wrong.

    But OP can agree this was an awful thing to happen without firing the person who did it – and after all none of us know exactly what happened. Did he actually shove her? We don’t know. We only have hearsay to go on.

    And OP can also look at ways to accommodate Jack (eg asking him to undergo a confidential occupational health assessment would be reasonable or whatever the equivalent is over there) without condoning the fact that someone was hit by a car.

    They can also be worried about the effect on their workplace without this making them a heartless person.

    Jack can regret what happened but also have an explanation.

    Liz can not want to work with Jack but also not be able to get him fired.

    OP can care about Liz, and Jack, and their workplace.

    And all of us have the potential to do what Jack did if someone scares or startles us. Sure, the phobia means there’s a greater likelihood and he should look for ways to better manage it.

    But many people are commenting from the perspective that all of us could be Liz in this situation but only Jack could be Jack. Nope. We could all be Jack, too.

    1. LN*

      Yeah, this too. One time my mom tripped on a long stone staircase and instinctively grabbed the person that she was falling towards. I mean, you could say that she SHOULD have contorted herself to fall on the steps herself and avoid potentially hurting someone else, but she had a panic response to suddenly losing her balance and that’s just what happened. Thankfully, they were both okay. But it could have easily gone badly. Her behavior wasn’t negligence, but if the person had been hurt, it would have still been her fault. Things in real life often exist in shades of gray.

      1. EleanoraUK*

        This exact thing happened to me this morning. Very tall escalator on the London underground, person behind me lost their balance, fell into me and then grabbed my shoulders to stop themselves falling any more as I was walking down. Fortunately I was stable enough that I kept us both upright but it could have ended disastrously.

        Had they been a colleague I’d not be looking to get them fired. Had they had a known issue with balance, I’d be miffed, but I’d have to assume it didn’t normally bother them to this extent, because why on earth would they have chosen to walk down the escalator in that case?

      2. Gadfly*

        I once fell down a flight of stairs at work–and there was a big investigation into why and they added some colorful strips to the stairs and I stopped wearing heels. It was more than just “well, don’t do that again”. And I didn’t even take anyone with me.

        1. EleanoraUK*

          That’s a great result for you, but I don’t know that that’s the standard response to a fairly rare accident. There are many offices with stairs with no such provisions. Everyone knows people sometimes fall down stairs, we all try not to, and sometimes some of us do anyway. There’s not enough cotton wool going to make the world a 100% safe place at all times.

    2. JenM*

      “Did he actually shove her? We don’t know. We only have hearsay to go on.”

      The letter states that there were witnesses to the incident so I think doubting Liz’s account is unnecessary.

      1. Zillah*

        The witnesses said that a bird did indeed land near them, and the OP describes Liz falling off the curb after Jack pushed her. That’s not the same thing as Liz or the witnesses claiming that she was shoved off the curb.

  26. Katelyn M*

    I’m completely baffled by all of the comments that seem to suggest that one freak accident automatically makes Jack a “dangerous individual” or that accepting it as an accident somehow gives Jack a carte blanche to start pushing other coworkers into traffic.

    This was a highly unfortunate accident that came about when a very particular set of circumstances occurred: Liz and Jack happened to be walking close together, bird happening to land there, car happened to be parking at that particular moment. The chances of these circumstances ever happening again are astronomical.

    Based on the fact that no one knew about Jack’s phobia until this incident, I’m willing to bet Jack doesn’t freak out every time he sees a bird, but one landing directly in front of him is probably not as common as all of you would like to think. I have a major phobia of snakes (as in I can’t even look at pictures of them in books without my heartrate freaking out) and can control myself with deep breathing and meditative exercises when visiting the zoo/reptile house/etc, but if a snake crossed in front of me on the sidewalk I would have a complete and total meltdown. I don’t know that I would be capable of walking past a snake to render assistance to someone in need.

    Liz is likely traumatized by the experience and is well within her rights to refuse to work with Jack, but the OP is right not to fire Jack over a freak accident.

    1. LN*

      Yeah, this is where I fall on the issue. Objectively speaking, Jack isn’t any more dangerous than someone with a seizure disorder, or balance issues, or someone who happens to be breaking in a new pair of shoes on an uneven sidewalk, or any other circumstance that could have led to him accidentally falling on/pushing someone into harm’s way. He might even be less so, because he has a really obvious and avoidable trigger.

      For Liz, of course, the situation is different. But that doesn’t mean Jack needs to be fired.

      2. Aveline*

        “seizure disorder”

        Actually, in cases where people have seizure disorders, the law is pretty clear they have to mitigate by taking effective medication and be “clear” of seizures for 6 months to a year before they can drive, operate heavy equipment, etc.

        In those cases, an injury is not viewed as an “accident” but a foreseeable outcome of NOT taking steps to correct your condition effectively or avoid the danger.

        Suffers of seizure disorders must take steps to not endanger others.

        By that token, if Jack knew this was a potential response and did nothing corrective, he’s at fault. If he didn’t know, it’s another matter.

    2. Stellaaaaa*

      There’s a difference between blaming Jack for his mental illness and expecting him to take responsibility for his actions.

      We sometimes fall into this rut where we assume that in a scenario like this, everyone besides Jack has perfect mental health so it’s only fair that they should bend the rules for him, since everyone else benefits by having an easier day-to-day life. But that’s not how it works. Almost everyone has some kind of mental, emotional, physical, or life issue that brings us all to a more even measurement. Everyone has something they need to work on if they want to participate in society. Jack’s diagnosis doesn’t absolve him from having to try to manage his phobia.

    3. Relly*

      Presumably, there is a parking lot at this job, where employees park their cars.

      It is spring time, and birds are out. Some birds will fly over, near, and in that parking lot.

      Bird, car, Jack. I feel like this has the potential to happen every single morning.

      1. motherofdragons*

        And yet, it hasn’t, or the OP would surely have mentioned this. Doesn’t that indicate that he’s had some level of control over his phobia thus far, and that this incident is a very rare case for him?

    4. Gadfly*

      So only the other billion and a half ways it can go wrong instead of a parking car. Coworker pushed down stairs, Jack runs into traffic, coworker has a health condition that a simple fall is enough to cause serious damage, random rock cracks open coworkers skull, coworker falls on something that hurts them…

      1. AD*

        Speculating on all sorts of scenarios where Jack may encounter birds is no guarantee that the extremely unlikely accident that happened in this case would happen again.

        1. paul*

          This *exact* accident no. But you can’t see how having a panic response like this is dangerous even in the absence of a cars? Shove someone down and they fall onto a rock, down stairs, etc…all those are pretty plausible. Hell, even just getting shoved down is fairly unpleasant and carries some risk of injury (my mom broke her wrist in a fall 2-3 years ago for instance).

          You’re getting too hung up on the exact nature of her particular instance. Someone that panics like this at a fairly common encounter (or at least it’s pretty routine to be close to birds in most of the US) does actually pose a threat to people.

    5. Managed Chaos*

      Exactly. Many comments have stated Liz could have been killed, and while that’s true, that’s true to so many accidental incidents. Someone comes in to work with a slight cold thinking it is allergies could conceivably kill someone who is immuno-suppressed. Someone could trip and spill hot coffee on someone, developing burns and infection and thereby kill someone. Just because in an absolute worst case scenario someone could die from an action doesn’t make the action a fireable offense.
      Unfortunately, freak accidents/circumstances do occur.

    6. Observer*

      The reality is that this IS a scenario that is likely to repeat itself. Maybe not the details of being shoved in front of a car that is pulling into a parking space. But there are SOOOO many ways that a blind shove can seriously hurt or even kill someone, that it’s not all that freaky in the aggregate.

      That’s the real problem with this scenario. The issue is not that the OP is not firing Jack. It’s WHY they are not firing him, and that they also don’t seem to see that there is a real issue that they need to deal with going forward.

  27. Simms*

    I have a currently moderate phobia of small spiders. It used to be worse, much worse. It has taken almost 20 years of treatment from different doctors to get from screaming flights away from spiders to now just having anxiety attacks on seeing them. Phobias are not rational. You can be told all day for years that something is harmless and it won’t change what you are feeling. The thing is though while if I am already calm and a spider just crawls on the monitor or wall I will have one reaction and then a completely different one to a spider suddenly dropping onto me (or even accidentally brushing a spider web that I don’t know is there). If I don’t have distance and time to control myself I go right back to screaming flights or a panic attack where I can have trouble breathing.

    We don’t know how severe his phobia used to be (for people saying his therapy isn’t working). He could have been unable to leave the home or this same level he currently is at. We don’t know and his work does not need to know. Once he was out of the situation he did apologize to Liz (at request of HR or not, again we don’t know). Given how angry Liz is over this and likely has been, I don’t blame him for not trying to talk to her while in the hospital. I doubt it would have helped given her reaction to his apology.

    Liz is entitled to be mad over this. She does not have to accept his apology or his explanation of what happened. She is entitled to have quit and not want to come back while he is working there. That however does not change that what happened was an accident and that Jack does not have to be fired over this. It seems highly unlikely that he deliberately pushed her into the car and that he chose to not help her out of some malicious intent. She does come across as nasty for yelling at him when he was trying to apologize and for saying she does not care about his mental disorder though that is moderated by that she is in pain and still injured.

    This would have been simpler is Jack had deliberately pushed Liz, but he didn’t. It also would have been simpler is he did not have documentation of his phobia but he does and he is working on trying to get better. Liz is well within her rights to not feel safe around Jack regardless of actual safety given what happened. But they chose not to fire Jack so Liz isn’t coming back and they need to move on from that point instead of trying to get Liz to come back while Jack is there.

    1. Josiah*

      It could also be that he has a strategy that has been 100% reliable for the past year and that this is the first time it’s failed. That would explain why it hadn’t come up before.

      I could see that happening if this bird flew *way* closer than birds usually fly, and his coworker was blocking his way and he felt trapped right next to a bird in a way he suddenly had no strategy for.

    2. Katie the Fed*

      “She does come across as nasty for yelling at him when he was trying to apologize and for saying she does not care about his mental disorder though that is moderated by that she is in pain and still injured.”

      I’m kind of hung up on this apology and find it really significant. He apologized several days later, AFTER she’d already had surgery and quit, and only when HR was in the room. That’s weird. That doesn’t show a lot of remorse, and combined with standing there doing nothing while she was laying there with a broken arm – ugh. It’s not a good look for Jack.

      1. Zoe Karvounopsina*

        Even if he wanted to make sure HR heard– he could still have taken the initiative on making the apology, not wait until he was told.

          1. Observer*

            True. But he really, really could have been more proactive about the whole thing. There is no indication that Jack tried to talk to her directly or that he approached HR about this.

            So, though I don’t think Jack is an evil villain, or anything like that, it does seem to me that he’s not taking the level of responsibility he should.

            1. Apollo Warbucks*

              All we can do is speculate about what Jack did between the accident and the phone call he made.

              It could be that he wouldn’t have apologised without being told to by HR it is also possible he really wanted to apologise but wasn’t able to as he didn’t have Liz’s phone number or was told not to by HR.

              A lot of people seem to have jumped to the conclusion that Jack doesn’t care about the accident and behaved poorly after the event, I just don’t see enough in the letter to reach that conclusion.

              2. Observer*

                Well, based on the letter, either he’s not taking it seriously enough or the OP is seriously clueless. I get that letter writers want to be concise, but Jack’s reaction is important here and we don’t see ANY indication that he took this seriously enough. If the OP is failing to mention it, it speaks to the OP’s failure to understand the entirety of the situation. (Which might explain why they are still trying to pull Liz back.)

      2. blackcat*

        … and when she was probably on painkillers. That wouldn’t help her have a rational response in the moment.

      3. Batshua*

        If she had been in the hospital for four days, did it really make sense for him to come to the hospital to see her to apologize while she was recovering?

    3. Stellaaaaa*

      I’m really curious as to why so many people are brushing aside how serious Liz’s injuries were. Liz has every right to be verbally snotty to Jack after all she’s been through. He pushed her into an oncoming car. She had to have surgery and will have scars. She might need physical therapy. Jack did that to her. All she’s doing is saying words.

      2. jasper_red*

        That seems to be a trend on a lot of posts like this. I’ve seen people make similar comments on drunk driving type posts too (I’m not comparing mental illness to drunk driving but just saying I’ve seen comments on both types of posts).

        I think it goes with the general “blame the victim” culture of not accepting responsibility for your actions. But people get mad when I say that.

        1. Zillah*

          I agree that blaming the victim is awful.

          I have not seen a single person suggest that this incident was at all Liz’s fault, caused by Liz’s actions, or is something Liz could have avoided if she’d done X. A few people have said that they don’t feel that trying to get him fired is reasonable, but I haven’t seen anyone suggest that she’s at all in the wrong for not wanting to work with him again.

          I don’t feel like the phrase “blame the victim” really applies here.

          1. jasper_red*

            I’m speaking to the posts suggesting her behavior is out of line and she should have accepted his apology rather than getting angry. I think encouraging brushing it under the rug because Jack has a mental illness is sort of blaming the victim because it implies that if she pursues anything legally against him she’s a bad person since he can’t help it. So not blaming her for what happened but blaming her for what may happen as a result of the actions, if that makes sense.
            And I have seen some commenters basically saying he couldn’t help it and wanting him to take responsibility means you don’t care about mental illness.

            1. Zillah*

              I get why that’s rubbing you the wrong way – I think that there probably isn’t a way to interpret the situation that’s not at least a little uncomfortable and problematic, because this is a super complicated situation with multiple people who have genuine issues that are worthy of compassion.

              But I still don’t feel like the term “victim blaming” – with all of its very loaded cultural connotations – is really appropriate here, especially since I haven’t seen anyone suggest that what Jack did was okay or that he doesn’t need to take steps to ensure that it doesn’t happen again.

              1. Gadfly*

                I think it is strongly implied by the OP that they have done all they feel they can do about Jack and are baffled at the idea that Liz expects anything. And lots of people that are saying that she is not allowed to be angry, or at least not “that angry” as if that is supposed to be in her control while saying or implying Jack needs to be forgive for his phobia because he can’t be expected to have control.

                Victim blaming may not be right, but it definitely speaks to double standards.

                1. Zillah*

                  I don’t think lots of people are saying that at all. A fair number of people are saying that she’s not entitled to demand that he be fired, but that’s very different than saying that she’s not allowed to be angry or quit over this.

              2. jasper_red*

                What term would be better do you think? Because I actually do agree that victim blaming is usually used to say “Well she could have prevented it by doing X or Y” but I do notice that when stories like this are posted (not just here) there will always be at least one person feeling that the victim in the situation is a bad person if she doesn’t let it go, because whatever she pursues will hurt the person who caused the accident.
                I’m not being snarky I really want to know! I never really know what the right term for that attitude is.

                1. Zillah*

                  I’m not sure what the exact term would be, tbh – I generally just look at it as a lack of empathy for someone who’s faced extreme trauma, which Liz absolutely has. I think the “why aren’t you over it yet?” is a super toxic part of our culture, but while it sometimes overlaps with victim blaming, I think it’s a separate thing. You see it a lot with things like mourning a loss or having a hard time bouncing back from a breakup, too, and those often don’t really have a clear victim. I see this as more akin to that.

                  It doesn’t make it okay, to be clear! I just feel like there’s a fairly significant distinction, and it’s probably relevant in how the OP looks at the situation. “I’m not blaming Liz!” is easy to say and probably true; “I should make sure I’m showing compassion to Liz, because she really was traumatized” is a little different. If that makes sense at all?

                2. jasper_red*

                  No that totally makes sense, I see the “why aren’t you over it yet” all the time even when dealing with a death of someone close to you.

        2. Stellaaaaa*

          I think it’s because there are more regular commenters with (diagnosed and well-managed) mental illnesses than commenters who have broken bones or suffered compound fractures. I don’t think people are registering that Liz’s injury was much worse than a typical break or fracture, which can be set and splinted with local anesthesia. Surgery means this was an unusually bad break.

          1. Zillah*

            The OP said:

            She ended up covered in bruises and breaking both bones in one forearm. Liz had to be taken to the hospital in an ambulance. The breaks were in the middle of her forearm and were so bad that Liz had surgery on her arm the next day and required a total hospital stay of four days.

            I think it’s a little uncharitable to assume that people aren’t registering that this wasn’t a simple break or fracture because they have mental illnesses but have not been hit by cars. That description makes it very clear that this was a big deal.

            1. Temperance*

              People are really minimizing the impact on Liz, though. I think that the comment is far more charitable than I am being towards Jack and the company. There’s a pervasive idea that because Jack is mentally ill, he’s not responsible for his actions, and because Jack isn’t to be held responsible, Liz is unreasonable for wanting something to happen.

              1. Zillah*

                I’m not sure what “people” means here – the vast majority of people seem to have sympathy for her and understand why she wouldn’t want to work with Jack.

                IMO, there are two things going on:

                1) I think that a lot of people are seeing empathy for Liz and empathy for Jack as mutually exclusive. They’re not, though – people pushing back against the characterization of Jack as being a constant danger to everyone around him aren’t necessarily unsympathetic to Liz.

                2) A lot of assumptions are being made based on very little information, which is never a recipe for success.

        3. Forrest*

          I’m not even sure why people defending drunk drivers would pop into your head while reading this. Jack didn’t choose to be afraid of birds and even if he did it’s not illegal.

    4. Alice*

      Wow. I would be “nasty” too. A traumatic experience, four days in the hospital, PT, pain, medical bills, and she comes across as nasty for not accepting a delayed and incomplete apology (by which I mean no info about how he’s going to try and make the situation better or avoid it in the future)….

      1. anon for personal history*

        Also, like, she’s under no obligation to accept his apology. Even if he made it immediately. Even if he made it somehow else. She doesn’t *have* to forgive him. And especially not so soon!

        Sometimes people really make it sound like as soon as someone says “sorry”, the other person can’t have feelings about it.

        1. Relly*

          Thank you, thank you, thank you. I hate it when someone is considered A Bad Person for not immediately accepting an apology and falling over themselves to pretend things never happened. (This is a touchy spot with me, I admit.)

    5. Observer*

      But they chose not to fire Jack so Liz isn’t coming back and they need to move on from that point instead of trying to get Liz to come back while Jack is there.

      This is true.

  28. Josiah*

    The fact that he panicked and pushed someone doesn’t necessarily mean he was being negligent.

    Sometimes strategies that work for managing triggers seem completely reliable — until they suddenly aren’t. It may be that his existing strategies work well for ordinary bird encounters, but that there was something unusual about this one that was particularly panic inducing.

    Medication changes can also mess up strategies in the short term, even if they create stability in the long term. This isn’t always predictable, and therapists don’t always warn patients that this can be an issue or talk about coping with it.

    After the fact, he definitely needs to revisit his strategies, figure out why that happened, and make a plan for preventing it from happening again.

    But the fact that a strategy failed doesn’t mean that he was negligent. It means that sometimes things don’t work 100% of the time and accidents happen.

    (I mean, he might have been negligent too. But we don’t know the from the description.)

    1. Princess Consuela Banana Hammock*

      I don’t know if it really matters for OP whether Jack’s liable to Liz, but it’s not far-fetched to consider that this situation could constitute negligence.

      The general standard is that every person—meaning a reasonable person of the same age, intelligence, circumstances, etc., as Jack—has a common-sense duty to anticipate and avoid causing harm that that person knew or should have known was likely to result from his actions or his failure to act. In this case, it’s pretty foreseeable and reasonable for someone to anticipate that knocking someone off the curb and into the street could result in that person being hit by a car and grievously injured.

      So the question then becomes whether a reasonable person who is similarly situated to Jack would have been able to avoid pushing someone into the street. It’s not whether the coping strategy—or failure to apply it—constitutes an act of negligence. Arguably, there are individuals with severe bird phobias who would not have reacted as Jack did, and it’s likely there are also people who would have done. So we can’t really answer whether Jack’s reaction satisfies the “reasonable, similarly situated person” requirement, but it’s reasonable to think that it could and that negligence liability attaches.

      1. Aveline*

        I appreciate this PCBH.

        If you want to read more, there are a lot of cases on seizure disorders which would seem analogous to Jack’s case.

        They basically say that if you have a known seizure disorder and are on effective treatment and say, drive, but then have a seizure, no fault. But if you have a known seizure disorder that is not effectively treated and you drive and have a seizure, you are at fault.

        So, if Jack was under treatment and he knew it wasn’t effective it’s different than if he was under treatment and he thought it was effective.

        We simply don’t know based on the facts we are presented.

    2. Izacus*

      Someone even normal, mentally completely healthy people, have such a response. You walk around a corner, see a snake and jump back in fear. We’ve all seen this (or something like this happen) right? If you’d thus accidentally bump into someone and push him/her on a road, would that also mean you’re a dangerous individual? That you need to be fired and then sued for damages on top of that so your life is destroyed as well? Who does this help?

      1. Aveline*

        That’s beside the point.

        Sometimes healthy people have seizures while driving. But if you know you have a known seizure disorder that isn’t effectively treated, you shouldn’t be driving. (That’s actually the law). You can be jailed for doing so.

        The issue is really whether he knew he had a severe phobia that wasn’t being effectively treated v. if he knew he had one and thought it was effectively treated.

        1. Forrest*

          Well, that would depend on how you define effectively. Just because you’re effectively managing your seizures doesn’t mean you’ll never have one again. No treatment plan can promise 100% effectiveness.

  29. Jeanne*

    Wow. 250 or so comments before 2:30AM EST. I feel bad for all of them. Of course Liz is unhappy. The OP probably feels caught between a rock and a hard place. Lose one of these employees, be open to lawsuits either way. Jack now has his mental illness exposed and has to deal with all the judgment and derision. OP wrote for advice. The one thing OP cannot afford to do is make a decision based on Liz’s emotions. They need a lawyer and a measured weighing of options.

    Given any possibility of hiding it, I would never disclose mental illness at work. You should be cured by now, your treatment is all wrong, accidents can never be accidents, you refuse to control yourself. Based on the arguments here, Jack should never leave his house again. There could be birds anywhere. How would his coworkers be safe, or fellow grocery shoppers, or dog walkers? He has come to work and gone home every day for however long now. So I guess he’s not a danger every second. Something happened in this situation which was unusual. Have compassion for Liz. Then have compassion for Jack. I am disappointed, again, reading here.

    1. Casuan*

      “…not a danger every second.”
      “Something happened in this situation which was unusual.”

      I was thinking there was something unusual here, too. Perhaps the type or size of the bird triggered his phobia to go turbo?

      Whatever occurred, I feel bad for all both Liz & Jack. Also for the OP who has lost a good employee.

    2. Katie the Fed*

      IANAL, but I don’t see how firing Jack would open them up to a lawsuit. They’re not firing him for his condition, they’re firing him because he pushed an employee in front of a moving vehicle and she no longer feels safe around him.

      1. Juli G.*

        Because everything can open you to a lawsuit and it would certainly be filed as an ADA suit. I don’t know that he’d win but you’re going to spend lots of time and money on this.

        1. Mt*

          Agreed. These types of lawsuits can be very expensive on the employer side even if they win. Let alone the publicity nightmare it could turn out to be.

          1. blackcat*

            And it would also be bad if a similar incident happens again–if Jack accidentally injures another coworker while trying to get away from a bird. If that happened, the second person would almost surely have a case. Sure, it might not be Jack’s fault, but if he/the company knows this is a risk (which they do now, since it hasn’t happened), and they haven’t taken steps to mitigate that risk, some lawyer is going to be THRILLED to take this case.

            OP needs a lawyer and needs to work with Jack to take documented steps to prevent this from happening again. This is a huge legal issue.

            1. Juli G.*

              Agreed. Honestly, not firing Jack you probably have one likely suit from Liz and yes, potential for future issue. Firing Jack means two likely suits (because Liz may come back and still decide/need to sue).

              I truly feel bad for the company here. There was no way to foresee this and it’s extremely tricky to navigate the aftermath.

              (And before I get lit up, yes I feel most awful for the injured Liz. To paraphrase a recent public remark, I’m not running out of empathy.)

              1. MT*

                agreed, but if the company would fire anyone who may have a known health issue that may cause other people harm, then that would create a crazy workplace conditions. What if someone has nervous ticks, or seizures and during an episode spills coffee on someone. Or someone with a known heart condition, has a heart attack and falls into someone. Anyone with any known health condition is now a liability.

                1. Aveline*

                  Yes, but you don’t let the person with a seizure disorder drive or operate heavy equipment.

                  Similarly, Jack can stay employed, but he must not be outside close to others as birds are around.

              2. blackcat*

                Yeah, I hear you on not running out of empathy (though I have a bit of side-eye for the OP for pressuring Liz to come back to work due to missed deadlines. Liz just had a significant surgery and hospitalization! Due to an accident at work! Liz should get ample time off to heal, no matter what).

                This is very bad for both Liz and Jack, and probably the folks in HR. It is only good for any lawyers that get involved…

                2. Retail HR Guy*

                  Temperance,
                  If that’s the case then it’s covered by workers’ comp. No lawsuit involved.

    3. Word Turner*

      Maybe the bird was closer than most birds usually come. We probably all see birds flying in the sky everyday but how often does one come within a metre of us? It’s possible that Jack is able to control his panic if a bird is on the other side of the street camouflaged in a tree but was surprised by one that came too close.

  30. Casuan*

    OP, I agree with Alison’s reply. If your company can reasonably offer her assurances that she won’t often need to see Jack [eg: workng different hours, telecommuting, letting her work from a private office or conference room] nor will she be assigned on projects with him & whatever else might help her want to stay— also to talk with Jack & work out scenarios to minimise this from occurring with others [eg: a colleague can case the street for birds, or Jack should exit the car & enter the building alone so there’s no one to push out of the way should he need to escape]…
    If Liz is not willing to compromise short of firing Jack then that is her decision.
    This was a freak accident & I’m sorry for both Liz & Jack. She’s been through a traumatic & painful experience. And so has Jack. He must feel awful about what happened & if for some reason he doesn’t… I’m not really certain where to take this thought & even if I were it probably wouldn’t be too productive to do so now.

    You & your company are doing the right thing, OP. You owe it to your staff to be fair & open to listening to their concerns & to learn from mistakes [& freak accidents]. This really is an extraordinary situation. You can leave a door open with Liz- although only if she is willing- by offering her a good reference, listening to her concerns or being willing to hire her back if she so decides.

    With Jack, you’re acknowledging his verified phobia & it is reasonable to ask how best to minimise anything like this again.
    Others will need to verify this: It should be okay to ask the extent of his phobia as it might pertain to his duties & work environment.
    eg: If he sees a bird outside a window? What is the proximity to trigger the phobia? Does the phobia apply to graphics or conversations about birds?
    How you deal with both Liz & Jack will send a message to the staff. Especially Jack, I think, because phobias & other mental illnesses are more common than one might think, so other employees will take note of how you responded to Jack’s situation.

    As horrible as this situation is, you can’t let an employee give you an ultimatum. Liz quit & that was her [understandable!] decision.
    As Alison said, it’s the cost of doing business.

  31. Lioness*

    Just because it was accident, doesn’t necessarily mean it’s not punishable. While firing may be taking it too far and it’s understandable why you wouldn’t want to do it, having no disciplinary action or a meeting with Jack about how to prevent further incidents may make things worse for your other employees.

    People are still responsible for the accidents they caused. Such as if someone’s car skid on black ice or water, they may have not have purposely caused injury, but they would still be responsible for not taking preventative action.
    If Jack knew he had a phobia of birds, then he could have been a step ahead of Liz instead of a step behind. He could have walked with having more space between him and others.

    You picked Jack over Liz. What you can do for Liz is give her the reference you would have given her prior to this incident, and help her as best you can in her job search.

    Your other employees are now going to see that Jack pushed someone into traffic, and had no disciplinary action, nor does there appear to be any discussion on how this could be prevented in the future. So while you try to figure out what you can do also wonder if this will later end up in picking Jack over other employees?

    I empathize with Jack, but injuring someone even by accident shouldn’t just be let go. I have a close friend with agoraphobia, and I have an Anxiety Disorder with panic attacks that was initially diagnosed as PTSD (I know it isn’t the same thing as a phobia), but knowing what triggers an attack, and possibly already knowing what your reaction is, should at least lead to some preventative moves as I listed above.

  32. Kit M. Harding*

    I’m in the “if you have seizures, you don’t get to drive cars” camp mentioned earlier. Jack has a phobia of birds, therefore Jack should not have been walking around outside in close proximity to someone else. Fight-or-flight doesn’t absolve you of the fact that you harmed someone else. I don’t feel like the phobia is relevant here; he pushed a co-worker into a car, that’s the end of the story.

    Liz is being entirely reasonable here, and the OP needs to face up to the fact that by protecting Jack they sent a message that Liz’s well-being doesn’t matter, and she’s got every right not to want to come back to work at that company, and the OP needs to either fire Jack to get Liz back or pay Liz a generous severance and give her a good reference. There aren’t really any other choices; which one of those is preferably obviously depends on the company involved.

    And for reference, I have serious mental health issues of my own. Making sure they don’t affect other people is on me and me alone, with accommodations if I need them and arrange them in advance. For me, sometimes that means suppressing a full-on meltdown. (Which is *horrible* and *painful*, but I have learned to do it anyway, because keeping my issues from affecting the people around me is *my* responsibility.) Whatever it is, you find a way to work around it, but if you hurt someone else with it, you take responsibility for that and accept the consequences. Which in this case really should have been criminal charges– I see firing Jack as an absolute *minimum* here, which OP’s company failed.

    1. Katie the Fed*

      “Liz is being entirely reasonable here, and the OP needs to face up to the fact that by protecting Jack they sent a message that Liz’s well-being doesn’t matter, and she’s got every right not to want to come back to work at that company, and the OP needs to either fire Jack to get Liz back or pay Liz a generous severance and give her a good reference.”

      YES! It’s also really, really telling that he didn’t apologize until HR made him.

      1. Katherine*

        It’s not stated that he was forced to apologise by HR. Just that he apologised with HR in the room. It’s entirely plausible that he didn’t feel comfortable talking to Liz without someone else present because he was ashamed of what had happened. It’s also possible he wanted to wait and give Liz a chance to get out the hospital before having to face him. Or maybe his boss told him not to talk to Liz without HR. I think people are being too harsh on that issue.

        1. AndersonDarling*

          Agreed. I think we are assuming that Jack is a perfect person that happens to have a phobia. He has perfect social skills, knows how to act in every awkward situation, has all the funds and support necessary to get the best therapy for his phobia… Jack is a regular person who may not have the best social skills and likely didn’t know when or how to apologize. Because he couldn’t muster up enough courage to apologize to Liz does not mean he didn’t want to apologize.

  33. Katie the Fed*

    So, I agree with AAM’s advice here that Liz can’t dictate that Jack be fired.

    However, I don’t really agree with OP’s perspective on this. Just because it’s a documented mental health condition doesn’t make it ok for him to put other people in harm’s way. Is the company working on some mitigation so that he can never again put a coworker at risk because of his condition? I don’t think it’s nearly enough in this case to say “well, he’s getting treatment for it.”

    I’m also really concerned about Jack’s general professionalism – he stood there and did nothing, and then only apologized with HR present after Liz had already quit? That’s…weird. I would be deeply uncomfortable working with Jack again after this, and I can’t blame Liz for leaving.

    I hope the company is dealing with Liz’s medical bills; otherwise I’d be all for Liz pursuing legal action against Jack for medical bills, time missed from work, and pain and suffering.

    1. Dot Warner*

      I agree. How is the company going to deal with this in the future? Are they just going to roll the dice and hope Jack never pushes somebody into traffic or something similarly dangerous again? Firing Jack isn’t the way to go, but at minimum, he shouldn’t attend off-site meetings anymore – maybe from now on he can Skype in or have someone else go instead.

      And yes, Jack’s attitude is very concerning. Maybe there’s a lot of information that OP left out, but it sounds like Jack thinks he’s the wounded party here and doesn’t understand why this is a Big Deal.

    2. Detective Amy Santiago*

      He was having a panic attack. That is not the same thing as “standing there and doing nothing”.

      1. Katie the Fed*

        But from Liz’s perspective, it’s what happened. He bumped her and caused her to fall and seriously injure herself, then did nothing. Then several days, maybe more than a week later, she gets an apology and an explanation. In the time that’s lapsed she’s probably gotten good and angry, and has no idea why he’s being retained after this.

    3. Jennifer*

      Honestly, the part where he didn’t help at all (panic attack or no) and the lack of actual apology is what I suspect gets to Liz the most here. Me too, for that matter.

  34. michel*

    another possibly insane detail about this story, it doesn’t stay, but it is possible jack was driving the car they where arriving with.

    I hope he doesn’t drive to work or worse drives a car during work for his employer.

    1. Zillah*

      It’s entirely possible that Jack does not have this reaction when he is in a car. I have a couple things that aren’t full blown phobias but do go far beyond just being scared, and while I’d still be freaked out, neither of them would elicit the same reaction as they would if there was no barrier between us.

      This is a shitty situation, but hyperbole isn’t helpful.

      1. paul*

        I can get that; I’m absolutely *terrified* of standign on or near ledges (I can’t even go up a ladder higher than about 10′, I kind of seize up) but flying is A-OK. Well, except for the TSA groping and cramped seats. But it doesn’t scare me.

    2. Meg Murry*

      Yes, I was also wondering this. Was Jack *driving* himself and Liz to the offsite meeting? Or has he in the past? Would he have had this kind of reaction if the bird had flown at them while they were in the car? If he knowingly has this phobia and didn’t disclose it, and was putting Liz (or other co-workers) in harms way by driving them for work functions, that adds another strike to the “Liz is justifiably furious and feels that Jack knowingly put her in harm’s way but didn’t disclose to her”. I don’t want to go too far down the speculation/what-if train, but if part of Jack’s job was driving with other co-workers and there was the slightest chance he’d have this kind of extreme reaction to his phobia while driving, he *absolutely* should have disclosed and asked for the accommodation that he not be expected to drive.

      I think it all comes back to what others have said above: at least in this letter, OP has not shown any indication of what accommodations the company is going to take to keep Jack away from Liz and make Liz feel safe at work again. Liz doesn’t have the right to demand Jack be fired, but it’s not unreasonable for her to say that she doesn’t trust the company to keep her safe and to keep Jack away from her.

  35. Bend & Snap*

    Here’s the thing. The company just chose someone who is now a proven liability as far as the safety of others over an employee who is essentially a victim.

    The optics of this are terrible. And let’s hope Lis doesn’t wake up feeling litigious one day and go after Jack and/or the company.

    I think Jack should be fired not as punishment but as protection for other employees.

    If he stays, Liz needs a giant severance package, because now she has to job hunt after a traumatic injury.

    1. Katie the Fed*

      The company should already have notified its insurance. Liz is well within her rights to pursue compensation from Jack and/or the company (although the company has deeper pockets so she’d probably go after them)

    2. Retail HR Guy*

      People keep saying that Liz will/can/should sue, but no one will say what it is that they think Liz can sue the company over.

      The incident might be covered under workers’ comp, but if it is then you can’t sue outside of the WC system. The premises may be owned by the company, but it’s not negligence to fail to keep your property free of birds. I don’t see anything illegal about their later actions, either, when they chose not to fire Jack due to his documented ADA-qualifying disability. Now add to all of that the fact that Liz quit–she wasn’t fired–so those damages she brought upon herself. Where’s the claim I’m not seeing?

    3. hannah*

      It’s bad optics to fire someone with a mental health issue for which they are receiving treatment. It’s bad optics to send the message that the company endorses (your very ableist) idea that public needs to be protected from people with mental health issues.

  36. Stitch*

    I find focusing on the deadlines weird. What if Liz had been in the hospital longer? She wouldn’t have been able to meet them. Her unwillingness to work with someone who severely injured her is not unreasonable, all safety and ttust with that person is lost and it.is very likely she would.find his presence uncomfortable, if not threatenibg. Heck, other coworkers could reasonably feel the same way. You may never get Liz back but if you keep Jack, you and he better work to have a plan in place to avoid incidents like this again or else you are likely to lose other employees too.

  37. Hollis*

    Obviously Liz is in a terrible situation either way, but I think it is not really fair to characterize this event as “Jack pushed someone into traffic” — it makes it sound like he did it intentionally just for fun, whereas it sounds to me like this was a freak accident caused by an involuntary medical response to a stimulus and by a string of bad luck. (It’s not Jack’s fault that they happened to be walking near a road instead of near, say, a lawn, or that a car happened to be parking in that exact location at that exact moment.)

    However, the more I think about it, the more I feel that Jack should be fired, not for inadvertently bumping into someone and causing her to be hit by a car, but for failing to address the potential safety hazard he posed to others *before* someone actually got injured. Yes, it’s private medical information and I’m sure people who disclose ornithophobia often receive awkward and unkind reactions. But if he has been in therapy for this condition for two years, and if he presumably has encountered birds before at some point during those two years, and therefore presumably has some idea of how he is likely to react in the presence of a bird, I think we can reasonably expect him to have realized that he was potentially dangerous to others, and to have taken steps to protect them from that danger. I mean, I once wrote to my colleagues to warn them that I had a *mild cold* in case they wanted to cancel the meeting we were slated to have the next day, because I thought, “What if one of them is immunocompromised and catches my cold and it turns into pneumonia and they die?” Maybe that was a little overkill, but better safe than sorry when it comes to other people’s health.

    1. Josiah*

      It’s not clear to me that he was negligent. Having a phobia of birds doesn’t necessarily mean that he panics every time he sees one, especially if he’s been in therapy for two years.

      This could have been an unusual reaction, which he realized after the fact was phobia-related.

      1. Erica*

        He was negligent. Whether he was negligent to a point that would hold up in court is debatable (and would require more info than we have here).

        He may not have had a reaction like this before – but he decided that he’d avoid the stigma of telling people, “I have a really weird reaction to birds” instead of giving them the choice of how to deal with him and birds in the same location. And he thought no harm would come from it – that he might see a bird while around a coworker, maybe, but he’d just freeze in place, lose the train of conversation maybe, possibly even fumble a presentation.

        He guessed wrong. And by not telling the company or his coworkers about his condition in advance – a condition which is, by definition, marked by irrational evaluations of risk – he prevented them from taking whatever measures they needed to keep themselves safe.

        He may have added to the stigma of mental illnesses, especially phobias – his coworkers no longer think of phobias as “a condition that makes someone freeze or freak out” but “a condition that makes someone push their coworker into a car.”

      2. Aveline*

        It doesn’t have to occur every time. It just has to occur or be highly likely to occur.

        It’s the same thing with seizures. If you have a seizure disorder, you can’t do some things, like drive, unless you are on medication and seizure free for a period of time (usually 6 months to a year). If you drive knowing you have a seizure disorder and you haven’t been medicated and free for X period of time, you are actually guilty of recklessness in my jurisdiction.

        It’s actually akin to firing a gun into a woods you think is unoccupied, but you don’t know.

        We don’t have enough facts to know, but the threshold isn’t every time, just more than negligibly likely to happen.

  38. Horological*

    I really wish people would stop taking ‘apologised with HR’ as ‘was forced to apologise’.
    Through HR was by far the most appropriate way to do it, even more so given how angry she was. For one thing, calling her directly would involve him knowing either a personal number or her hospital information – and for another, she may not want him to contact her at all.

    (Personal anecdote: I was hit by a driver not paying attention a few years back, causing significant damage that will affect the rest of my life in a a manageable way. I did not want to hear from them, even an apology – and was very discomfited when they got my number at one point through their solicitor. I wasn’t angry, just found (and still find) the idea of talking to them extremely unpleasant.)

    1. Katie the Fed*

      He could have called, emailed, or sent a note at any point before she decided to quit. That’s several days lapsed, probably at least a week, and he only apologized with HR in the room. You got hit by a stranger. This is a coworker.

      1. Tuxedo Cat*

        In his defense, if he weren’t close to Liz, he might’ve only had her work email. If I had been Jack, there are several colleagues at work I don’t have personal contact info for (including phone number). I’d have to send an apology via email and Liz might not have checked work email from the hospital. If I were Liz, I wouldn’t want personal contact info distributed to anyone.

    2. Josiah*

      Especially given that from his perspective, she may have believed that he was intentionally harming her. The *last* thing you’d want to do if you think someone sees you as a threat is to bother them in the hospital.

    3. Zillah*

      Yeah, that to me seems completely reasonable. I’d be lost in this situation – not because I wasn’t remorseful, but because I would have no idea how to handle it appropriately. If HR forced him to apologize, that’s a different story, but wanting their help in not making a horrific workplace situation even worse isn’t automatically proof that he’s an asshole.

    4. Alice*

      Well, as long as we’re talking about they beat way to apologize, three things.
      Format: A letter would have been better. HR can read it and deliver it to the hospital more quickly, and Liz can process it when she wants to given her cycle of pain medication.
      Timing: The delay was not good.
      Content: As lots of people have mentioned, the “sorry” part is only one bit of the apology; reparations and plans for the future we’re missing (or at least OP didn’t mention them).

  39. Channel Z*

    “Jack didn’t try to help Liz after it happened. He stood far away and came into our building as soon as the ambulance arrived.”

    Did anyone catch this? He came into the building after the ambulance arrived, not when the bird was supposedly still on the ground near her. And if Jack wasn’t helping her before the ambulance arrived, then who was? From this, it sounds like he stayed and stared at others while they helped. That doesn’t fit in with the panic over the bird story.

    1. Katie the Fed*

      Yes. And it’s really confusing to me too. Because the time lapse from her accident to ambulance arriving was probably at least 10 minutes or so, plus another 20-30 minutes to get her loaded up in the ambulance and it leaving for the hospital. Was the bird there the entire time?

      I’m guessing the other coworkers who witnessed it were helping her. But I agree that it really sounds like he provided no support or assistance during the aftermath. The accident? Fine, I can forgive that. Stuff happens. Standing around while someone is writhing on the ground in agony? I just can’t see how that’s ok.

      1. Katie the Fed*

        That being said, I don’t know that it’s useful to the overall story to know exactly what transpired. But bottom line to me is that Jack doesn’t sound like a caring and compassionate coworker here. And I think that’s probably making the situation a lot worse. I wouldn’t want to come back to work with someone like Jack under these circumstances.

        1. Scion*

          he didn’t help Liz after she got hit because the bird landed on the ground close to her

          The letter actually specifically addresses why he did not provide support/assistance, i.e. that he was prevented from doing so because of his condition. I’m not sure that makes him not caring or compassionate. There’s another comment around here about a person who ended up in the hospital when her phobia trapped her in her room and she could access food (she’s diabetic) or phone (to call for assistance).

      2. Josiah*

        If I’d just injured someone because of a panic reaction I didn’t anticipate, I think I’d want to keep my distance too. (In part because if they’d thought I’d hurt them on purpose, they may well see my attempts to help as an attack. The last thing I would want to do is scare them, especially given that they might panic in ways that caused further injury.)

        I think that being involved in a serious accident is typically traumatic for everyone involved, and that it’s better if people not directly involved offer the assistance.

        1. Katie the Fed*

          This must be one of those things where personal preferences make a HUGE difference, because you seem quite reasonable but I have the exact opposite thought on this :)

          1. Josiah*

            From reading your other comments, it seems like you know from personal experience what it’s like to be injured by someone else, but not what it’s like to be conspicuously crazy in front of other people.

            My point of reference is that a couple of years ago I developed a trigger that made me literally run away screaming from certain things. It took me a couple months to get it under control — and during that time, there was one incident where I tried to run away from the TSA. That could have gotten really bad really fast, especially if I had been alone.

            I didn’t hurt anyone, but I have some frame of reference for thinking about what it might be like if I had.

            When you’re crazy in front of other people, it’s terrifying — I’m always afraid that they’ll stop seeing me as a real human being. And if I’d accidentally hurt someone on top of that, I’d be afraid that they’d start seeing me as a dangerous monster. I can’t imagine how I’d come back from that. Being the kind of crazy person that people are afraid of can get really dangerous really quickly — on top of the fact that the last thing I’d ever want to do is hurt someone.

            To me, him being kind of nonresponsive for a few days seems in line with how I’d expect someone to respond in that situation.

            1. Gadfly*

              That is why the responsibility part is so big with me–people are held responsible. Beasts and monsters are not responsible, they are just put down. Having a sense that someone is being held responsible in some way reinforces they are a person. One with issues, but we can usually deal with that. Things that suggest they are’t responsible because they can’t control themselves? That is starting into monster time. Add not looking remorseful? Extra scary.

              I mention my oldest up above. But it is also personal. I’ve dealt with being dehumanized for various reasons (weight and religion among others.) And responsibility played a huge part in every one of those instances. “Gadfly can’t be responsible for being a sinner, not knowing the one true path”=Gadfly isn’t trustworthy/a full person. “Gadfly’s weight must be an eating disorder”= Gadfly is out of control and not trustworthy especially when it comes to self reporting/a full person (as well as a gross simplification of everything involved in weight.) Similar now is Jack isn’t responsible =Jack isn’t safe like a NORMAL/real person.

              It has to be different than simply being responsible for having the disease or disability or mental illness or any other victim blaming. He isn’t at fault for having a phobia. Anything going that route is truly screwed up. But there has to be a sense that what we do we are responsible for, even when it isn’t a matter of fault.

              1. Stitch*

                I’ve heard my Dad say similar things in papers he writes for parents of his autistic patients. Understand limitations, but don’t fall in to stereotypes and don’t allow harm (the “well” sibling is a common sufferer, for instance because “he/she can take it” and this is something my Dad fights). If you expect nothing from a.kid, they’ll believe you.

            2. Temperance*

              I have a different perspective, as the now-adult child of a very mentally ill parent. I always saw my mother get away with bad, humiliating behavior and what I consider abuse because of her illness and I felt like I couldn’t do anything about it.

              What I consider to be the key here is whether you could hurt someone – not whether you would ever want to, but if you honestly could. When I see people acting out in public, I remove myself from the situation as quickly as possible because it triggers the memories of being a child held hostage to mental illness.

      3. EleanoraUK*

        I don’t suffer from any phobias officially, but aggressively barking dogs (as opposed to a happy ‘hello!’ bark) scare me so much I want to climb the nearest tree. I’ve been known to cross roads, take a different route, jump, hide behind people. I cannot walk past an aggressively barking dog without giving it a very wide berth. I physically can’t make my body go close. I’m pretty quick getting away, and if I tried to turn around, I’d just freeze. Cannot do it.

        Translating that to Jack’s story – if that bird was still near (i.e. if a barking dog was still near), I physically wouldn’t be able to get close to help. I’d feel incredibly bad about it, but rightly or wrongly, I think fear would nail me to the ground.

        I read this bit of the OP’s letter very differently. To me, it sounds like Jack stayed as close as he could, until medical help arrived.

      4. Cary*

        You seem to be thinking that jack would have stopped panicking after the bird went away. It’s a phobia, but definition it’s not rationale. Just because the bird went away doesn’t mean his panic went away. It’s understandable that he ran, was far enough away that he felt safer, saw what had happened, decided his help wasn’t necessary or in fact useful or stared as the enormity of what happened hit him.

        1. Josiah*

          Also — for most people, accidentally injuring someone is traumatic. Shutting down and being unable to help very much seems like a normal reaction to me.

          1. Zillah*

            Ditto. It’s not a great reaction, but as someone who deals with anxiety/depression and has many friends who do as well, shutting down in the face of something like this seems very, very normal. One might argue that it is unreasonable and unacceptable, but it’s really not abnormal IME.

          2. Stitch*

            Although, can I point out it’s pretty rich to be so focused on Jack’s trauma but yet not make a.similar accommodation for Liz. She was the one who was actually injured.

            I was reminded of a time when I was a government intern and we had to explain to a guy why he didn’t qualify for a victim’s compensation fund for the death of someone he had been convicted of first degree murder for killing.

            1. Zillah*

              Jack has not been charged with any crime, let alone convicted of first degree murder, and no one is suggesting that he be given some kind of compensation for his reaction. That’s really not an appropriate comparison.

              I also don’t think anyone in this sub thread is suggesting that Liz not get accommodations. It was suggested that Jack having the reaction he did proves that he’s being insincere or doesn’t care. It’s being pointed out that that isn’t the case. Pointing that out isn’t diminishing Liz’s injuries; it’s just pointing out that this account isn’t inconsistent with his explanation. Explaining how a phobia works isn’t the same thing as lacking compassion for Liz; there’s room for both.

              1. Stitch*

                But Jack gets no consequences for.putting someone I the hospital and somehow Liz is a horrible person for asking he be fired. The focus on Jack’s trauma while being hostile to the verbal reaction from someone put in the hospital is utterly ridiculous.

                1. Zillah*

                  I don’t see anyone in this subthread suggesting that Liz is a horrible person, though. (Or in the comments as a whole! The vast majority of people seem to agree that it’s totally understandable that Liz doesn’t want to work with him.) The focus in this subthread is on Jack’s trauma because that’s what was brought up in the initial reply – that his standing away from Liz is inconsistent with a panic reaction.

                  Again, it’s possible to point that out and still have sympathy for Liz.

                2. Stitch*

                  As other people have pointed out above, and someone who spent a lot of time in that field due to my parents’ professions (both dealing with high needs kids), this kind of excusing and blaming of phobias is actually actively harmful to the community. It makes people with mental issues or handicaps seem like ticking time bombs.

                4. Stitch*

                  It’seems the extreme need to excuse every single one of Jack’s actions here that is problematic. Admitting he made mistakes.on his part and.could have handled it bettter.would.go a long way to.his coworkers.trusting him. Shoving it all under his phobia down to.actions days later makes him seem like he has no agency.in anything tangential to.this.

              2. Alice*

                @Zillah some posters have said she comes across as nasty and that it will be hard for her to explain leaving this job because “it’s not a good look.” Perhaps those were posted after your post in this thread though.

                2. Zillah*

                  So I’m seeing one comment calling her a witch (which I indeed see after I posted these comments), with multiple people immediately calling the comment out as harsh and unwarranted. I’ll grant you that “no one” wasn’t accurate, but it’s still a very small minority of commenters.

                3. Alice*

                  @Zillah yes, there are many comments sympathizing with Liz (including many of yours, I know), but the very first comment on the page says

                  I’m wondering how Liz could answer the “why did you leave your last job” question in future job interviews. There is no way for her to really do it without making herself look bad.

                  So yes, it’s a minority among commentors, but I don’t think it’s as small a minority as all that.

                4. Zillah*

                  I didn’t take that to mean that Liz was automatically in the wrong – just that the optics are bad. It’s also worth noting that the vast majority of replies to that were pointing out that there are plenty of reasonable explanations.

                  Again, I’ll grant you that there are a few commenters. But they’re well outnumbered, and their existence still doesn’t change the fact that pointing out that standing to the side does not disprove the claim that Jack has a phobia, which was the original topic of this subthread – and the comment you replied to did specify this subthread. I’m a little confused about what you’re arguing here, since I specifically said that I did have a lot of sympathy for Liz.

              3. Zillah*

                Again, Stitch, I feel like you’re really arguing with something I didn’t say. I think we’ll have to agree to disagree.

        2. Cary*

          I’ve had panic attacks (thankfully I don’t get them any more) that have gone on for hours. It doesn’t seem strange to me that Jack would still be in the midst of a panic attack and not in s place to help.

      5. blackcat*

        Eh, this depends. I live 2 blocks from a fire station, and the one time I called to say “hey, my power line is down and in the street” I swear the fire truck was in front of my house before I could finish the next sentence. When a neighbor had a heart attack last year while on a walk (so another neighbor made the call), it was less than a minute to ambulance arrival. So things can happen fast or slow, depending on where you are located relative to emergency services.

        But when all those vehicles with their flashing lights show up, it can make anyone anxious. So I can totally see someone who has had a panic attack being even more triggered by the presence of first responders. Lights! Noise! Shouting! Blood! Screams! Aka not what anyone needs in the moment if they are having any sort of fear reaction.

        I am like a pro in emergencies (see what needs to be done, take those actions), but know tons of people who freeze completely (my husband is one. When I had an severe allergic reaction, I had to be the one to call 911 and epi pen myself, because he just stood there. He loves me and wanted to help, but really couldn’t). 90+% of us don’t encounter emergencies enough to train ourselves to respond appropriately, and for that large portion, I’m quite convinced that how we respond is innate and not particularly rational. (In my case, I freak out AFTER everything as calmed down. It is odd. But it is also how I am wired, and it is a mostly useful response.)

        So I definitely come down on the side of understanding why Jack didn’t do anything in the moment. But I don’t understand why he didn’t send a (HR approved) note apologizing sooner. And, yeah, Liz has every right to be pissed.

        1. Relly*

          I freak out after it’s over, too. In the moment I am a total pro, handling this and delegating that. Once it’s “safe,” I’m going to have hysterics.

          I think you’re right that it’s just an innate response. Maybe the adrenaline is just overriding the panic, and it’s not until that clears that it can kick in.

          Also, my husband is similarly a lovely person who is absolutely no good in an emergency, so I can imagine having to call 911 for myself, lol.

    2. Skullclutter*

      Yes, but he didn’t actually go inside (and away from any potential birds) until after medical help arrived. I feel it’s likely that he wanted to help, but was unable to get any closer due to the phobic attack.

  40. Erica*

    Regardless of how culpable for anything Jack is, I think Liz is entirely reasonable in saying, “I cannot work with the person who came close to killing me.” And probably, “I cannot work for the company that thinks almost-killing-me is not something that requires disciplinary action.” (IMHO, “hit by moving car” counts as “came close to death.” If the car were going a little faster, if it were a little heavier, if she twisted the wrong direction when it hit… Liz is not being extreme in saying she can’t work with him.)

    If he has a license to drive (or rather, if he ever uses one), it should be revoked; he’s proven he can’t be trusted to pay attention to the people around him under a circumstance that’s both common and unpredictable. If he can be so strongly panicked that he doesn’t realize that there’s a moving car nearby, he doesn’t belong on the road.

    I think the company (or more likely, the insurance company) should sue Jack for Liz’ medical expenses. They do need to accommodate disabilities – but they can’t make plans or allowances for disabilities that are hidden from them, and “oh, I forgot to mention that I might lose control so badly that I could shove someone into a car” falls under vital information about one’s ability to do the job.

    If Liz had known in advance that Jack can’t handle seeing birds, she could’ve taken precautions – she would’ve at least known to be wary if Jack and a bird were in the same vicinity. Jack failed to tell her – and the company not only failed to tell her; it failed to hold Jack responsible for his actions, implying that they condoned Jack’s actions. Liz may have the basis of a decent case against the company for failing to establish basic security for its employees.

    1. EleanoraUK*

      From how I read it, the car wasn’t going that fast, so I don’t think anyone came close to death. The OP writes that it was pulling in to park, so it can’t have been going so fast that the impact would kill a person, unless the person drove recklessly. It sounds like Liz was incredibly unlucky in sustaining the injuries.

      I don’t see how taking Jack’s license away would be relevant. He’s probably fine inside of a car, where birds can’t get to him. Why punish him in that way when it’s a safe way for him to move around and still have a life?

      I also read the OP’s story as Jack pushing past Liz to get away, and this taking Liz off balance, causing her to fall in the direction of the car. That’s a very different scenario to Jack willingly shoving people in front of cars, as you’ve laid it out.

      1. Stitch*

        She was in her 70s, but my grandmother died after surgery from breaking her hip, caused by a fall. You would be surprised how tiny little factors can make a huge difference.

        Bad luck or not, Liz went through a very scary and painful experience and it was entirely unnecessary and entirely at the hands.of Jack, intentional or not. Even the most saintly person in the world will be upset and scared.

        1. EleanoraUK*

          Upset and scared, sure, but it’s the intent to get him fired I can’t understand. Jack’s actions were unintentional. If I were Liz I’d be pissed, but I’d like to think I’d still see it as an accident. Now, if there were costs involved that weren’t covered by insurance etc., I’d expect Jack to help, but I wouldn’t write him off as a person and try to ruin his career.

          Perhaps a strange comparison, but I get pretty impressive hay fever. This means I occasionally sneeze up to 10 times in a row, eyes closed. It could (and has) come on when I’m moving in a group of people, and I try to keep moving with the crowd when it happens. Say I bump into someone and accidentally knock them over, surely that doesn’t make me a horrible person who is unsafe to be around other people lest I have a sneezing attack, which happens about 2-4 a year?

          1. Josiah*

            Liz is recovering from a serious injury and may remember Jack pushing her on purpose (even if she’s wrong). If she didn’t already understand how phobias work, she’s not in a great circumstance to learn about them. I think her reaction is understandable. She’s not HR.

            1. EleanoraUK*

              I can see why she’d have that reaction initially, absolutely. But once some time has passed, and it sound like it has, I’d like to think there could be space to try and understand what happened from Jack’s perspective as well. They don’t have to be best friends, she doesn’t have to live him or forgive him, but… not trying to get him fired would be good.

              From OP’s story it doesn’t sound like Jack has a reputation for pushing people in front of oncoming traffic, so this was completely out of character. I’d like to think the standing he’d built up working with her would warrant a, “Jack, what the hell happened for you to freak out and shove me like that?”, and listening to the answer, instead of deciding Jack is the Antichrist who must be fired.

              1. Stitch*

                Doesn’t seem like a double standard that Jack’s irrational phobia and the consequences of harm to others are used as an excuse but Liz’s rational fears are not? People have developed PTSD from far less.

                2. EleanoraUK*

                  It depends on whether you view Liz’s fears as rational, and I don’t think they necessarily are.

                  I’d completely understand Liz not ever wanting to be outside with Jack ever again. Completely rational. I’d understand asking Jack to make sure he never leaves the office at the same time as Liz again. But in the office? Where he’s never harmed her or anyone before (I’m assuming the OP would have mentioned if he had)? That seems excessive.

                  He knocked into Liz trying to get away from something that scared the crap out of him. If a car hadn’t just pulled in, or if the momentum had thrown her the other way, the consequences wouldn’t be nearly as severe. That they were is misfortune more than anything else.

                3. Stitch*

                  You don’t think it would be rational to fear a guy who.put you in the hospital before? That’s a stretch.

                4. FRC*

                  EleanoraUK–

                  I don’t think it matters whether or not you view Liz’s fear as rational. Look at it this way: Jack has an irrational fear that led him to accidentally seriously injure and traumatize a coworker. Due to being seriously injured and traumatized, Liz now has an irrational fear of Jack. This has led her to yell at Jack and to say that she can’t work somewhere where he is working. If you think being terrified/traumatized excuses your actions to a certain extent while you are terrified/traumatized, then Jack shouldn’t be blamed for pushing Liz out of the way to get away from a bird and Liz shouldn’t be blamed for wanting the person who seriously injured and traumatized her fired (this is my opinion). If you don’t think being terrified/traumatized excuses your actions, then Jack should be fired for what he did to Liz and Liz should also be blamed and judged for trying to get him fired.

                  I just don’t get “Jack wasn’t in a rational state of mind which excuses him seriously injuring a coworker, but Liz should be reacting completely calmly and rationally despite her trauma”, especially given that the thing Jack did out of fear (pushing someone into the path of a car) is worse than the thing Liz is doing out of fear (saying “it’s him or me”).

                5. EleanoraUK*

                  Not in the office generally. Why?

                  Outside with birds? Hells yes. I’d be giving him a very wide berth outside in future. He panicked in a specific situation, that’s presumably easy to avoid going forward. We now all know Jack’s phobia is very context specific. I’d be hell bent on avoiding that context, but beyond that, I don’t understand what’s scary about Jack in the office.

                6. Stitch*

                  Sorry posted before I finished. In some ways I am reminded of the “well sibling” stereotype, where the sibling of a sick kid is often expected to.go through a lot.of trauma a normal kid doesn’t face but the parent doesn’t see it because they are.focused on their sick.kid. just because Jack has.fragilities .doesn’t mwant you should view.Liz as.tough.

                7. EleanoraUK*

                  @FRC – Oh I agree with you, I was mostly going off on a tangent because Stitch mentioned Liz’s fear was fully rational where Jack’s wasn’t.

                  Neither is rational. Fear often isn’t. I can absolutely see why Liz might be fearful of Jack for ‘irrational’ reasons now, but purely logically, it doesn’t make sense to fear Jack inside closed doors.

                  The flip side of your comment is that we can hardly hold Jack responsible for his irrational fear of birds any more than Liz and her fear of Jack inside the office.

                  It’s extremely unfortunate, and I feel for Liz tremendously, and I’d hope there was some way for her to keep her job despite any fear if this is what caused her to resign, because this whole chain of events would do a number on you alright, but ideally the company would find some way for them to work far, far apart. Neither deserves to lose their job over this.

                  Having said that, I didn’t get a sense from the OP’s letter that Liz doesn’t want to work with Jack anymore out of fear. From the OP’s letter, Liz is angry and wants him fired as some kind of punishment, and resigned when that didn’t happen. That doesn’t seem fair to Jack. (She may well be scared and not sharing that with the OP, of course.)

                  Anyway, tangent over.

                8. Mookie*

                  It’s not helpful to speculate about Liz’s mental health (before or after the accident), but associating Jack with such a traumatic event is reason enough to honor her wishes, had she agreed to stay on provided they’d be split up and not be assigned any work or meetings that would necessitate them meeting again. Her antipathy for him is incredibly understandable; that antipathy is not a mental illness, however. Even if it were, and she had documented proof of PTSD (or something), a reasonable accommodation is not to fire someone else. It is to ensure to the highest possible degree that there be no contact.

                9. Gadfly*

                  Just because it would be wrong for OP to give it to her doesn’t mean it is wrong for her to want it or even ask for it.

              2. Gadfly*

                She is the seriously injured party here. It really is on the other side to make the opening moves and try to make good enough to replace her wanting his head on a platter with something reasonable. He’s lucky if all she wanted was him fired and not in jail or a mental hospital.

              3. Speechless*

                I am not the most compassionate person, which I will acknowledge up front, but if I got run over because someone pushed me into the path of a car, whilst at work doing my job, and that person got off scott free but I got a ride in an ambulance, scars, a hospital stay, arthritis (I broke my wrist in a fall as a kid and it’s slightly deformed in a way that doesn’t effect my use of it any but man do I feel the change in weather in it and I didn’t have surgery just a cast) and then to wrap it all up the knowledge the colleague who pushed me got to apologize because HR told him to and that’s it while I’m dealing with all that other stuff (and maybe a helping of PTSD to serve as the cherry on top) there is not a thing in the world Jack or the company could tell me about how beyond scared of birds he is to the point where it’s a diagnosed medical condition which could make me give a solitary good gosh darn about him.

                1. hannah*

                  How do you know he was forced by HR to apologize? That’s not in the letter. Maybe HR told him that he couldn’t apologize without a witness.

          2. Stitch*

            Not to mention something like that could easily cause fear around Jack. Accident or not, she could have trouble being in the room.with him because he caused her a.lot of pain.

        2. EleanoraUK*

          And damn it – I hit post too soon. I also wanted to say I’m really sorry to hear about your grandmother, that is horrible.

          I can see how it could lead to death, but I thought Erica’s description of events was perhaps a little extreme.

          1. Stitch*

            It happened a long time ago, but I think my point is that we don’t fear things like simple falls and accidents, but for a lot of people, especially older people, they can actually be a big deal. I just looked up the stats and falls kill about 30k people a year.

          2. Stitch*

            I also want to mention that small injuries can cause a lot of pain. Just for an example John Green here talks about the years of chronic and bad pain he has had as a consequence of getting elbowed by a bike rider on the street: https://youtu.be/Gxz-IBgeDHc

          3. Pescadero*

            15% of accidental deaths in the USA are from trip/slip falls. It’s the 2nd leading cause of accidental death after auto accidents.

            Falling from normal standing height kills lots of folks every year.

      2. Observer*

        Seriously?! She was already on the ground – she’s actually incredibly lucky that she didn’t get hurt worse.

    2. Zillah*

      I mentioned this above, but I think it’s really jumping the gun to say that panicking on a sidewalk “proves” that he can’t be trusted to drive. It’s possible that that’s true, but we don’t have the information to say that one way or the other. Phobias aren’t rational; it’s entirely possible that the panic reaction is significantly mitigated when there’s a barrier between him and birds. It’s also possible that it isn’t – we just don’t know, and I’m not sure what’s served by making the assumption.

      Also… like, are you saying that the OP should sue Jack on behalf of Liz? That seems pretty out there to me.

    3. Aphrodite*

      This is an interesting point. I wonder if Jack would panic just as much if he were driving or if he were a passenger in a car driven by someone else. If so, would he swerve, hit another call or wall, or kill himself or his passenger? If he were the passenger, would he strike out in fear, hitting the steering wheel or the driver or doing something else that would cause the driver to hit a wall or another car? I would not ever want to be anywhere around Jack because you just never know.

  41. EleanoraUK*

    A lot of comments seem to be really upset with Jack. The way I read it, it was a horrible accident, so I’m struggling to understand the anger directed at Jack.

    Jack freaked out at the bird because he has a medically diagnosed phobia he is getting treatment for, tried to get away, accidentally shoved Liz, who accidentally went in the direction of a car that was just pulling in to park. Still scared, he stayed near until the ambulance was there but was too scared to approach Liz and help her physically because the bird was still close.

    It’s unbelievable unfortunate, but it was an accident, and I don’t understand why Liz demands Jack be fired. I feel incredibly sorry for her injuries, but Jack didn’t intentionally hurt her.

    1. Josiah*

      @EleanoraUK

      From the letter, it looks to me like Liz thinks that Jack intentionally pushed her into traffic. I can understand why she would think that — and it’s possible that she’s right. We don’t know what their relationship was like before this, either. If Jack had been in the habit of threatening or harassing Liz before this happened, it would be completely understandable for her to say “I don’t care” in response to finding out that he was in treatment for a phobia.

      There are any number of explanations. Liz was seriously injured by a coworker, and it seems to me like her reaction is fairly understandable. That doesn’t mean she’s right, but I don’t think it’s something she should be punished for — she deserves sympathy and support.

    2. Dot Warner*

      Liz may not see it that way. While Jack’s phobia is by no means trivial, getting hit by a car is extremely frightening too. I’m certain Jack felt scared for his life, but I’m equally certain that Liz was too. And yes, she’s wrong for thinking that Jack is a terrible person who’s out to get her, but she almost got killed and it happened with no advance warning. She has no way to predict when it’ll happen again if she continues to work with Jack, and she probably thinks he doesn’t care about her or isn’t remorseful since he didn’t try to help her. (I’m not saying that’s how he actually feels, just that that’s likely to be Liz’s takeaway.) Given that, it’s reasonable for her to want him out of her life.

      1. EleanoraUK*

        See, from reading the letter, I don’t read this as Liz nearly getting killed. She broke her arm. The car was pulling in to park and likely driving fairly slowly, it’s not like she was shoved into 50mph traffic.

        It was a bad break that required surgery. That’s not to take away from it being a very scary event for her, and one that could have been even worse, and that will no doubt have scared the living daylights out of Liz, but in some of the comments it sounds like Liz was brought back from the pearly gates at the last minute, and that’s not what the OP’s letter states.

        I would understand Liz not wanting to walk near Jack outdoors anymore, but to write him off as a colleague completely and require that he is fired seems excessive.

        We don’t have full control over other people’s behaviours. This exact response may have never happened to Jack in this way before, or may never happen again. Or another colleague could jump at something innocuous in the office tomorrow, step back and knock over a cup of hot coffee Liz is carrying, covering her in hot liquid. Stuff happens. Sometimes the consequences are small, sometimes they’re terrible, but we don’t live in a bubble and things can and do occasionally go (badly) wrong. Punishment through firing Jack isn’t going to change that.

        I can see why Liz might still be at the stage where that seems like the only solution, but I think HR and the OP are right not to fire Jack.

        1. Gadfly*

          I’ve been involved in major accidents that police and paramedics have told me I was lucky to survive (twice now, aren’t I lucky?) One I got bruises. One of them I didn’t even get a scratch. Just one little difference in either case and I’d be dead or severely injured (in the first one, other people in the car were, in the second, people in the car that hit my car were.) Being hit badly enough for a compound fracture? That to me would be close to death. What can break an arm can break a neck or ribs. That she was lucky doesn’t change that hitting the car just a little differently could have killed her if it was able to do as much as it did.

          1. EleanoraUK*

            Jeebus, that sounds rather scary.

            In a way, your story is why I don’t think it’s fair to fire Jack. Much like your stories, if Liz had fallen slightly differently, or in a different direction, or if a car hadn’t just pulled up to park, or if she’d managed to stay on her feet, she’d have a few bruises and scratches at most and could be absolutely fine. Jack wasn’t in control of any of that.

            The severity of the consequences are down to utter misfortune more than Jack’s specific, involuntary, actions. That’s why it doesn’t seem right to fire him.

            Just this morning someone lost their balance on the very tall escalator behind me and knocked into me, grabbing my shoulders to prevent falling down the escalator. That could have ended with me, and potentially more people in a game of human dominoes, at the bottom of the escalator with a broken neck. The person behind me would have caused that, but involuntarily and through extremely bad luck. Happily, I kept my balance and both of us were fine. Stuff happens. It can have varying outcomes that are unpredictable. Putting it all on Jack seems unfair.

            1. Gadfly*

              He still is connected with a near death miss in her experience. Bad luck or not. There are things that still freak me out because they are connected in my head with a car slamming into a concrete barricade at freeway speeds less than a foot away from where I was standing (and right where I had been moments before.) Those things are less at fault than Jack. And, at the end of the day, even pointing a gun and firing it at a person still comes down to luck (will it fire? is the aim good enough? will something random cross between it at the target?) Everything is luck to some degree.
              It is the chances we take with being social.

              Jack pushed her and so was the immediate cause of all that followed. His bad luck, but she is perfectly normal to not want him anywhere near her, to write him off as a colleague and even to insist that if he isn’t fired, she does not want to work for his employer.

              My opinion is that once you nearly kill someone but only seriously injure them, however accidentally, it is on you to go above and beyond to regain their trust and acceptance. Not on them to just deal with you.

        2. Dot Warner*

          We’re also missing a lot of context here. Specifically, if Liz returned to work, would she be working with Jack every day? If the nature of their roles means that the answer to that question is yes, then I’m afraid that bridge isn’t just burned, it’s napalmed. I doubt she’ll ever be able to trust Jack again. I doubt anything Jack can do will change that. If Liz were to return and start acting colder to Jack (a distinct possibility), he may start to feel like Liz is picking on him for having a phobia. This doesn’t sound like a healthy situation for either of them. Firing Jack isn’t the answer, but expecting Liz to just come back to work and act like nothing happened, which seems to be what the OP wanted, isn’t the answer either. One or both of them needs a new job.

          1. Gadfly*

            I’d want to yell at him constantly–that is a PTSD possibility response as would be breaking into tears if near him. I’d be tempted in that dark corner of my brain that scares me to ‘accidentally’ bump into/push him on the stairs. It would be impossible to know if any accidents/mistakes between us were not stemming from this. No way could I work in the same building.

        3. TL -*

          It also seems excessive to push someone into a car in order to avoid a bird, so I’m confused as to why it’s okay for Jack to have an outsized response to a harmless stimuli but not okay for Liz to have an outsized response to a known danger that has actually harmed her.

    3. Bend & Snap*

      Liz is the injured party here. I don’t think there’s any “but” when it comes to how she feels about the whole thing.

    4. TL -*

      You’re kind of setting this up as Jack being a child and needing special accommodation and Liz being the adult and needing to be extra accommodating and kind because she’s dealing with a child who just can’t help himself.

      That’s not what happened. Jack is an adult – even a person with a strong phobia is an adult – and Liz is also an adult and the expectations for their behavior should be the same. Either it’s okay for both Jack and Liz to being angry and afraid of things that don’t always make sense, or it’s not okay for either them to have those kinds of reactions.

      Jack is not a child. He did something bad, his reasons regardless, and Liz is the one paying for his actions. She has every right to be angry at him for that, up to and including deciding she doesn’t want to be around him in any situation ever.

  42. uh*

    If Liz is that worried about it surely she can arrange to start and end her day 15 minutes before Jack so they are not even outside at the same time or agree to use different exit doors or maybe let her do some WFH. Unless you work in a zoo or something you are just not going to be exposed to birds all the time in your normal day so it is just a freak accident not likely to be repeated. I’m sorry she broke her arm and understand it was upsetting but I can’t imagine quitting over it either.

    1. Josiah*

      Liz may believe that Jack hurt her on purpose and is now making excuses after the fact. That would make quitting pretty understandable.

      1. Stitch*

        Even if she doesn’t think he did it on purpose, she has every right to decide she does not want to be around someone who hurt her and is in no way a bad guy. She didn’t torch his car, she asked her employer to choose, they declined, so she got herself out of the situation.

        1. Josiah*

          Deciding she doesn’t want to be around him is different than trying to get him fired, though.

          1. Stitch*

            In general when a coworker puts another in the hospital like that, they get fired. Liz is not out of the norm on that.

            1. EleanoraUK*

              If a colleague accidentally bumped into Liz carrying hot coffee, causing it to spill over her and burn her, would you expect them to get fired?

              We might just have a very different view here, but for me these are similar things. It was an accident, someone got hurt, which is terrible, but doesn’t take away from the fact that it was accidental rather than intentional.

              Unless Jack has a history of trying to harm people he works with, assuming he did this on purpose when he’s got medical papers saying he suffers from this phobia seems like not giving him the credit he’s due.

              1. Stitch*

                If the coworker was flailing around for an irrational reason, yes. Panicking or no, Jack took an active and extreme action that hurt someone else. Pretending he has no agency at all is helpful to no one.

                1. EleanoraUK*

                  But it simply won’t have been an active decision, physiologically. It will have been lizard brain the whole way, fight or flight. It’s the nature of a fearful response: it bypasses the rational brain and goes to instinct. You act to get yourself out of perceived danger, then you think. It’s how we’re all wired, not just Jack.

                  Essentially, what we’re debating is whether you’d be OK with being fired because something spooked you and you knocked into someone, accidentally causing them harm.

                  If you would be, then I think we really do see this very differently and are unlikely to see eye to eye.

                  I’d be very upset if my knocking coffee over someone as a result of spooking led to my losing my job.

                  I will say, if any damage, financial or otherwise, occurred as a consequence of my spooking, I’d do what I could to help alleviate that, and Jack isn’t helping himself if he’s not doing that.

                2. Stitch*

                  Well if Jack.knew he had a problem.with this isn’t it more similar to someone who knows they have shaky hands but carries hot coffee near you without a lid? Even if the initial reaction was involuntary it is on him to prevent himself from harming others.

              2. Gadfly*

                If it was a bad burn because he was carrying super hot coffee in an open container? Yes. If he was prone to being clumsy and was carrying it in an open container? Maybe.

                1. Orfeo*

                  I think in some ways the explanation makes it worse, not morally, but in terms of the interactions between people, if that makes sense. I mean, if someone tripped on their shoelace, or was looking at their phone and bumped into a coworker at just the right time and place that it led to serious injury, and then was profusely apologetic, and their mutual employer publicly took the matter seriously, it might play out differently (or it might not). If they came in the next day with paperwork explaining that they were not in any way accountable and it would be illegal to discipline them and asking that sympathy be extended to them, in such a way that negative repercussions fell on the person who was already injured, I, personally, might be less sympathetic, even if I recognized that it was all objectively true.

                2. EleanoraUK*

                  @Orfeo – great point.

                  I definitely don’t think Jack is helping himself. He could have improved matters tremendously by apologising for what happened in a timely manner, explaining that he felt horrible for not coming to her aid when he kept at a distance (be it from fear or mortification); offering to help with cost of treatment if relevant; coming up with ways to avoid it ever happening again; asking what he could do to make things easier/better/smoother for Liz going forward; showing sincere and timely remorse… All of these things.

                  Even with the phobia – we don’t know if he’s had a response this extreme before, but he could at least explain that he thought it was under control (presumably, why else walk around outside with a colleague) and was horrified to find that in this situation, it wasn’t, and that had horrible consequences for Liz.

              3. Doe-eyed*

                If he’s carrying coffee hot enough to put her in the hospital for 4 days and require reconstructive surgery… yeah that sounds reasonable.

                1. EleanoraUK*

                  I carry boiling hot tea around the office several times a day, in a mug, as do 300 other people. If a colleague bumped into me and it went over me and I got burned, it would be horrible, but it would also be an accident. I wouldn’t seek to have them punished.

                  Even if the co-worker was the one with the hot tea and it somehow went over me through their stumble, I’d not look to get them fired.

                2. Doe-eyed*

                  Yes, but you’re ignoring the amount of damage that could possibly be done. Boiling tea water is not going to put someone in a hospital for 4 days. You’re not likely going to suffer nerve damage or require physical therapy. 10 years from now, you’re probably not going to have residual pain and have issues with fine motor coordination. You wouldn’t have emotional trauma from being slightly burned on the arm, most likely. You wouldn’t need follow-up counseling, most likely.

                3. EleanoraUK*

                  A full mug of boiling water will get you severe burns (boiling water will get you a second or even third degree burn if you’re unlucky) that’ll take longer than 4 days of hospital treatment, significant scarring and the required ongoing medical treatment to fix that over time, if you’re unlucky. It’s why I picked the example – there’s the chance of long term, significant harm there, too, but it mostly goes right, so we knowingly take the risk.

                4. Doe-eyed*

                  Just for reference, boiling water is 212F – most people drink hot drinks at around 160F. If you are truly carrying around actually boiling water, then yes I would be very upset if you burned me and would consider it incredibly negligent that you didn’t stand in the kitchen an extra 5-6 seconds to let it cool before walking around with it.

                5. Eleanora*

                  5-6 seconds isn’t going to help you much in terms of avoiding a burn – boiling water doesn’t cool that fast in an ambient room.

                  You could be holding the tea, I could be holding the tea – the point is, if someone spooks, a situation that was previously perfectly acceptable could suddenly result in injuries. It would still be an accident, and you wouldn’t fire someone for either spilling tea or causing tea to be spilled because they spooked at something.

                  We’re making out like Jack’s a bandit for having a higher probability of spooking, but anyone could get a scare that could cause people to knock a hot drink over. I highly doubt anyone would ever get fired in such a scenario, even if the injuries were significant.

            2. EleanoraUK*

              All we know is Jack has a bird phobia and is in treatment. We just don’t know if he’d ever shown signs of that phobia potentially affecting other people before. For all we know Jack’s response was a surprise to him as much as anyone else in this incident.

              Without all the information, it seems a bit quick to decide he didn’t take proper care keeping other people safe.

              Now, if he regularly ends up shoving people out of his way to flee when near birds, I completely agree with you, and it would have been utterly irresponsible of him. I just don’t think we know enough to be able to tell.

              1. EleanoraUK*

                I linked this the complete wrong way, apologies.

                I was responding to Stitch’s: “Well if Jack.knew he had a problem.with this isn’t it more similar to someone who knows they have shaky hands but carries hot coffee near you without a lid? Even if the initial reaction was involuntary it is on him to prevent himself from harming others.”

  43. uh*

    Is traveling with Jack a normal part of her job? Most of my meetings are remote so I can’t imagine why this would be a thing that you could not work around. I suppose it depends on your job.

  44. Hoorah*

    1. It’s not up to the manager to question the validity of Jack’s illness. He provided documentation of his illness and ongoing treatment from a qualified professional, so his diagnosis should be accepted as fact. Since the LW is not a trained doctor/therapist with access to Jack’s medical details (beyond what he has already provided), trying to “look behind” the illness is completely inappropriate.

    2. Several commenters here demonstrate complete lack of empathy or understanding of people who struggle daily with mental illness. This is really sad. Imagine how you would deal with a physically disabled employee losing control of his wheelchair down hill and accidentally mowing over a coworker, as opposed to thoughtless idiots racing down the corridor using office chairs. I’m shocked at reading comments like “he shouldn’t be walking outside/near other people” or “he should be fired to protect everyone else’s safety”. Way to isolate and stigmatize people dealing with mental health issues! Particularly considering Jack has a proven track record of safety and reliability. (Maybe on the day of the accident he was under a lot of other stress, or he was trying out lower dosage of medication, etc – there could be any number of reason why he reacted more severely in that instance). If he were just a careless, accident prone employee who caused an injury due to horseplay, some form of disciplinary action is warranted. But that is clearly not the case here.

    3. Liz is understandably angry, but she has no authority to dictate the disciplinary outcomes of other coworkers. She’s completely free to lay out the conditions of her continued employment, as we all do from time to time when we’re bargaining for a raise, improved working conditions, discussing new responsibilities, etc. The company is free to accept or decline.

  45. Orfeo*

    While the impact on Liz and Jack is obviously the most important factor, what is OP’s responsibility to the other people she manages, or any of the other people who work with Jack and Liz? I’m trying to imagine what this must look like to them. Two coworkers leave, and, when they come back, one of them is severely injured outside the building, which is witnessed by other coworkers. Even if it was a complete accident, that in itself is something that will need to be addressed.

    Now Liz is in the hospital, and Jack is having meetings with HR and his boss. Then Liz is gone and not coming back. How is this understood? What rumors are flying around and how does OP plan to manage them? Does it seem like, when push came to shove, Jack injured Liz and when their boss had to make a choice between them, with Liz still in the hospital, they chose Jack?

    Is Jack’s illness being exposed, and is that a problem for him? For his coworkers, who might feel like they are being required to forgive him, or that, if he is the one physically present in the office and Liz is gone, that they need to offer him sympathy, or refrain from mentioning Liz? If Jack, who has the advantage of being on the spot and needs to continue working with people who all know part of the story, starts telling a version that he’s more comfortable with, but which the OP, having information that they cannot share, knows to be untrue or unfair to Liz, do they step in? Is it necessary to acknowledge what happened? That may be in itself a reason to discipline Jack in some way, because it would be extremely unsettling to other people in the office (setting aside Liz’s more significant concerns) to see one coworker injure another with no repercussions. I’d worry, not about Jack specifically posing a danger, but about how the employer dealt with the risk of injury to employees, or how employees who were injured would be treated, or about how conflicts of any kind between employees in the future would be dealt with (a strategy where the person who is suffering leaves and the employer considers the problem dealt with is common is far less dramatic situations, and that may be how the situation looks to people outside). This seems like a situation that, if it is practicable, requires Jack to take some unpaid leave while things cool down and everyone thinks through how they move forward. Maybe Jack needs some time off and away from the office for his own sake, because having a panic attack that results in another person’s injury has got to be upsetting at the least.

    Even if the decision is made that this is an unintentional accident and therefore it would be wrong to fire Jack (which I broadly agree with), how the decision is presented to the other employees matters, and could be handled really poorly. Is this presented as an unfortunate accident (what happens if employees who saw some part of it disagree)? Do you quietly say that Jack has mental health problems that explain and excuse otherwise inexcusable behavior? That raises all kinds of problems of its own, especially if anyone involved in making the decision presents it as a result of legally required accommodation (i.e., we would have fired Jack, but he has a note from a doctor excusing him from consequences). Do you decree that no one is ever to speak of this again? Do you talk sympathetically about Liz’s injuries but never acknowledge that Jack is responsible? How do announce that Liz is not coming back?

    If people are cold to Jack, or are unhappy about Liz being gone, or are dismissive of his phobias if that information is shared, or are unhappy that it feels like they are required to publicly forgive Jack, or are generally unimpressed with the way that this was handled, will they be disciplined? The OP will need to keep that under control, but how do they avoid ending up in a situation where there is a perception that, generously, causing an accident that leads to the hospitalization of a coworker is less of a problem than criticizing how the fallout was handled?

    How will all this affect the other people in the office with mental health problems that have already asked for accommodation, or may do so in the future? How will this affect future, unrelated disciplinary decisions? If this is handled badly, every time you reprimand someone for being rude to a coworker they may well reply, ‘at least I didn’t push her under a car’.

    Beyond the more urgent questions about what the OP and their employer owes to Jack and Liz, the whole situation is a mess. This is going to hang over everything that happens in the office for a long time.

    1. Managed Chaos*

      The letter doesn’t indicate that any of these choices were made while Liz was still in the hospital…

  46. Fresh Faced*

    OP what has the company done for Liz in the aftermath of this incident? Because from the letter it seems like no medical bills were covered, no support for potential trauma, and no disciplinary action for Jack besides a seemingly forced apology. He wasn’t even moved to another team so at the very least Liz wouldnt have to work with the guy that put her in hospital. Why would you expect her to jepordise her safety and come back to work for an employer that obviously doesn’t value her as a person in her eyes.(delays and extra costs on some projects is the priority here, seriously?) Liz has no reassurance from you that if she returns to work she won’t be hurt again. You’re not getting her back.

    And honestly regardless of Liz’s request, I think you should fire Jack. Purely because he didn’t disclose his phobia until after an incident had already happened. I have a friend who’s extremely afraid of birds, she told us early on (because pigeons are everywhere here) So I know to give her a wider breathe when we approach a flock of birds, or to get out of her way if she quickly needs to take a alternate path or occasionally put myself between her an a few birds if needed. Jack keeping this quiet meant no preventative measures could have been taken to ensure everyone’s safety.

    1. Dot Warner*

      I agree – from Liz’s perspective, it may seem that the company is more concerned with being nice to the guy who nearly got her killed and the fact that deadlines are going to get missed because she’s recovering from surgery than the fact that she got hit by a car and was seriously hurt.

      1. jasper_red*

        Right–which is a pretty loud indicator that she doesn’t matter to them as an employee, if that’s the case. Which from what the OP wrote in, who is their manager, that’s how it sounds. I’m sure she didn’t mean to make it sound that way but she definitely did (in my opinion).

      2. blackcat*

        “fact that deadlines are going to get missed because she’s recovering from surgery than the fact that she got hit by a car and was seriously hurt.”

        This really bugs me, too, and would be reason enough to quit. Liz was injured badly enough on company property to be hospitalized for days and have surgery. Regardless of the reason for the injury, her manager should be saying, “Don’t worry about work. Take the time you need to heal, and we do our best to cover for you.” Not “We’re missing deadlines, and we really need you to come back.”

        I got into a car accident one day on my way to work at my old job. I was physically fine, but everyone (including my boss) told me to go home and take the day off to take care of myself. I didn’t want to go because I had important responsibilities that day. Everyone said, “We’ll cover for you. We’ll cope. Take care of yourself.” That’s how it’s handled in a supportive workplace.

        1. Managed Chaos*

          There is nothing in the letter that indicates the deadlines were missed because she was still recovering. For all we know, she was given a month off, was asked about her return date, and said she was quitting as Jack was still there.
          We don’t know. Filling in the gaps to act like Liz is going into surgery and LW is like “But wait! First, let’s discuss these deadlines!!!!” is ridiculous.

          1. Dot Warner*

            Maybe I’m wrong, but that’s just the vibe I got from the OP’s letter – they emphasized the fact that deadlines are going to get missed because Liz isn’t there anymore but didn’t say whether the company had done anything to support her in her recovery or if they’d explored any options that would allow both Liz and Jack to be employed but not have to work together anymore.

    2. Hrovitnir*

      I swear I’m not being deliberately contrary but this is so frustrating to me. We have no basis to assume the company has done nothing for Liz because it wasn’t mentioned. Generally letters have a lot of missing details!

      And “I thought it was under control, my coping mechanisms allow me to not react outwardly usually, and nothing remotely like this has ever happened” very easily explains how Jack could have thought there was no need to tell anybody.

      1. Gadfly*

        But when the only thing the letter says is basically “Jack apologized and we explained why he isn’t really at fault” and explains why he isn’t being fired but doesn’t mention doing anything for Liz or offering her anything while asking what to do, the reasonable assumption is they haven’t offered Liz anything or done anything.

        1. JB (not in Houston)*

          It’s really not, though. The OP was providing the information she thought would be most useful to explain why they weren’t meeting this particular demand of Liz–firing Jack. Whether they paid her medical bills or did anything else isn’t really relevant to that because it doesn’t explain why they aren’t firing him. While it wouldn’t be weird for the OP to include that kind of information in the letter, it also makes total sense to leave it out. So assuming they did nothing is not a reasonable assumption.

          1. Browser*

            It is completely relevant because then the OP could say “we did X, Y, Z for Liz but we cannot fire Jack as well.”

          2. Observer*

            Some of these things are not entirely relevant. But, it IS *completely* whether or not, for instance, Jack said anything about what he plans to do about the situation, both in terms of helping her and in terms of avoiding a repeat. Also, what the company said to Liz. The OP tells us that they told her about his mental issues. If they had also told her that they are moving him / making him document that he is finding a way to insure that this doesn’t happen again / discussing what they can do for her / planning to pay her while she is out recovering etc. I can’t imagine that the OP wouldn’t have mentioned it.

            It’s also telling that the OP doesn’t bring this up as a possible strategy to get her to come back. It’s “I can’t fire him, so what am I supposed to do?” rather than “I can’t fire him, but would it be reasonable to offer x, y or z?” I’m not trying to nit pick language but there doesn’t seem to be any indication that the OP (or her organization) has considered any action to make the idea of coming back to work more palatable.

  47. Ganesh*

    If Liz is that worried about it surely she can arrange to start and end her day 15 minutes before Jack so they are not even outside at the same time or agree to use different exit doors or maybe let her do some WFH. Unless you work in a zoo or something you are just not going to be exposed to birds all the time in your normal day so it is just a freak accident not likely to be repeated. I’m sorry she broke her arm and understand it was upsetting but I can’t imagine quitting over it either.

    1. Canton*

      She didn’t break her arm. Her arm was broken after being hit by a car that she was pushed in to.

  48. Bagpuss*

    I feel very sorry for both people involved.
    It doesn’t read to me that Jack had any intention to harm Liz, or anyone, and I think that the the string of factors which resulted in Liz being seriously hurt were such that they wouldn’t necessarily be something that you’d foresee as a potential result of your phobia. to me, it is broadly on a par with a situation where someone (say) stumbles and falls, knocking onto someone else who falls into the road. It’s horrible for the person who gets hit by a car but it isn’t deliberate or something where disciplinary action would be appropriate.

    I can also see completely that from Liz’s perspective she was badly hurt and no-one appeaes to be doing anything.

    I think firing Jack would be unreasonable. I don’t think it is reasonable for Liz to demand that in this scenario.

    I do think that it would be reasonable to consider, as an employer:

    – whether it is appropriate to look at any disciplinary action for Jack in terms of his not having disclosed the fact that he may pose a risk to others, so that appropriate risk management strategies can be put in place. I think this does depend a bit on how serious his phobia is and whether he knew that his panic reaction was so severe he would barge into people to run away

    – what steps, short of firing Jack, might be reasonable in order to be able to invite Liz back and/or to protect other workers. (for instance, this might include letting other workers know about Jack’s phobia and the ‘flee’ response he will show if scared, looking at making arrangements to move Jack’s desk / office so that Liz doesn’t have to work in the same room as him / making policies which ensure that Jack travels separately etc.

    I think I might approach Liz again now that a little time has passe, perhaps let her have have a written response explaining that you won’t fire Jack as you don’t feel it is justified given that his actions were not deliberate, but that if she wishes to return her job remains open and you ware happy to work with her to ensure that she is not at any future risk and that she will not be required to work directly with Jack.
    I am not sure to what degree you could tell her if you did take disciplinary action against him for his failure to disclose a risk, here, it would normally be confidential, but I think f you are able to disclose (preferably with Jack’s consent) then you could also tell her that disciplinary action has been taken but that it falls short of firing.

    2. Hrovitnir*

      This is good. I would be inclined to approach Liz mostly as an apology with an offer to give a great reference/help however I can with “we are still really happy to have you back and work with you to feel safe at work without firing Jack” as more of a sideline, because I think Liz is probably too angry about the whole thing to go back, realistically. But hopefully she would appreciate a genuine reaching out even if she has negative interest in returning.

  49. MuseumChick*

    Haven’t read all the comments and I have no idea if this is relevant or changes anything. As I read this letter my first thought was “What does Jack do when he is out in public?” I would assume (perhaps wrongly) that he doesn’t just go around shoving people out of the way to get away from birds.

    IDK, Jack’s explanation just doesn’t cut it for me. Should he be fired? I have mixed feelings. He does have a documented mental condition but I don’t think that should give someone a pass of seriously injuring a co-worker.

    2. EleanoraUK*

      I went the other way a bit – it made me wonder whether his phobia perhaps doesn’t normally come out in this way, and he’s as surprised by the force of his reaction in this case as everyone else in the situation.

      It could go some way to explaining why he was getting treatment, but also trusted himself to walk outside with Liz.

      1. MuseumChick*

        That’s fair, totally possible it’s the case. Jack is very, very lucky Liz was killed. I don’t think the courts would be as understand as his workplaces appears to be.

        2. Managed Chaos*

          He’s also very, very unlucky that she was hurt. This seems to have been a freak happening where everything lined up to cause her injuries. You could probably run this scenario 100 times, and not come up with this outcome most times. She could have been hurt more seriously, but change some reactions by a split second, and she could have been not injured at all.

          1. Observer*

            You are almost certainly wrong. There are so many ways that someone can get hurt by an unexpected shove. People have mentioned a number of them up thread, and none of them are exotic or unlikely. No one scenario is highly likely but when you look at the idea in the aggregate, this is definitely something that could easily happen again if no one is taking precautions.

      2. MWKate*

        It could also be that this was an unusual situation – we don’t know how close the bird was or in what direction it took off. If he didn’t notice it at first and was able to keep an eye on what it was doing, and was then startled by the take off and thought the bird was coming at him – it could be a different reaction than jut walking past a calm bird sitting on a post.

  50. Crinoid*

    Alison, usually I agree with your advice but I think you’re dead wrong on this one. Jack should be fired. If Jack’s phobia is not well-managed enough that he can’t prevent himself from injuring other people, he should not– NOT– be working around other people. I have post-traumatic stress disorder. If my PTSD caused me to have flashbacks where I started punching the people around me because I thought I was back in the moment, I should not be around other people because I’m a danger to them. Jack’s phobia apparently makes him so unaware of his surroundings that he’s capable of pushing people in front of moving cars (!!!). Even though the phobia is a mitigating factor, the fact remains that he is a danger to others, and he doesn’t belong in a workplace under those conditions.

    I don’t think you should necessarily hire Liz back, but Jack has to go.

    1. LisaLee*

      Ooh, this just reminded me–I actually did use to work with a person years ago who ended up being let go because of PTSD in a very similar situation. Twice they were triggered and accidentally hit a coworker, and after the second accident the company said “Look, you can take medical leave to work this out or resign, but it can’t happen again.” They ended up resigning.

      There were some other factors there too (food service environment with knives and hot grease, more common triggers) but it what it came down to was other people’s safety being at risk.

  51. AMY*

    I don’t know why some people think he was forced to apologize – all it says is he called her with HR present. That could have been entirely at his request and for his own protection to have HR listen.

    He also did not “push her in front of a car”. He pushed her on the sidewalk to get away and she “fell off the curb”….maybe she was wearing new heels, maybe she was half hung over ( I know, I know, don’t blame the victim etc etc, just saying for the sake of discussion that she actually COULD have contributed to making this better or worse in some way. Shades of grey and all that) and maybe the person parking the car was busy trying to text or pulling in too fast…WHO KNOWS. Too many variables. It’s probably a lot more complicated than, he pushed her in front of a moving car. Yes, Jack’s phobia started the chain of events, but it was involuntary and I think Liz is acting like a real witch to be honest.

    1. Bits and Bobs*

      “Witch” seems incredibly strong! This woman was badly injured, to the point of requiring surgery and a hospital stay, which (if this is the USA) could incur huge medical bills.

      Asking for Jack to be fired does seem a little unreasonable, but she’s not a “witch” for being upset and angry that someone’s actions led to her being seriously injured. She is possibly out of pocket with medical bills, and obviously felt that she needed to leave her job (it seems to me that she handed in her resignation *before* the OP called her and asked her to come back, at which point the idea of firing Jack came up). It seems that Liz, the person who was injured and is now out of a job and facing a recovery period, deserves a little more compassion. This isn’t one innocent person and one wicked witch, these are two people in a difficult situation who deserve some compassion.

    2. Vladimir*

      Do she gets seriusly injured because od someone else but she is the bad one for not beeing forgiving? You have to be joking. You know victims do not have to be forgiving and understandig. It is completly understandable that she doesnt want to se him ever again.

    3. Alice*

      Wow. I hope you are never in Liz’s situation, because not only is she in pain and dealing with medical bills, but she’s also getting stick from internet commentators because she’s not falling all over herself to excuse Jack. And by the way – did she fall in front of a car? Yes. Why did she fall? Because she was pushed. Who pushed her? Jack. So yes, Jack pushed her in front of a car seems accurate to me.

    4. Apollo Warbucks*

      I was with you until the last sentence. That’s not kind to Liz, she through no fault of her own has suffered a pretty nasty injury.

    5. Hrovitnir*

      OK, wow, here is a comment vilifying Liz. Really? I do find it hard to relate to her reaction because that’s not how I work, but she’s not a bad person for being angry. Particularly as mentioned above, it’s entirely possibly she’s had an extended period in pain, believing her coworker shoved her in front of a car for no reason she can understand, feeling like the company doesn’t care at all. That is a very human response, and calling her names is extremely uncool.

      1. AMY*

        Vilifying? I think she’s being a witch to demand someone get fired over this non-work related incident. It wasn’t bad behaviour, it wasn’t poor performance, it was an accident. She wants him fired over a medical condition. If he’d had a heart attack or a bad reaction to a bee sting or had a seizure and flailed around and hit her in the nose or something, would she still want him fired? He was in medical distress. But just because it was “mental” he is somehow to blame…maybe Liz could try some empathy…I know people who have forgiven far worse.

          2. AMY*

            I had empathy for her about the injury, even her initial anger, refusing the apology and wanting Jack fired. But when the situation was explained to her and she “didn’t care”, that is where she loses me. Accidents happen every day with no malice on anyone’s part…wanting to take away his livelihood is nothing but vindictiveness. Unless they work outside in a park somewhere, he is of no danger to her.

            1. Speechless*

              I wouldn’t care either. He is the proximate cause of her getting run over by a car. I wouldn’t go back to work with him either. As he’s the one with the phobia who didn’t make anyone aware that when walking outside he might need some accommodations to get around his bird phobia, he is at fault for her fault and subsequent car running over. He clearly is a danger to her if they have to travel outside together for work because he PUSHED HER OVER IN FRONT OF A CAR. I’m sorry but what part of that are you not able to understand?

              Jack needs to plan ahead, Jack needs different therapy, Jack needs to do something to make sure others are safe around him. Nothing means that Jack gets a free pass for pushing his coworker into a car and none of it means the coworker needs to give any bothers why he did it or how he feels. She’s a victim and she gets to feel and think about it however the heck she wants!

              1. Roscoe*

                To be clear, he didn’t push her in front of a car. He knocked her over and she fell in the street. While the end result of her being hit by a car is the same, to say he pushed her in front of a car isn’t really what happened, and I think the distinction is important

                1. Grapey*

                  More so she was pushed into a car that was parking – the driver of the car should bear some responsibility here too.

                2. Speechless*

                  The letter writer says Liz and several witnesses state that Jack pushed her, she fell over the curb into the street where a car was parking, so yes, he pushed her in front of a car parking on the street. If we’re asked to take letters at face value, that is what this one says.

                3. Apollo Warbucks*

                  @Grapey I’m not sure the driver is responsible, if they were driving and parking in a normal typical manner and someone is push into the road or their car it doesn’t seem like they could avoid hitting them or be reasonably expect to.

                4. Roscoe*

                  @speechless, I guess its open to interpretation. I read it as he knocked her down and she kind of rolled into the street. Which to me is different from pushing someone into the street. But I guess both are possible.

        2. Allie*

          You also employed she might be at fault for getting shoved in front of a car, even implying (which you acknowledge baselessly) based on alcohol? Yeah, that’s villifying. She was just walking around and out of nowhere she was shoved in front of a car. She wasn’t offered any sort of explanation for days, and then it was an excuse one. She’s been feeling hurt and having NO context for days, and from her perspective she was attacked.

          Remember, she didn’t get the bird story until MUCH later. You try to process how you’d feel there.

        3. Lili*

          There’s a huge difference between getting hit in the nose and getting hit by a car. Truthfully, if a co-worker’s seizure caused this level of injury to me I wouldn’t want to work with them either! I wonder how much Liz “demanded” he be fired, versus saying “I can’t/won’t work with him” anyways.

        4. Insert Nickname Here*

          There are plenty of accidents that are preventable. This was definitely one of them. And when someone has an accident, usually the response is to try and make things right. You break a vase in a store, you’re expected to pay for the vase. If you hit someone’s car, you’re expected to exchange insurance and for the not-at-fault party to get their car fixed for free; you may even get a ticket for unsafe driving and points on your license. So in this case, where this accident endangered Liz’s life, forcing her to undergo surgery (which on its own can be another danger), and caused tons of pain, not to mention forcing her to miss work which may be lost wages, what has Jack done for her in this major catastrophe?

          You can apologize if you spill a drink on someone. But you make amends if you endanger someone’s life. Full stop. Maybe THEN Jack will deserve Liz’s forgiveness.

        5. Dot Warner*

          He was in medical distress, and as a result she IS in medical distress. She broke two bones in her arm, she needed surgery, and she might need physical therapy. She might have a physical scar, and she’s probably going to have emotional scars for a long time. Yes, it will be healthy for her to forgive Jack someday, but while the incident is still raw, I don’t think it’s fair for us to demand kindness or forgiveness out of her.

          Liz’s demand that Jack be fired is over the top, but she was recovering from surgery and trauma (and perhaps on pain medication that clouded her judgment). Her gut reaction was that she can’t work with Jack anymore and at the time OP asked, firing him may have seemed like the only way she could come back to her job without having to work with Jack.

        6. Vladimir*

          She doesnt want him fired for beeing ill but for hurting her. And despite his illness he is accountable for his actions.

    7. Temperance*

      WOW. So, to be clear, a woman who has been severely injured is a “witch”, probably “half hung over”, or wearing new heels? How about no?

      I would hate Jack if I was in her position. She’s looking at permanent, unsightly scarring AT BEST. Lifelong disability, arthritis, extensive medical bills …. but yeah, she’s a “witch”.

  52. Seriously?*

    Normally I really like and value all the commenters here, but I’m honestly shocked at the number of people who think that mental illness is here a valid excuse for a man pushing a woman into a car and that said woman is some sort of horrible person for not being totally cool with it, never mind her own suffering and potential trauma. And I say this as a person with multiple mental illnesses.

    1. MuseumChick*

      I agree with you. For me (and other may disagree) once there is severe physical harmed caused by the actions of a co-worker, that co-worker should be terminated. Compassion for those with mental illness is something very near and dear to my heart in part because I have a condition a lot people don’t understand and a lot of other people think doesn’t even exists. But once you have harmed someone the game changes.

      I forget what the condition is but I saw a documentary on a woman who would bite people she felt comfortable with. It was part of a condition she had. and was involuntary. Now, if I were her co-worker and she bit me, I would expect some very severe consequences and/or firing.

      If Liz had been killed, jack would have a lot more to worry about than losing his job. He would likely have to go to court for something like involuntary manslaughter. As it stands Liz may seek damages from him.

      I hope the OP comes back with more detail, as it reads right now it doesn’t appear the company has disciplined Jack in any way, not have they assured Liz if she did come back she would NEVER have to work with him and he would be made to stay away from her.

      I just have so many questions: What does Jack do when he’s driving and sees a bird? What does he do when on a crowded street and sees a bird? I can’t step out of my house or work place without an 80% chance of seeing one and I just don’t buy that he goes around knock people out of the way or nearly causing a car accident each time he sees a bird. So why the strong reaction this time?

    2. Gazebo Slayer (formerly I'm a Little Teapot)*

      THIS. So much. She is supposed to be a good little girl and not upset anyone by being angry about being injured to the point where she needed surgery? While probably eating thousands of dollars in medical expenses, possibly childcare and help with home tasks, and lost wages? And then she’s supposed to bust her butt to meet deadlines for this company that has made it clear they don’t give a damn about her? While unable to use one arm, in pain, on painkillers, and quite reasonably afraid for her safety because she’s forced to be around a coworker who could have killed her? And, of course, she’s a nasty vindictive heartless person if she’s anything other than polite, professional, and sympathetic to the person who severely injured her? (Never mind any trauma SHE might be suffering or any panic the sight of Jack likely triggers for HER.) She’s supposed to smile and forgive and put Jack’s feelings above her very life.

      As someone who, as I mentioned above, has been hospitalized more than once due to anxiety, I am disgusted.

    3. Czhorat*

      I don’t see “pushed her in front of a moving car” as a fair way of framing it. I reread the post; he pushed her out if the way while fleeing the bird, she fell off the curb into the path of a car. My view of this is as a horrible accident, and an accident is not something over which to fire someone.

      1. Gadfly*

        Sure it is– just ask the person who sent their CEO to Italy instead of Florida. Some accidents are big enough. Especially when it seems like they could have been avoided.

      2. MuseumChick*

        I have to disagree. There are plenty of “accidents” or “honest mistakes” that a person can (and often should be) fired for. I lean SLIGHTLY towards firing Jack because I think physically harming a co-worker cross a serious line. If Jack had instead and condition that caused hallucination and physical attacked Liz while having one, I think most people would say he should be fired. Even though it was something outside of his control and that he didn’t mean to do.

      3. Speechless*

        People get fired for work related accidents all the time. Some of them are egregious enough that being terminated is the right outcome. I don’t necessarily thing Jack should be terminated but I do think the right thing to do if at all possible is to tell Liz if she wants to come back they will move Jack to another team, another building, somewhere where she doesn’t have to deal with him. I am not American so I don’t know first hand but up thread people mention that Jack cannot fall back on his mental illness to protect him from this after the fact as he didn’t disclose it. So really, due to the fact Jack didn’t disclose it, you essentially have a member of staff who pushed another worker into the street on company time and caused a serious accident. If he’d disclosed then maybe he wouldn’t have been sent out of the office. Maybe he’d have had to travel on his own. His colleagues and the company weren’t given the chance to safeguard the rest of the staff. Maybe he was all like oh man I’m phobic of birds but how will that ever be relevant in a white collar job. He made that decision and now poor Liz is paying for it. Now that he knows he’s in major sheet he’s disclosing everything he can to cover his own backside and the company is worrying about him and the deadlines that broken and hospitalized and completely unimportant in this scenario Liz is going to make them miss.

        I can’t believe so many people here are like ‘oh poor Jack’ and ringing their hands over his phobia of birds while his innocent colleague who didn’t even know he was terrified of birds to this level is banged up in the hospital and now unemployed because her company doesn’t give a darn about anything but not offending Jack into claiming he was sacked for something covered by his mental illness, and not missing the deadlines only Liz can meet. Jack didn’t disclose his illness so he doesn’t get protection because he didn’t give the company the chance to do a risk assessment and safeguard the other staff by making sure he didn’t need accommodations for everyone’s protection.

      4. Observer*

        He pushed her and as a direct result of that she wound up in front of a car that was parking. That IS pushing in front of the car, even though I’m sure he didn’t mean that to happen.

        The distinction that you are trying to make make me incandescent with rage. It implies that the two things are separate and the she somehow fell in front of the car. Except that she didn’t “fall”. She was pushed off the curb – of course she wound up falling! But it wasn’t a fall that was a separate event.

        1. Czhorat*

          That’s a very, very strong reaction.

          “Pushed her in front of a moving car” implies a level of volition which does not seem to be present here. In a very literally denotative sense you are, I suppose correct; in the larger sense of the message you’re sending I strongly disagree.

    4. Not Karen*

      But he DIDN’T push her into a car. He accidentally knocked into her as he was running away.

      1. Speechless*

        No the letter says Liz and several witnesses say he pushed her while he was running. It reads like he wanted to run in a straight line and she was in front of him half a step so she got pushed out of the way.

    5. BethRA*

      I am equally astounded by the number of people who are assigning malice to what was an utterly freak accident.

      1. Speechless*

        I’m not assigning any malice to Jack but nor do I think his disability means that Liz needs to give a solitary f what made him cause her a life changing injury. Nor do I think this could be called a ‘freak accident’. Jack goes outside where birds live. The letter says a bird took flight near him and this is what he did. Birds live outside and take flight. If he’s likely to have a phobic reaction to that than this is not a ‘freak accident’. It’s birds doing what birds do and Jack doing what Jack does in response. He must have had some idea what his phobic reaction to birds was likely to entail. If he regularly needs to be outside in the course of doing his job than this was always a possibility and likely his workplace should have known about it.

        1. BethRA*

          Do you go out of your way to tell everyone around you what you’re in therapy for? If one of your colleagues did that, would you think it was valuable information, or would you be writing to AAM to ask for advice on dealing with a coworker who overshares?

          His being terrified by a bird when outside might not be unforeseeable, but for that to happen at just the right second, in exactly the right circumstances, for it to result in such a serious injury, however is very different story.

    6. Temperance*

      I’m sadly not shocked. I have a mentally ill parent, and I’ve seen her bad behavior and abuse get excused because of her illness since I was a little kid.

  53. Grits McGee*

    I hope this isn’t out of line, but can I say how nice it’s been reading through a 500-comment post and finding them all interesting and helpful? I feel like this is really the comment section of AAM at its best- strong opinions, strong emotions, major disagreements and philosophical differences, but in a tone of respectful debate rather than one-upmanship, repetition, and mean-spiritedness. Dozens of conversations and debates that could all potentially be of use to the OP.

  54. Lv*

    I’m sympathetic to Jack of course but he seriously needs to get this phobia resolved. My mom has a snake phobia and she would never physically harm someone. He physically hurt this lady. Traumatized her. Pushed her in front of a car. He didn’t mean it… but there were dire consequences and physical pain as a result of his panic.

    He hurt your employee because he was scared of a bird. He put himself before another human being.

    I seriously hope he resolves this quickly and no one else gets hurt because of his fear. He must find another way to deal with this that doesnt involve running and barging people out the way. There are millions of birds… he will see them every day.

    1. Cochrane*

      He hurt your employee because he was scared of a bird.

      So you’re saying he was…. chicken?

    2. The RO-Cat*

      “He hurt your employee because he was scared of a bird. He put himself before another human being.”

      I find this an inappropriate and dismissing way of summarizing the situation. “Scared” is, frankly, quite offensive here (not to mention Cochrane’s joke). Phobia is difficult to understand, way beyond “fear” – it bypasses the cortex and puts primal instincts in the driver’s seat, period. No one willfully wants to harm anyone in the throes of a panic attack. It’s more akin to a freak accident than to willfull negligence, or something like that.

      That said, Jack should get some consequences for the result of the whole mess. But let’s keep respectful here, shall we?

      1. Speechless*

        Freak accident is getting struck by lightning. A man who knows he has a phobia of birds being outside with colleagues presumably in the USA where pigeons are very commonplace is not a freak accident. On the balance of probabilities this man was likely to encounter birds outside in any American urban environment. I wish people would stop saying it’s a freak accident. It has a proximate cause and that is Jack knows birds send him into a blind panic he can’t control or stop and he went out into the outdoors where birds live, was triggered (as I’m assuming he knows can happen as he’s seeing a therapist for this illness) and badly injured a colleague.

      2. Managed Chaos*

        “I’m sympathetic to Jack of course but he seriously needs to get this phobia resolved.”

        Oh, if only he had thought of that in some point of his multiple years of therapy.

        1. Observer*

          Actually, he should have. Unfortunately, for whatever reason, many therapists do NOT focus on either extinguishing the phobia directly or on developing tools that keep the phobia from causing direct harm to the phobic person and others around him.

          1. Marvel*

            I think you are fundamentally misunderstanding how most phobias work. They often cannot be “extinguished” or cured–only managed.

            1. Observer*

              That’s why I said “OR ON DEVELOPING TOOLS”.

              In this case that would mean that the therapist focuses on trying to extinguish or reduce the phobia, and if that is not practical, then finding ways to not react in ways that can hurt people, such as blindly barreling into people.

            2. Kj*

              Exposure therapy is HIGHLY effective. If someone isn’t doing exposure therapy for a phobia, then they are not working hard enough to treat it (unless they can’t find a therapist who can do it). Exposure therapy is HARD, but the results speak for themselves:

              According to a 2011 article published in the Psychiatric Times, a meta-analysis of those who participated in exposure therapy studies reported positive results at post-treatment follow-up, approximately four years after receiving treatment. Ninety percent of participants reported their anxiety at a reduced level and 65% of participants were no longer experiencing their specific phobia.
              Source: http://www.goodtherapy.org/learn-about-therapy/types/exposure-therapy

              1. Marvel*

                I’m aware of exposure therapy. But the fact remains that it doesn’t work for everyone. And even when it does, it often takes a very long time for serious phobias. He’s only been seeing his therapist for two years, and even assuming they started exposure therapy immediately, that still might not be enough time for it to significantly reduce the phobia. For me personally (though my issue is different), two years was about the point where I first started to see significant changes re: my anxiety. My therapist is wonderful–it was just a very difficult type of anxiety and needed a lot of careful untangling. Pushing too fast would have made it much, much worse.

                Overall, I think it’s silly for us to speculate on what’s going on in his therapy sessions. We have no way of knowing, and it’s not something that is within the LW’s power to influence.

    3. BethRA*

      You mean she would never INTENTIONALLY harm someone – because if she’s truly afraid of snakes, she’s just as likely as Jack was to cause someone harm, and pretty much the same way.

      If it had been your mother jumping/running away from a snake that had bumped this poor woman off the curb, would it be because she put herself before another human being, or would it be because she was scared and reacted involuntarily?

      1. Detective Amy Santiago*

        I could very easily see myself in a similar situation if I encountered a snake. I hyperventilate when I see pictures of them on my FB wall (which happens more often that I ever would have expected).

  55. Ignis Invictus*

    Am I the only one who noticed that Jack’s phobia is the ONLY reason OP gives for being “wary” of recommending his termination? It’s the only reason HR hasn’t fired him? No previous trouble, doesn’t mean decent employee. Yet Liz is valuable enough that they’re making multiple attempts at retaining her. This seems like a no brainer, hire an ADA lawyer and figure out how to fire him. It’s time to reexamine your retention logic when the only reason you can give for not firing an employee who *pushed another employee in front of a moving vehicle* is “he has a mental illness that was not disclosed prior to the fireable incident…. and we’re afraid of getting sued”.

  56. EvilQueenRegina*

    How feasible would it be to transfer Jack to another department, where Liz wouldn’t have to see him every day, and he could get a fresher start where he isn’t always known as That Guy Who Pushed Someone In Front Of A Car?

  57. Mathilde*

    I wonder why Jack does not resign from his job of his own accord?
    He definitely should do that – and not let others make such a tough decision in this very complicated situation.
    I cannot understand how he can keep working there in full awareness of the fact Liz felt she had to quit because otherwise she is supposed to work with him again and wouldn’t have been able to stand that.
    Even with a psychic disorder, Jack can take responsibility for what he did, intentionally or not.

      1. Mathilde*

        But the same is true for Liz. He obviously does not want to go out of his way to find another job, but finds it acceptable to let Liz go throught that process.
        How can he sleep at night?

        1. Czhorat*

          While it’s understandable, quitting was Liz’s choice. I see the as an accident in which nobody was really wrong either before or after the fact. I feel bad for everyone involved.

          1. Speechless*

            If the company treated Liz to match the tone of the OPs letter where not getting sued by Jack and not missing her deadlines are their big concerns, it is very much their fault she quit, and she absolutely did the right thing. I hope the lawsuit she brings against the company (reads like this happened on works’ time) and maybe even Jack, means she doesn’t have to worry about working again until she’s good and ready.

          2. Mathilde*

            Obviously it was Liz’ choice to quit. (But I would not call it ‘free’ choice, that would be cynical.)
            And sure, you could call it an accident.
            Nevertheless, IMNSHO, from a moral point of view, it should be Jack’s choice to quit so Liz’ does not have to.
            I really have a hard time understanding how Jack can keep working there.
            Does he just shrug it off, watches her leave and goes on like nothing’s happened? Telling himself “it was her choice, she could have stayed, I would not have had any objections. Lucky me, I will stay here happily ever after….”

      2. Gazebo Slayer (formerly I'm a Little Teapot)*

        And Liz DOESN’T need her job to support herself? Especially now, with thousands in medical bills and other expenses?

        In any case, the company and/or Jack should be financially compensating Liz for all of this, and no way in hell should she ever have to work with him again.

    2. EvilQueenRegina*

      For all we know he could be searching, and we don’t know because OP doesn’t know, he might choose to find something new and then go rather than quit now with nothing to go to.

      1. Mathilde*

        Again: IMO it should be Jack and not Liz who leaves, even without having a new job lined up, in order to make it possible for her to stay.
        From a legal point of view, it might be different, I am not too familar with American law. But as I said, I am talking about a decent behaviour under human beings.

  58. Anonfirthis*

    I am a rape survivor and struggle with PTSD.

    One day at work, a male coworker saw me walk past and reached out a hand to stop me to talk.

    In my brain, it triggered an involuntary panic response. I didn’t think, I didn’t register that this was a coworker. I just reflexively turned and punched him then ran. It took about 15 minutes before I calmed down enough to realize what I did.

    It was completely an accident and I had zero control of myself.

    Coworker was furious (understandably) and I was fired (they had records of my PTSD). And I 100% agree with their decision. Hurting a coworker is unacceptable, regardless if it’s an accident or the result of mental illness.

    It was awful and I was horrified and I feel guilty still years later. And I should. I hurt an innocent person.

    Mental illness doesn’t take away personal responsibility or accountability.

    And people seem to be dismissing Liz’s mental health. She may have her own issues now that seeing Jack would trigger. I understand never wanting to see him again.

    1. LizB*

      First of all, I’m so sorry for all you’ve gone through, and I hope you’re doing better now.

      Second, I think this is where I’m coming down on this situation as well. I know someone who caused a fatal car accident because of a medical condition. It was truly an accident, and that was taken into account, but this person still faced consequences for the result. I think firing Jack would be a reasonable course of action, because despite the fact that this incident was a nightmarish accident, the result was still that someone got severely injured. I don’t think the company necessarily has to fire him, but (barring legal things I don’t know about IANAL) I would understand if they did. They could, as others have suggested, have him put an end date on his employment and help him job search… but if you cause a serious workplace accident, it’s possible you will no longer be able to work at that company, and that’s just kind of how it goes.

      1. Gadfly*

        I don’t know if firing is the right answer or not. But there needs to be something that shows he’s taking responsibility. I’d expect that in any accident where someone hurt someone else. I’d say the same if he slipped on some ice and in so doing pushed her into car.

    2. Sal*

      I appreciate your perspective on this. I think it’s really valuable and I’m sorry about your history.

    3. Manders*

      I’m so sorry that happened to you.

      I have two pretty severe phobias, one of which caused me to headbutt my dentist trying to get away from an unexpected needle, so I know where Jack’s coming from. But I also know that if I injure someone, I’m responsible for the consequences of that, even if I didn’t intend to do it. And I know that if I had a freak out severe enough that my coworker ended up with a broken arm, and she didn’t feel safe working around me, I’d be submitting my resignation ASAP. Apart from questions of legality or blame, how would I even begin to rebuild my reputation in the office after that?

  59. Czhorat*

    One thought is that Liz and some of her supporters here feel that something bad happened and that someone needs to be punished for it. I understand the impulse (and respect that it’s easier to say if I’m not the one who got hot by a car), but sometimes the right thing to do is just to accept that stuff happens due to a set of perfect circumstances unlikely to repeat. The bird was at just the wrong place at the moment a car was parking nearby, Liz standing just close enough to the curb to trip into the path of the car when pushed. Had Liz been standing a foot farther from the curb or the car arrived thirty seconds later this would have been awkward but a non-incident.

    I do feel empathy for everyone involved; Liz is injured through no fault big her own. Jack has to publicly reveal what is a private and -given stigma surrounding mental illness – potentially embarrassing medical condition. The LW has to deal with personal drama and the loss of a good employee. It’s not fair, but that’s life sometimes. Punishing Jack wouldn’t make anything better in the long run. I understand where Liz is coming from , but think she’s wrong to insist on punishment and quitting if it doesn’t happen. She’s made a bad situation worse.

    1. Gadfly*

      Worse than dealing with someone you are extremely angry with, possibly scared of, and might be triggering PTSD?

      I think quitting is a rational decision. It might be too tempting to give him a little push on the stairs some time if she has to keep working with him–and it doesn’t sound (from the letter like offers to keep them far apart were made.) Blowing up and screaming at him because he says something that triggers everything? Also not good. Far better to just quit and acknowledge you can’t work with or near him.

    2. Detective Amy Santiago*

      This is a very thoughtful comment. I disagree with your last two sentences, because if I were in Liz’s shoes, I would likely not want to work with Jack anymore, but I’m really astounded by all the comments here that are vilifying Jack and making it sound like he did something malicious.

      1. Czhorat*

        In think you’re right about my concluding sentences; Liz was badly injured, and expecting her to get over it is a very, very high bar.

      2. Jessesgirl72*

        If she had died from her injuries, he’d have been charged with accidental homicide- and likely convicted.

        The phobia wouldn’t have gotten him out of that conviction.

        So things can be “not on purpose” and there can still be serious consequences. He’s not a bad person for the accident (although the not apologizing part, until HR encouraged/made him….) but that doesn’t make it okay, either.

        1. EleanoraUK*

          I doubt that, the prosecutor would have to prove that Jack could have reasonably foreseen the outcome of Liz’s death as a result of his phobia. I think as much as the comments differ on whether to fire him or not, we’re all in agreement that the outcome was extremely unfortunate. If the car hadn’t just pulled in to park, if Liz had fallen in a slightly different direction, or not at all, or 2 seconds earlier or later… None of these things were in Jack’s control, so you’d have a hard time proving his culpability.

        2. Jessie the First (or second)*

          “If she had died from her injuries, he’d have been charged with accidental homicide- and likely convicted.”

          Just… No. No, no, no.

          PLEASE, people, stop convicting Jack of crimes in these comments. There are all sorts of things we can talk about other than making crap up about the criminal codes in the US.

          1. AD*

            Thank you, Jessie. It’s amazing how many legal and law enforcement experts we suddenly have here today (*sarcasm).

      3. Temperance*

        My comments were fairly anti-Jack, but I don’t think anyone is accusing him of doing anything malicious. I strongly feel that mentally ill adults are still responsible for their actions, and that he personally should have done more to make Liz whole (which he can’t because she’s at best permanently scarred, at worst, permanently disabled in that arm). I felt strongly that he just went into CYA mode after severely injuring Liz, and that’s shitty.

    3. Emi.*

      I don’t think it would be fair to punish Jack for accidentally pushing Liz, but I don’t understand why the OP doesn’t seem to consider it a super serious issue that he (apparently) didn’t apologize quickly or voluntarily. I would also want to see Jack taking serious steps to prevent something like this from happening again.

      2. LBK*

        It’s not specified if the apology was voluntary or involuntary, and moreover I think it can be tough to gauge the right time for an apology in a situation like this; if Liz is still angry she might not be in a place where an apology even has any weight (which is what it sounds like happened, given her reaction on the call). I don’t think we can categorically decide anything about how Jack feels about the situation or who he is as a person based on him not immediately apologizing in what’s clearly an extremely complex and fraught situation.

    4. Dot Warner*

      She’s wrong to insist on punishment, but I think quitting is appropriate. If I were in her shoes, I don’t think I could be civil to Jack, and Jack might take that incivility as me trying to create a hostile workplace because of his condition. Forcing these two to work together again won’t be a healthy situation for either of them. OP could have offered to transfer Jack to another department or location or have one of them work from home. OP didn’t do that (and maybe there’s a very good reason), but just asking Liz to come back and act like nothing happen was a pretty poor decision, IMO.

    5. Recruit-o-rama*

      I don’t know that the letter reads that she demanded he be fired.

      She dealt with her issue of not wanting to work with Jack by quitting her job. Full stop.

      The company decided that it is inconvenient for them because of projects and deadlines and they contacted her to ask her to come back. She respondedwith the conditions under which she would be willing to come back, which is that she not have to work with Jack. That may mean the company would have to fire him. She is not demanding her job, she quit her job. They want her back, she doesn’t want to work with Jack. That doesn’t read as demanding he be fired. They ASKED her back, she said no unless he is gone. I think it’s reasonable on her behalf.

      If she was demanding both that they take her back and that they fire him, then yes, I would agree with you, but that’s not how the letter read.

    6. Speechless*

      The company also should be worried about safeguarding all the other staff. Maybe the odds of this ever happening again are a million to one. But they know it’s happened once now, they still employ the reason it did, and if they don’t have a plan to make sure it can’t happen again, they’re opening themselves up to more risk. There do need to be consequences as Jack needs to know that no matter the cause, pushing his colleague into the street wasn’t ok and now they’re potentially going to be sued because of it. I don’t wish Jack fired but I know of the two who I’d be pushing to keep on staff and it’s not Jack.

    7. Observer*

      Well, for one thing, absent any plan whatsoever to prevent this from happening again, it’s actually not all that unlikely. This has been chewed over several times, but the idea that he’s not going to see birds, not going to panic and not going to hurt someone even if he panics is just not tenable. There are just too many birds and too many ways people can be hurt when someone panics in this manner.

      The issue here is not vengeance. The issue is that the OP and company seem to be taking the tack Jack’s mental health issue just wipes the slate clean. It doesn’t.

      I don’t know that I would fire him, because we really don’t have enough information. But, CERTAINLY, he has some explaining to do, and he and the company must come up with a way to minimize the chance of a recurrence – something that others need to know about.

    8. Starbuck*

      Whether or not she feels Jack should be punished, I can’t imagine trying to have a cordial and professional working relationship ever again with someone who put me in the hospital. It would definitely be a case of “either this person is gone, or I won’t be coming back.” I think that’s a pretty reasonable reaction. Much more reasonable than the expectation that a coworker who injured me severely would face ZERO consequences, as Jack has so far.

  60. Menacia*

    Unfortunately, what I’m seeing is that the OP is more concerned about hardship on the company caused by Liz quitting (she was given no other alternative!). I don’t see much in the way of compassion for this poor woman who was traumatized by the actions of her coworker. That there has been no recourse for her, with regard to accommodations (perhaps less than the firing of Jack, but recourse none-the-less). Also, we are hearing this third-hand, we will never know the true circumstances. I’m actually surprised that Liz has not brought a lawyer into this situation (yet).

    1. Jessesgirl72*

      The only real reason for not firing Jack seems to be the possible ADA problem, too.

      I am also surprised Liz doesn’t have a lawyer. But the OP may not know that she’s suing Jack, personally, rather than the company.

      Frankly, when I had Big Famous HMO as my insurance, *they* would have sued Jack for the cost of my medical care.

      1. Jessie the First (or second)*

        Sounds like this was all fairly recent, and so a lawsuit would probably come later. She needs time to get a better handle on what her damages are – how long her recovery is, including physical therapy or rehab work, and whether she loses some function or has continuing pain. I would expect a year or two to go by before she files suit.

  61. MiniManager*

    What would the discussion be if Liz & Jack’s genders were swapped, or if gender neutral names like Chris & Alex were used? Would theere be an uproar that the person with the phobia needs accommodations or some penalty, more than just asked to apologize?

    1. Allie*

      It’s an interesting thought because you’d think a man injuring a woman would trigger the biggest sympathy, because the likely physical impact is greater (because men usually outweigh women significantly). But women are also expected to often absorb emotional blows and “play nice” in ways men are not.

      Ultimately, I don’t think the genders would change my reaction at all, but I think it’s an excellent point AND something the OP might consider from an optics perspective – how does it look to other employees that a man shoved a woman and the woman is the one who ended up quitting?

    2. MuseumChick*

      I don’t think it would change the discussion at all. At least not for me, Jack caused serious harm to a co-worker, he explains it by citing his phobia, Liz has to deal with being hospitalized and (apparently) her former work place wanting her to come back and work with the person who put her in the hospital while he faces no formal consequences for his actions. Even with something is a accident you have to own up to your responsibility for what happened and based on the letter I don’t see Jack doing that. I really hope the LW will chime in with more detail at some point.

      I don wonder how Jack’s other co-workers are reacting to this. If I were someone who worked there and saw what appeared to the company taking Jack’s side I would be very seriously considering leaving. I don’t want to work for a company where, (even when accidentally) a person can get a pass for sending another person to the hospital and then the company expecting them to work together again.

    3. Arithmechick*

      I was wondering the same. It’s cousin to an issue I’ve noted before: studies have shown that judges are more lenient to men who kill their wives than women who kill their husbands, despite the latter case being far more likely to be the result of the killer being abused by the killed.

      I hate to say that I’ve seen this in my own workplace. A man in another department murdered his wife (no doubt about it, confessed immediately, means of death was brutally violent). MANY of his male coworkers have talked about him with sympathy, visited him in jail, vouched for him at bail hearings, etc etc. It’s been chilling for me as a woman to see how normalized male-on-female violence is.

      Obviously Jack’s actions were not intended to harm Liz, but I’d also love to see the comments on the alternate post with gender-neutral names.

      2. Vladimir*

        That is really horific. Now I am a male but I wouldnt feel aby sympathy to a colleague like that, no decent person would. And the thing about the courts is terrifiig

  62. Roscoe*

    I didn’t read everything, but I’m honestly surprised at how harsh people are being here. I have no phobias, but from what I’ve read (even on here) they can be debilitating. I’ve read on this very board how even a fake spider or snake could cause a somewhat violent uncontrolled reaction from people. The way I read it, this was the same thing. He had a reaction that accidentally injured someone. Who knows why THIS particular bird set him off, but he was clearly being treated for it.

    I think you need to just let the situation be. If she doesn’t want to come back, I think thats fine. But I do think its out of line to demand someone else be fired. I’d even say its fine to say they never want to work with them again. But everyone saying the guy should be fired and talking about lawsuits are being a bit harsh to someone with a documented mental issue

    1. LBK*

      It’s weird that when hypothetical phobias come up, commenters are practically falling over each other to defend them and point out why things like a fake spider are bad prank ideas, but when someone actually has an extreme reaction as the result of a phobia, it’s his fault because he really should’ve been able to control himself.

      Obviously the results of the phobia are a lot worse than the case with the fake spider where the boss called the OP a bitch, but it’s still interesting to see how different the reactions are and how much less sympathy there is for Jack when we’re dealing with a real example instead of theoretical.

      1. Detective Amy Santiago*

        It’s also really interesting that people seem to think having empathy for Jack somehow equates to not having empathy for Liz. Sometimes accidents happen and no one is at fault. It’s possible to feel bad for both of them.

  63. Anon today...and tomorrow*

    My husband works in mental health and works with people who have issues that go from anxiety and phobias that keep them from safely living alone due to the harm them pose to themselves to full blown psychotic diagnosis that keep them from living alone for the safety of others. In every single case if one of the residents were to harm another resident (or staff) even with medical documented proof of their diagnosis, they can be criminally charged. As his current position, two residents attacked staff who then filed criminal charges. One resident was jailed, another was given probation. The one who was jailed shoved a staff out of the way in a rage brought on by anxiety. The staff fell down the stairs and was severely hurt.

    IMO, if Jack knew he had a phobia as extreme as this, he should have disclosed this way before this happened. Frankly, I think the fact that he disclosed this after the fact is a bit too little too late. A woman is severely hurt, has feelings of being not safe in her work place, and possible issues that stem from this incident. He could have prevented this by disclosing his phobia.

    1. Allie*

      My sister-in-law works at an intake facility for people who placed on involuntary temporary psych hold (Baker Act in Florida), and you can bet they sometimes end up pressing charges against violent patients. Sometimes it’s the only way to force them to get more permanent treatment.

    2. caryatis*

      “He could have prevented this by disclosing his phobia.”

      I don’t agree. He had no reason to disclose, since unless he works with birds, there was no reasonable expectation that the phobia would affect his work. And what could anyone have done to prevent this? The employer can’t stop wild birds from flying into the parking lot.

      1. Speechless*

        He was travelling outside with other workers on work time. That might not have been the case had management known about this phobia. So no, they can’t control birds but they could have controlled putting Jack in the situation where he was in the bird’s habitat with other colleagues, thus potentially putting those colleagues at risk. I get that this is a one in a million set of circumstances but the company didn’t get the option to do a risk assessment or work with Jack to see what accommodations might be needed for safety, his or everyone else’s. It’s too little too late to start crying about your diagnosed phobia after you’ve hospitalized someone.

        My mother works in group homes and they don’t tolerate violence against the staff in those environments so why on earth should a woman who works in an OFFICE be expected to tolerate violence from a colleague? Being shoved out of the way to the ground is violent.

        1. caryatis*

          “So no, they can’t control birds but they could have controlled putting Jack in the situation where he was in the bird’s habitat with other colleagues,”

          Birds live in pretty much every outside environment. I don’t see how it would be feasible to say that Jack can never be outside with any colleagues. Are you going to ban everyone else from the parking lot every time Jack needs to leave for the day? How would that work?

          I don’t think anyone is saying Liz should just tolerate being shoved, but Jack disclosing the phobia earlier would not have prevented this freak accident. Employees aren’t required to tell the employer about every health issue.

          1. Speechless*

            There is a commenter above who worked for a bird phobic boss and she disclosed the phobia so she could ask people not to block her office door – knowing that a bird landing on the sill would send her running out of her office. She asked people to keep a wider berth around her outside than others in case she was startled by a bird and triggered. So yes, it could have potentially been prevented and it was not a ‘freak accident.’ Jack knew he had the phobia, he’d been seeking therapeutic treatment for two years.

        2. caryatis*

          “So no, they can’t control birds but they could have controlled putting Jack in the situation where he was in the bird’s habitat with other colleagues,”

          Birds are present in pretty much every outside environment. Are you going to ban everyone else from being in the parking lot when Jack needs to leave for the day? How would that work?

          I don’t think anyone is arguing that Liz should just tolerate shoving, but Jack disclosing earlier would not have prevented this freak accident. Employees aren’t required to disclose every health issue, and Jack could never have imagined this would happen.

    3. EleanoraUK*

      Agreed, but that’s a pretty big ‘if’. We have no way of knowing whether Jack had had such an extreme reaction before and could therefore reasonably expect he might have another.

  64. Lauren*

    Am I the only one who doesn’t want to work with Jack now? I mean, if one of my coworker Jake did that to my other coworker Laura, and Jake was staying, I’d seriously be considering leaving. I wouldn’t feel safe around Jake anymore. So, I wonder how Jack’s other coworkers are feeling now. I would not be surprised if more people don’t leave this company in the near future.

    1. Allie*

      Honestly, I’m not sure I’d want to stay in a workplace like that either. It kind of sends a message that they don’ t prioritize the physical safety of employees.

    2. RVA Cat*

      This! It’s unfortunate that Jack has a phobia, but he injured a co-worker. At the very least, it sounds like he should take some PTO for some intensive therapy for his phobia. While that won’t make it go away, maybe it help him not have such intense reactions that he literally throws someone under the bus?

    3. MuseumChick*

      I agree. I want to know my company takes my safety seriously and this sends the complete opposite message.

        1. MuseumChick*

          As has be stated else where, people get fired for accidents all the time. And often it is the appropriate course of action.

          1. Bangs Not Fringe*

            When it comes to safety especially, it is a normal course of action in many fields to be penalized and/or fired for accidents.

            1. Starbuck*

              Yes, that too was an accident and it seemed like people were pretty much in agreement that firing was a reasonable course of action, despite lots of sympathy expressed for the OP. I think the cost of the mistake was said to be around $25,000? It’s almost certain that Liz’s hospital bills are going to be at least that much.

        2. Bend & Snap*

          He shoved her in front of a moving car. I’m inclined to call that an unfortunate result but not a straight up accident.

        3. Temperance*

          I do. Back in high school, I was seriously burned because one of my coworkers dumped a hot grill pan full of the toxic grill cleaner and grease into the trash. I was on trash duty, the cleaner ate through the bag and burned my leg. If it wasn’t winter, and there wasn’t snow on the ground, I would have been very seriously burned and maybe scarred. (I dove into the snow as soon as I felt it.)

          Calling this an “accident” makes it seem unpreventable and blameless, and I’m not sure that’s totally true here.

    4. BBBizAnalyst*

      I wouldn’t want to either. I understand Jack has a phobia but it seems like his attitude has been pretty lax along with that of the organization. He critically injured someone but that’s okay because he has a phobia? I don’t think so.

      I’d be wary of working any offsite meetings with him going forward.

      1. Trout 'Waver*

        Yeah. I would avoid Jack unless absolutely necessary to do my job. And I would be looking for a new job.

        I feel bad for Jack and his situation. But I’m not going to voluntarily put myself into that situation.

    5. Jessesgirl72*

      I think the OP and Alison both are underestimating the morale hit from this incident, and I have a feeling the OP is going to be losing more employees than just Liz. Possibly other critical ones.

      2. S-Mart*

        Especially if the other employees don’t know about the phobia, so it just looks to them like he ran & pushed her into a car. OP mentioned them telling Jane, but it’s unclear who else now knows about the phobia.

        There had better be an explanation and preventative plan for the rest of the employees in the near future (may be, it’s not commented either way in the letter).

    6. Roscoe*

      f it was explained to me like this, I’d be fine whit it. It seems like an isolated incident caused by a phobia. Now maybe I would be less likely to want to go offsite with them, but in an office, I’d have no problem.

    7. LBK*

      I mean, unless birds are prone to flying through the office, I really don’t think I’d be that concerned. I’d take some precautions if I were walking around outside with him, sure, but to fear that he might lunge across the conference table or something seems unwarranted.

  65. Ashley*

    I scrolled the last several comments, sorry if I am repeating.

    Were the police called? I would be interested to see where they would stand – because Jack might have been arrested.

    If I have a phobia to the point of hurting people, I would check myself in somewhere so it wouldn’t happen again. What happens if a bird lands on his windshield, he swerves into oncoming traffic? Instead he called her to say sorry, with HR. Is he even sorry?

    If I was severely injured because of someone’s phobia/mental illness I would be upset too, I don’t know how I would feel working with them. And the fact that everyone at my company is shrugging their shoulders and saying ‘sorry about your luck,’ I would be enraged! Especially because they need me to finish projects – seriously?!? Where is the compassion for the person who was injured at work through no fault of her own?

    I see a lawsuit coming.

  66. The RO-Cat*

    The 600+ comments were a fascinating read! That said, I’ve noticed some argumentation patterns that might be worth addressing from a position of kindness and compassion Alison requests from us.

    1. Jack and his “pushing a coworker”, said as though he somehow chose his actions: nope. “Phobia” isn’t “fear”; it isn’t “I – just – watched – a – horror – movie – and – now – I – jump – at – my – shadow” fear. It’s “bite the wolf’s nose off its face to keep it from eating you” fear. It’s “elephant stampede” – level fear. I’ve known people who broke their arm in similar condition WITHOUT REALISING IT. It’s THAT level of fear. Add the tunnel vision into the mix (you actually CAN’T see outside a small field right in front of you) and you can understand why he’s getting so much slack.

    2. Jack and mental illness – as – defense. Yes, Jack isn’t at fault for his phobia; he is, in return, responsible for the consequences of his (non-conscious) actions, at least in part. I can see all kinds of deserved consequences, from a civil lawsuit to… I don’t know what. Still, firing him would be managerial laziness – I presume he’s at least a decent employee (from the absence of any reference at his previous performance in the letter), so in principle worth retaining. Keeping him – with a plan in place and the necessary accommodations – is the compassionate route.

    3. Jack and his undisclosed history of mental illness: the letter does no specify any anterior instances of irrational behavior. Were they, I imagine OP would have mentioned them. So, it looks like Jack had a working coping strategy until this incident (plus, the letter specifies that Jack freaked out when the previously grounded bird suddenly took off – a situation much less common then simply seeing birds fly around. I, for one, can understand why the strategy failed in this instance).

    4. Jack and his “standing watching Liz get help”: such a panic attack doesn’t just evaporate like spilled nail polish remover. It leaves you drained, shaking from the post-adrenaline shock. Injuring a fellow human being adds another layer of shock to the mix. And unless Jack was a paramedic or had such knowledge, his not interfering seems like the best decision for Liz.

    5. Jack and his telephone with HR to Liz: nowhere does OP write Jack was forced, cajoled or pushed to apologize by HR. All we know is HR was present at the time of the conversation. It may have been for the best (and we know Liz’s reaction).

    6. Liz: she’s a victim of the situation (the main, but not the only, one). I think the company should put effort, a lot, into her getting well and finding a new job (that is, if she insists on Jack being fired, a position maybe obtuse, but understandable if not entirely logical). If – a big if – she accepts to return (and I believe that ship sailed), she is entitled to whatever changes needed for her to never see, interact or hear about Jack again (maybe a greater person can be quick to forgive Jack, but it’s a rare instance).

    On the other hand: she’s entitled to ask whatever she feels will keep her safe in the office, but she must accept some requests do not make business sense (or sense in the general… well… sense). Requesting she be safe from Jack? Perfectly OK. Requesting Jack be fired? Not really. I read her request as more “against Jack” than “towards Liz”, if I make myself clear.

    7. Liz and her reaction to the apology call: she’s understandably furious and seems to see Jack as “at fault” in the “he could have prevented that, but didn’t” regular workplace sense. Not rational, but not difficult to grasp. Maybe she could have accepted the apology with more grace, but who are we to judge her, scared for her life, probably in pain and under meds?

    8. What about the driver? Is there anything done to help that person overcome the shock?

    TL;DR
    To sum all up: OP, you’re dealing with the mother of unfortunate situations, a lose-lose-lose one. There’s no good outcome, only “less bad” ones. I’d keep Jack only if the company, himself and anyone else involved or helpful (various types of professionals, for example) can design and build a framework of measures that prevents such incidents from repeating in the future. I’d try to talk to Liz, to see if a mutually agreed solution can be found, without firing Jack, and – if not – I’d support her job search in whatever way the company can. And I’d very much look into the amount of her medical bills.

    1. Leah*

      I think the problem with Jack’s apology is the timing- it only happened when they were trying to get Liz to come back. That’s why people don’t think it was genuine. Maybe it was, but that’s why people here are reacting that way.

      1. The RO-Cat*

        Yeah, I thought about that, too. I decided to give Jack the benefit of the doubt – how easy is for a regular person to say “I’m sorry” in normal circumstances? With all the emotional charge this situation has, it’s understandable why he hesitated in the first place. He might also be a jerk hiding behind his MH problems, but that’s a road I won’t take without clear details from the OP.

        1. Jessesgirl72*

          There is also the problem of, if there is a potential civil suit, apologizing can be used as an admission of guilt. If Jack has a lawyer (and I’d have gotten one immediately!) the lawyer would have advised him not to talk to Liz or make any apologies. My MIL ran into this once with a patient who was trying to sue her for malpractice. She was legitimately sorry for what had happened to the woman (one of those “routine side effect” things that HAD been disclosed to her- and the statute of limitations ran out, on top of that, because she couldn’t get a lawyer to take the case in time) and wanted to say so, but her malpractice lawyer wouldn’t let her do it.

          1. The RO-Cat*

            TIL, thanks! I am not familiar with the US legal system, but if an apology might be construed as admission of guilt I can understand Jack’s hesitation from this POV, also.

          2. Observer*

            Actually, that’s not really the case.

            It used to be the practice that doctors NEVER apologized for any error, because it supposedly would make a doctor vulnerable to malpractice suits. It turns out, though, that the reverse is the case. Hospitals that have changed that policy get sued LESS often, settle out of court a higher percentage of the time and for lower amounts. And, in general an apology doesn’t seem to make matters any worse if the case does go to court.

            Beyond that, in this case the failure to admit guilt is more likely to work against Jack, if Liz does wind up suing. There is no dispute of the material facts – he shoved her and she wound up in the path of a parking car. Nothing he says or fails to say can change that. And, to be honest, he’s already admitted that. So what could he say in an apology that could make it worse? On the other hand a heartfelt “I’m sooooo sorry! I feel terrible!!!” keeps an opposition lawyer from painting him as a cold hearted SOB who just doesn’t give a flip and thinks his mental illness gives him a license to do whatever he wants.

            To be clear, I’m not saying that I think that’s an accurate description. But, you can be sure that any lawyer will head in that direction and the lack of apology makes it MUCH easier to do that. Which makes Liz a much more sympathetic plaintiff and Jack someone a jury is much more likely to dislike.

      2. Allie*

        Well and a couple things: how much of a pause was there between “I am sorry” and launching into explanations? Because the undermines the apology to the point of non-existence. Also, can you imagine how you would feel if that bird phobia gets dropped out of nowhere after days in the hospital? It would feel ridiculous.

        1. Roscoe*

          Dropped out of nowhere? I mean realistically, what do you expect, him to tell everyone he meets that? It was brought up because there was a reason to bring it up. When would be a better time in your mind?

          And giving a logical explanation for why something happened doesn’t undermine an apology. Its just saying I’m sincerely sorry this happened, and this is what caused it to happen. What is wrong with that? The amount of people who determine what a “real” apology is baffles me. You can be genuinely sorry and want to explain yourself as well

            1. Roscoe*

              Sure. But he is explaining, with medical documentation, that there WAS a reason. Its one thing to think someone did something out of malice. But then when they explain the reason, to not even want to listen seems a bit much. Now I’m not saying I don’t sympathize. But to characterize what he did as an attack as opposed to an adverse reaction to stimuli seems harsh

              1. Allie*

                Yes but also remember it came four days later. And I do think an apology isn’t an apology if it is immediately followed by excuses. Can you imagine thinking “really? I had surgery because you saw a bird.”

                1. Roscoe*

                  Well, its not her place to essentially determine what a valid phobia is. So while you or her may not find it valid, his doctor obviously does. I also think an excuse and an explanation are different. He seemed to be giving an explanation, not making an excuse.

                2. Leigh*

                  An explanation isn’t an excuse. Do you really think that if you had a phobia that severe and had this reaction, you would just say sorry and leave it as that? With no follow up or reasoning behind what happened? That makes no sense; of course he would explain why it happened.

                  I don’t know how I would react if I was Liz, but I like to think that after hearing the background and reasoning behind his reaction (no matter how much I couldn’t relate to it) I would be a little more empathetic and much less judgmental than your suggestion

                3. Allie*

                  I am asking you to put your self in the shoes of someone in pain and who just got out of the hospital after a terrible experience. If you really think in that circumstances you’do feel charitable to Jack and open to th at kind of explanation, I think you’re pretty darn unusual.

            2. Starbuck*

              Yeah, if I’d already spent days in the hospital in pain, gone through surgery, etc. my mind would be pretty well made up on how I felt about the person who caused my injury. What would any reasonable person assume in that situation? Not getting the context of the phobia until long after the accident (where someone pushed me, then ran away, and I don’t know why) and after staying in the hospital ruminating about it, the explanation of “bird phobia” would not put me in a better emotional state. I think the expectation that Liz should try to sympathize with someone who essentially attacked her, and with no consequences, is pretty unreasonable.

      3. Anon Anon*

        Agreed. And all I can think is if I was in that situation. I would be devastated that I had been the cause of that sort of harm, even though it was out of my control. Now, perhaps because the letter was short it didn’t communicate Jack’s level of distress, but to me that is what stuck out.

    2. Karo*

      This is all incredibly well-said and exactly what I was having trouble articulating myself.

    3. Mona Lisa*

      Completely agree with all of this. This is a level-headed response. There’s no great answer to this situation, and everyone is going to come out the loser.

      1. Starbuck*

        That doesn’t seem to be the case for Jack, though- the letter doesn’t describe any negative consequences for his behavior other than having to apologize. Other commenters have mentioned that it will probably affect his working relationship with other coworkers, but that’s not a result of action being taken by management. The opposite, in fact. If I were Liz, I’d find their lack of any action pretty infuriating.

  67. overcaffeinatedandqueer*

    I feel bad for the guy, but I don’t think LW can get Liz to come back.

    I’m also reading this and counting myself lucky that my one phobia is extremely gross, so I would be able to easily avoid them (it’s a bug, okay? I can’t even write out what it is comfortably with any more specificity).

    At the same time, I have a strange trigger. If I smell most alcohol-based antiseptics (rubbing alcohol is the worst, but I can tolerate alcoholic drink and scented/dilute amounts in hand sanitizer smells long enough to use them in a non-confined space), I feel panic and nausea, and immediately and strongly remember the negative association I have with them. I might conceivably shove someone, like for instance if I were getting medical care and had to hold still, and they were used.

    But I realize it’s my problem, and make it very clear to every medical person I see, not to use those antiseptics or even alcohol wipes with me. And I guess the difference is, I often don’t flee- I freeze. It honestly looks scary, like I’m having an absence seizure or something.

    But if I were to react with fight, or accidentally hurt someone as a result, I would still apologize as soon as I could, pay as much as I could of any bills, and take responsibility. Jack hasn’t done that. So it’s understandable why Liz can’t work with him, but it’s not really right to fire him for his actions due to his fear either.

  68. RVA Cat*

    I also wonder if everyone is dealing with this situation too quickly. Maybe it would help to offer both of them paid short-term disability leave, for Liz to fully recover and for Jack to treat his phobia? Think of what you would do if they had been injured in a car accident on the way back from the meeting, with Jack at fault as the driver (but not drunk or reckless) and Liz more seriously hurt.

    1. Whats In A Name*

      This is a really good comment and reply and can genuinely be helpful to OP; I hope they see it. I think this is an idea that could potentially work – or if Liz is too far gone could be good for future sensitive cases.

    3. Marillenbaum*

      That is a really reasonable suggestion–put them both on leave and give yourself time to figure it out–contacting Alison, checking with an employment lawyer/compliance/HR/general counsel.

    4. Falling Diphthong*

      I good suggestion, but the focus in the letter seems to be how to get Liz to come back so they avoid any delays or extra charges caused by her leaving.

  69. Forrest*

    You know, I’m kind of impressed. I feel like I come here often and while it’s certainly not everyone or even the majority, I see a lot of comments suggesting unknown mental health issues for why coworkers do or say things to OPs.

    Meanwhile, we have someone who has a long documented mental illness and I’m seeing it being dismissed as if it’s not legitimate. Again, not everyone and it certainly doesn’t mean mental illnesses entitle people to hurt others. And I understand and empathize with Liz.

    But I doubt Liz is commenting on this thread and it is possible to feel for both Liz and Jack in this situation.

    This kind of reaction is why I’m not forthcoming with being bipolar. You have an isolated incidence that can be easily worked around and Jack, unless he was hired yesterday, has proven he can manage it but had a backslide. And some backsliding is expected with mental illness.

    I’m just not seeing the whole “Jack is a danger to everyone and a ticking time bomb.” Let employees know to keep a distance from Jack outside. Done.

    1. Jessesgirl72*

      It isn’t being dismissed as not legitimate.

      It’s being said that it’s not an excuse that should get him out of consequences.

      The fact that all he had to do was say “Oopsie, sorry- caused by my mental illness” after someone was seriously injured is a problem. A major problem.

      When people besides Liz start quitting as a result, the OP is going to realize that.

      1. StopThatGoat*

        What sort of consequences should he receive for what largely amounts to an accident with zero malicious intent? Genuinely curious.

        1. Allie*

          In most workplaces, you can be written up or fired for an accident that injures someone else, intentional or no.

          1. Roscoe*

            Sure, and if he is written up, do you think there needs to be public shaming as well? I mean really, lets say they do write him up, but keep it confidential (which should be done). It sounds like people would still have a problem with it.

            1. Allie*

              Thing is, if there is literally no way for Jack to control whether he physically injures people, either from prevention or other steps, he’s dangerous. I don’t believe that is true. Don’t deny his agency here I taking preventative measures or disclosure you keep others safe.

      2. Roscoe*

        What consequences do you want though? I mean, do you think he should be fired? And if he is fired, should he not be able to get another job in the future because of his phobia? Where is your line exactly.

        I agree it was a very unfortunate, extreme incident. But it seems like its is an isolated incident that hasn’t happened before and likely won’t happen again.

      3. Forrest*

        One of the first comments is very dismissive, summing it up as Jack being “scared.”

        And you don’t know if he didn’t try to reach Liz – she was taken straight to the hospital. And he did in fact apologize – having HR present doesn’t mean he was forced to do so. All it means is HR was present.

        I’m sorry, if people are really quitting their jobs because of an isolated incidence that can be prevented from happening again, that’s on them, not the OP.

        1. Starbuck*

          Think of it from Liz’s perspective- sounds like she’d been in the hospital for days and underwent surgery before she’d gotten the apology/explanation. What do you suppose she was thinking in the meantime? I’d probably be speculating that either Jack had intentionally assaulted me, or that he was in some sort of life-or-death emergency to have caused such a serious accident and then run off. I’d likely already have made my mind up about never wanting to work with him again. To hear that this horrible thing had happened to me because of someone’s phobia… most people aren’t going to find that compelling unless they’ve had direct experience with phobias already.

          1. Falling Diphthong*

            It would probably take me a lot of time and a reduction in pain for a days-after-the-fact explanation “Jack has a bird phobia. He shoved you out of his way because a bird flew up, and he then stayed far away as you lay there sobbing because the bird landed near you” to generate an appropriate amount of sympathy for Jack.

            I’m not saying he deserves none. I’m saying that Liz is probably not the appropriate person from whom to demand it. On a schedule convenient to the company not having any project delays.

          2. Forrest*

            There appears to be some confusion that if you think Jack shouldn’t automatically be fired, you don’t care or understand Liz’s position.

            You can empathize with both.

    2. MuseumChick*

      To be very clear (and fair) I am of the opinion that there should be zero tolerance for one employee physically harming another. I used this example up thread, if Jack had a condition where he had hallucination and he physically attacked Liz during a episode causing similar injuries to what is in the letter (broken arm) he should be fired. Even though the damage done was outside his control. Once you physical harm a co-worker that crosses a big red line for me.

      Let’s say instead of Jack it was a co-worker without a mental illness and they joking/playfully pushed Liz causing her stumble and fall into traffic. They should be fired. They didn’t intend to hurt her but their actions still caused injury.

      1. Forrest*

        But he didn’t do either things.

        The fact that people have to make up scenarios that didn’t happen as oppose to addressing what did is disappointing.

        1. MuseumChick*

          We are using other situations to explain why we feel, in this case, firing might be appropriate. My examples were to show there are a lot of ways someone with no ill intent can harm a co-worker. When the physical harm happens the person who did it needs to be held accountable regardless of if they do or do not have a metal condition. It is, IMO, ALWAYS inappropriate to harm a co-work (unless in self defense).

          I’m curious (I’m worried this will come off as snarky and I really don’t intend it that way) if you would feel the same way if Jack did have hallucinations and while having an unexpected episode he broke Liz’s arm? Would you fire him? Or would you chalk it up to his mental condition and not do anything?

          1. Forrest*

            You have one person talking about “what if he used a kid as a human shield” and you’re talking about someone intentionally pushing someone into the street without the intention of them being hurt. This is not comparable to what happened because Jack neither used another person to protect himself nor did he intentionally shove Liz into the street. Using these examples as why Jack should be fired isn’t helping you because they’re not close to what happened.

            I never said Jack shouldn’t be fired. I said I would completely understand why the company would fire him. But the company investigated and ultimately decided that in this case he shouldn’t be fired. The OP isn’t asking if the company should fire Jack. I’m objecting to people acting like it’s an automatic solution to fire Jack because it’s not. I’m objecting to people acting like this is going to be a common occurrence because if he’s been there a while and goes off site and manages to not have a freak out over birds, then it’s perfectly logical for the company to keep him.

            I recalled the letter about someone putting scissors on another person’s chair. I looked it up and the word “fired” appears 26 times and a few of those are stories not related to the letter. I did the same with this letter and the word “fired” appears 164 times. Obviously not all those instances are from people saying Jack should be fired. But it’s interesting that the person who intentionally did something that unintentionally caused physical injury to someone got a lot less calls to be fired than the person who unintentionally did something that unintentionally caused physical injury.

            I don’t think your question is snarky. But I should first say that just because I don’t think Jack should be fired doesn’t mean I don’t think there should be consequences or the company should just shrugging their shoulders. There’s some room between nothing and firing you know.

            However, I still don’t think hallucinations are comparable to fight-or-flight responses. For one, any one of us is capable of a moment of panic. Jack is just aware of it and getting treatment. That said, since I never said that Jack shouldn’t be fired – just pointed out that firing him isn’t an automatic decision, especially if the company investigated and came to that decision. So asking me if I would fire someone who had a hallucination or do nothing isn’t a fair question because I’m not advocating the company do nothing. Would I fire said person? It would seriously depend on the person’s history at the company. Have they been there 10 years and this is the first time it happened? Are they taking steps to avoid it happening it again? Are they willing to agree to some requirements going forward to ensure it doesn’t happen again or the company will terminate?

            In my opinion, firing shouldn’t be the automatic go to. If this group of people can cheer on a guy who intentionally embezzled $20k and kept his job, I’m not sure why the tide seems to be going against Jack. It just feels either “people with mental health issues shouldn’t have jobs” or “my coworkers shouldn’t have mental health issues.” I’m sure there’s someone who would, and correctly so, say not everyone with a mental issue is violent. And I agree. And Jack’s one of those people.

            1. Temperance*

              The key difference between the guy who stole $20k and Jack is that the $20k man has been working really hard to make reparations AND he didn’t seriously injure another person. I think you’re seeing it as intentional vs. unintentional, but I am seeing it, and I’m sure others are, as victimless crime vs. seriously injuring and potentially disabling another person. The impact on Liz is what matters most.

              Okay, so Jack’s not violent, but I do think he is dangerous. There is a difference.

              1. Forrest*

                Are you saying there wasn’t a victim in the $20k embezzler situation? Because whether you call it embezzling or stealing, the company is still the victim. Just because in that case the company opted to not treat it like a crime doesn’t mean there wasn’t a victim. And I would argue that you can’t just steal $20k and not have some kind of negative impact on the company.

                “$20k man has been working really hard to make reparations”

                And you know Jack hasn’t….how?

                By this logic, anyone with a mental health illness or PTSD or brain injury is dangerous. I’m sincerely asking – how are these people supposed to make a living if all companies ban them because of the potential danger they bring?

                “But oh,” you said. “Jack did do something that hurt a person.” Yes and the company looked into it and decided that they felt comfortable moving forward with Jack as an employee.

                There are 1 strikes cases and there are cases where you need to analyze and think things over. The company did that as far as we know – so there’s really no point in telling the OP over and over again how dangerous Jack is. She’s the one in the position to know/decide if he is or not and the only one with the full story. They decided to keep him as an employee and aren’t willing to budge.

                Her question isn’t “should I fire Jack?” it’s “What can I do to get Liz back?” The answer is simple: “Fire Jack”. But she doesn’t want to. So there, problem solved.

                1. Temperance*

                  You really don’t see theft from a company as different from seriously injuring another human being?

                  Jack called Liz with HR to apologize. That, to me, isn’t reparations. He made no effort to make amends while she was suffering through surgery and an extended hospitalization. He only reached out with the company, which, to me, isn’t appropriate. I personally think he should have immediately gone out on FMLA leave to deal with his issues.

                  Jack is dangerous. He harmed another person when getting triggered. Birds are everywhere. He could easily do this again. We have evidence that he is dangerous.

                  I think it’s unfair that Liz has to deal with a potential lifetime disability and we’re letting Jack get off scot-free.

        2. Mike C.*

          Then why not actually talk to those people instead of talking about them elsewhere? This feels like the online version of talking about people while they’re standing in front of you.

          1. Forrest*

            If you search my name, you see me calling people on it. You even responded to me pointing it out to someone.

      2. Shiara*

        Out of curiosity, do you think there should be the same consequences for the driver?

        I was always taught to be extremely aware of people on the curb near the space I was pulling into, because stuff happens, and people do things suddenly.

        I see a lot of people talking about Jack shoving Liz into “traffic”, when what happened according to the letter is that he pushed her, she fell off the curb and a “car that was parking” hit her. That car had a driver. That, to me, suggests that there’s more than one person who was, at best, negligent.

        It’s largely irrelevant to the OP’s question, maybe, and perhaps there just isn’t enough in the letter to go on, but laying the blame entirely on Jack when other people directly contributed to Liz’s injury in a situation where they really should have been paying attention makes me uneasy.

        1. TL -*

          Cars can’t stop on a dime, as much as we want them to. If he shoved her with enough force, she probably landed before the car could stop. Even if the driver had her foot on the brake while parking, a 2000 lb + vehicle is likely to cause damage at any speed.

        2. Temperance*

          I work in a major city, and the street next to my building is fairly busy. It wouldn’t be reasonable to expect a driver to be able to stop immediatley if someone was shoved off the sidewalk.

      3. BananaPants*

        There are people who have been fired because of documented PTSD causing them to punch or hit coworkers. It’s unfortunate for everyone involved, but I agree – physically harming a coworker because of one’s actions (voluntary or involuntary) crosses a line.

    3. NoMoreMrFixit*

      Having lived with mental health conditions most of my life I believe my right to accommodation ends when the safety of others is violated or a reasonable risk exists. I understand Jack responded poorly due to health issues. BTDT. But it is not an excuse for the results of his actions. It’s merely an explanation of why but does not grant immunity from the consequences of those actions. Somebody got injured. And whether intentional or not, it was still his fault.

      At this stage all parties involved should obtain legal counsel. The OP has the additional issue that Jack is now a potential morale problem/liability as others have already pointed out.

      1. MuseumChick*

        Thank you for this comment. I think this gets at the core of the issue for those who are, for lack of a better phrase, siding with Liz. Once you cross the line of physically injuring someone it’s a whole new ball game.

      2. Forrest*

        I never said it wasn’t his fault and I never said there shouldn’t be consequences and I certainly never said nor implied that people should be able to say “opps, mental health issue, my bad.”

        There weren’t in accommodations in place. Maybe there should have been but that’s on Jack to ask for. So it doesn’t appear that either Jack nor the OP are expecting pushing Liz to fall under an accommodation. I certainly don’t think that.

        I disagree that there is such a reasonable risk that exists that Jack should be fired no questions asked. There is no management plan that is 100%. In many cases, hiring someone with a mental illness involves a risk. But that’s the same with every hire. I would have hope that in their decision to keep Jack on, they looked at the whole picture – how long he’s worked there, is this the first time it happened, what reasonable accommodations can be put in place to prevent it from happening again.

    4. Mike C.*

      Come on now, you can’t just make a blanket statement like that. A whole bunch of us are writing comments with nuance and it’s insulting to see something like this posted outside of those comments.

    5. Temperance*

      That’s really minimizing the very serious injury that Liz has suffered here. She is going to have a lifelong impact from this.

      You can advocate for mental health while also admitting the truth of the situation.

      1. Forrest*

        I minimized Liz by saying I empathized and understand where she’s coming from and by saying you can feel for both Liz and Jack?

        I don’t see anywhere I tried to downplay what Jack did. But I’m not ready to assume what it’ll be like going forward with Jack. I don’t think that an isolated incident means Jack should be fired and clearly the company doesn’t either. They should have a plan on how to prevent this. But they should also expect that accidents happen because people are human. With Jack, they now know what accidents may happen and work on preventing them from happening again.

        It’s awful that Liz had to be hurt to learn this lesson – really pointless in fact, because people aren’t here as teaching tools. But you can empathize with Liz and Jack at the same time – it’s not an either or here.

  70. MT*

    What would the world look like if companies would fire anyone who may have a known health issue that may cause other people harm? What if someone has nervous ticks, or seizures and during an episode spills coffee on someone. Or someone with a known heart condition, has a heart attack and falls into someone. Anyone with any known health condition is now a liability and would have to be fired.

    Most of the comments here that want him to be fired, are due to future risks, not the one episode/accident.

    1. Ashley*

      There is a difference between may cause harm and did. Anyone could hurt anyone – but the problem is when someone is actually hurt through that employees direct actions.

    2. TL -*

      Oh, I’m in the fire him camp because of this one incident. If not fired, then pretty strong consequences, including paid or unpaid leave as the company sees fit.
      I understand that he couldn’t help it, but as we clearly see here, even accidental actions have consequences. It’s just that Liz is suffering all the consequences for Jack’s actions.

      1. Serafina*

        Agree. Negligence doesn’t require intent. Negligence warrants discipline, and yes, he was negligent. Phobia doesn’t excuse him for pushing a person anymore than it would have excused him for swerving a car into another car. The fact that it only happened “this once” doesn’t undo the injuries that resulted. *Maybe* firing isn’t warranted, but Liz isn’t evil for making his firing a condition of her returning to that workplace – and if the OP has failed to discipline Jack in any way for his negligence, that is very irresponsible of the employer. I absolutely agree that a major phobia is a disability, but a disability is not a “get-out-of-consequences-free” card. If Jack had been behind the wheel of a delivery truck and swerved into another vehicle when a bird flew over low, he would absolutely be liable for negligent driving and possibly criminal. You have a duty to maintain control of your vehicle when driving, even in the face of a disability, because a vehicle accident can hurt someone no matter how unintentional. You have a duty not to push people when walking down the street – because breaching that duty can (and did) hurt someone no matter how unintentional.

    3. Temperance*

      I’m on team “Fire Jack”, but because of this incident, as well as his prior dangerous acts.

      The analogy here is pretty flawed, too. You’re listing potential health conditions that have a remote possibility of injuring another with a person who has injured another person, quite seriously. We already know that Jack might hurt a colleague because Jack has hurt a colleague.

      1. MT*

        The point was, lots of posters want to fire Jack due to the possibility of him hurting someone in the future, not for the first incident.

  71. World's Bravest Bird*

    To me, Jack’s claim that he didn’t help Liz in the aftermath of the incident because the bird was still hanging around doesn’t ring true. Presumably bystanders and the driver came out to help her, an ambulance arrived, EMTs came out, and this bird was still hanging out so close to her that he couldn’t help. I don’t know why the OP, HR, Liz, or anyone else, would believe that.

  72. StopThatGoat*

    My first roommate out of high school had a bird phobia. I didn’t take it seriously and she nearly caused a major accident when a flock was flying shockingly low and she was driving. In that moment, she was reacting from a deep instinct of ‘fight or flight’. I drove from that point forward but I can easily see how he could have pushed her out of the way without realizing where he was pushing her.

    It sucks that Liz is going through this and she should definitely be given time to heal but her reaction seems rather intense to an accident with zero malicious intent. She quit without notice. She’s not coming back. Let her go.

    1. blackcat*

      Well, her reaction likely isn’t related to his intent. It’s related to the severity of her injuries. My guess is if she just scraped her elbow and got a bit dirty, she’d have a very different response. And that’s not exactly fair to Jack, but it’s very human.

  73. DiscoTechie*

    Oh Boy, this one hits a bit close to home for me…1) Extreme fear of birds (I wouldn’t call it a phobia, because I don’t immediately shut down to nonfunctional levels but interactions with birds cause great distress)
    2) I’ve been having some new phobia triggers show up randomly in my life, like claustrophobia complete with panic attacks. Which I didn’t know was a panic attack till I was standing in a crowd at a concert; for context I’m rather short 5’3″ and was closely surrounded by very tall people. Had a bout of anxiety that kept me up for a long time the other night after watching a movie that was pretty much set completely in a capsized sail boat hull. 3) A good heaping helping of lifelong anxiety and depression that I’ve been in treatment for since college.

    With that preface, I have been attacked by birds (a mama turkey protecting her pullets – yes I had to look up what baby turkeys are called) while on the job reviewing a construction site. Thankfully I was able to run away to cry and hyperventilate in my truck by myself. I wouldn’t have thought that I would need to disclose a fear of birds in my current job as 80 percent of my life is spent at a desk blissfully bird free. With the changing reaction to triggers that I didn’t really know what they’re going to be, I couldn’t say what my reaction would have been like in the above situation. This one is tough for me; I completely side with Liz in the expectation that physical safety is a basic requirement of a workplace but completely empathize with Jack and his mental issues. Eeesh.

    1. Trout 'Waver*

      Young turkeys are poults. A pullet is a young hen that hasn’t started to lay yet.

      1. DiscoTechie*

        Ahh, I looked it up shortly after the aforementioned incident which was a couple of years ago. Given my fear of all things bird related, my research/general knowledge is limited. Thanks for the correction.

        1. Trout 'Waver*

          Sorry to hear about your phobia, though. I’m a poultry enthusiast, but I know they can be scary some times.

  74. Whats In A Name*

    I only read about 1/2 the comments so this probably was mentioned BUT…

    I seem to be fairly along in the thought that you have to choose a side. I feel awful for every one involved in this situation – Liz for the trauma and potential long-term consequences and Jack for the same – he has to live the rest of his life knowing that in his panic he caused severe harm to someone that will likely affect them for the rest of their life and that they left their job & refused to come back because of him.

    I feel bad for HR and the OP, who have to figure out a way to navigate what is a very tricky situation.
    But I do think if they allow Liz to dictate the terms of his firing they are opening a door they might not be able to close.

    The OP asked for advice on how to get Liz to come back and I just don’t think there is a way. And if Liz is feeling unsupported in this situation she may end up feeling unsupported in other areas, which would lead to her leaving again. I hate that you are losing a good employee but I do think Alison is right that you’ll have to treat this as the cost of doing business and figure out a way to complete her projects as if she had left under any other circumstance.

  75. Lablizard*

    OP, if you are still reading (and after 700+ comments you might not be), I think you need to forget about Liz coming back and assign her projects to someone else. This whole situation is unfortunate and no one is at fault, but it is on you to pick up the pieces.

    Perhaps if you come at it from a point of understanding why she is upset and you assign the work to someone who isn’t Jack, she might be willing to answer questions about the work despite her resignation. And tell her that you will give her a good recommendation. It was an abrupt resignation, but given the circumstances, it is understandable.

    As for Jack, now that you know about his condition, work with him to come up with a plan that accommodates his needs and still meets your business necessities. He managed his condition at work up until now, so it is doable.

    And most of all, good luck!

  76. Lynne879*

    This letter reminds me a lot of the infamous Norovirus letter a few months back, in terms of rage from both the employees in the letter and the readers.

    Here’s what I ask for the people who think Liz is crazy: what if you were the one pushed into a moving vehicle? What if you were the one who was shoved by into a moving vehicle by a coworker (even if it was accidental), suffered broken bones and had to go the hospital, and then later find out that your employer doesn’t plan on reprimanding the coworker that did this to you. Wouldn’t you be livid just as Liz was? Wouldn’t you also think that citing this coworker’s phobia for not punishing him is just an excuse? Wouldn’t you also think that a coworker should be fired for causing you bodily harm? If you were in that position, do you think you would react calmly if your employer told you “Oh we can’t fire your coworker for hurting you because he has a mental disorder?”

    That’s why I don’t understand some people here think Liz is crazy for acting the way she is. It’s NORMAL for someone to be angry when someone causes them bodily harm, yet they get no repercussions for it, mental disorder or no. Why are people saying Jack needs compassion when LIZ was the one who got physically hurt in this situation? Having a mental disorder doesn’t mean you can get away with physically hurting someone, even if if was by accident.

    All of that said: I agree with most of what The RO-Cat above. OP, if you decide that Jack doesn’t get fired then you should at the very least make precautions to make sure an incident like this doesn’t happen again.

    1. Roscoe*

      I don’t think Liz is crazy. I also don’t think her demands are valid. As I said before, I think demanding to never work with him again would be valid. I don’t think demanding him be fired is.

      1. Lizzle*

        She is demanding never to work with him again. She quit (aka, won’t be working with Jack). They asked what it would take to get her back and she stated that it would be for him to be fired. She didn’t “demand” he be fired. She left, they asked, she told them.

        1. Roscoe*

          But it still seems more about punishing him than making her comfortable. If she said “I’ll come back if I never have to work with him again” I think that would be different than saying “I’ll only come back if he is fired” One is about her feelings, the other is about him.

          1. Lynne879*

            Like I said, why is it wrong for Liz to feel that Jack should be punished? He PUSHED HER INTO A MOVING VEHICLE which caused her to GO TO THE HOSPITAL. Why is it wrong for a person to feel that someone should be punished for causing them physical harm?

            1. Roscoe*

              To me it’s about her dictating the terms of the punishment. While this is an unfortunate and extreme situation, I don’t think its ever appropriate for an employee to dictate what another’s employee’s punishment is. Hell, even is she said, I don’t want to work with him, and I want to know there is a plan in place so this never happens to someone else I’d be ok. But when you start trying to dictate how a company should punish someone, it crosses a line to me.

              1. Temperance*

                But in this case, the other employee injured her. She’s not a removed party from the situation.

          2. Starbuck*

            Really, I think it’s just two different ways of saying the same thing. She won’t work with him. The manager could have responded with ‘we won’t fire him, but could look into a transfer instead.’ They didn’t though, as far as we know. Perhaps it’s not possible where they work, and Liz knows this, so she didn’t bother entertaining that as a possibility.

  77. JoJo*

    If I were Liz I’d file assault charges and sue Jack and the company. She was severely injured and could have been killed. I fail to see how Liz is the bad guy.

  78. Here we go again*

    The more I read and think about this, the more I am on Liz’s side. I understand that Jack has a phobia and that was why he couldn’t help her in the moment. But he *called* her with an apology?! He didn’t go to the hospital to visit her, check in on her, make sure he was okay apologize and ask what he could do to help her? Having a phobia may be an excuse for his behavior in the moment, but it is not an excuse for being a jerk afterwards.

    As far as her medical bills go, I am assuming workers’ compensation insurance is covering most (or all) of it so this shouldn’t lead to a financial issue for Jack unless Liz decides to sue. I think if he had come visited her to apologize, suing would be over the top, but given his nonchalance, I say she should try to get every dime out of him and this company.

    I am also quite peeved at the OP for being more concerned about finishing up these projects without Liz instead of figuring out a way to mitigate the situation and find out how she can best help Liz moving forward. Liz is understandably traumatized and wants nothing to do with this person. If they want to keep Jack on board, that is the company’s prerogative, but they have a moral obligation to help Liz find new employment.

    1. Allypopx*

      I think if this happened in my organization HR would instruct Jack not to contact Liz until internal stuff is figured out. Especially if Jack is wigging (and he probably is) the message to him would be, calm down, don’t panic, don’t react until we give you instructions – and being out of his depth, Jack would probably abide by that whether it would be more empathetic to reach out personally or not.

      Perfect solution? No. But a cautious approach to a sensitive situation. That might be what’s happening here.

      1. Here we go again*

        If that is the case, then this HR department sucks. Having him call her to apologize over something this severe is crap. This absolutely warrants an in-person visit.

        1. Kristine*

          TBH, if I were Liz, I wouldn’t want an in-person visit from Jack. A short apology over the phone would be the most I could handle. I’d feel extremely uncomfortable and possibly a little violated if Jack showed up in my hospital room.

          1. Engineer Woman*

            So Jack can’t win. I agree with Kristine here that I wouldn’t want an in-person visit from Jack, but you can see how half of this message board is saying “but Jack didn’t apologize CORRECTLY!” whereas if he had visited in person to show support, etc, the other half (or same half) of the boards would be screaming: “What? why would he do that?”.

            Bottom line: Lose-lose-lost situation as someone else rightly stated. OP’s question was “What should I do?” read a little like “What can I do to get Liz back?”but maybe not. I wouldn’t push too hard to get Liz to come back. If she’s up for it, you could talk to her to see what accommodations she could accept to return to work, despite Jack still being employed. i.e. transfer to another department, work out a safety plan with Jack. But I would move forward with expectation that Liz will not return. And to offer her a reference based on her past performance as if this whole dramatic end to the working relationship never occurred.

            I do hope that Liz isn’t out of pocket on her medical expenses. Jack should pay.

        2. Managed Chaos*

          The times I’ve been hospitalized, I didn’t want visitors from anyone I was not close to. You aren’t clothed, you have doctors and nurses coming in and out, and you’re seen in a very vulnerable position. I realize comfort levels vary from person to person, but I would not want a work colleague visiting me in that state. Especially if he was the one who led to the incident, on purpose or not.

          2. anon for personal history*

            +1

            Heck, last time I was hospitalized, it was a pain in the neck when my *mom* came to visit.

          3. Tau*

            +1. I’m honestly surprised that people are so emphatic on what Jack should have done afterwards and that the way he acted was 100% rude and wrong. It doesn’t seem nearly as clear-cut to me; not forcing her to deal with him face-to-face and waiting until she was out of hospital to make contact struck me as more tactful than anything else when I first read this.

            And agreed that when I was in hospital I would NOT have wanted colleagues around.

  79. Anon Anon*

    What confuses me the most about this situation is why the OP’s organization wasn’t trying to find another place for Liz at the organization where she didn’t have to work with Jack. If Liz felt that she couldn’t be in the same room with Jack (which is completely understandable given the circumstances) tot he point where she felt that she had no choice but to quit why didn’t the organization see if they could offer alternatives for her? Is the organization just too small for that?

    All I can think is that if I was Liz I would be incredibly bitter in this situation. Not only is she the victim in this situation, but she probably also feels like she is the one being punished because she loses her job while he gets to keep his.

    2. Lablizard*

      Agreed. I think it might have been best to talk to Liz before she came back and ask her if she was still going to be comfortable working with Jack after all this and if she said no, then accommodate her if possible. From her perspective, she gets injured and everyone expected everything to stay the same. If I am reading the letter correctly, she didn’t get an apology until after she quit, which probably feels like an afterthought

    3. Evan Þ*

      … or better yet, find another place for Jack. Liz should not have been the one who had to change jobs over this.

  80. Delta Delta*

    I didn’t read all the comments but a few things occur to me:

    1. Liz’s injuries are very likely covered as a workers’ comp claim. She got hurt at work, she’s entitled to compensation, and there’s likely no way any comp carrier is going to deny this claim given its severity and weirdness. The comp carrier will duke it out with the driver’s insurance carrier for any coverage issues, although it seems like the driver really isn’t at fault. (I am really a lawyer, so I feel like I can say this with a little bit of confidence)

    2. That said, the company should check with their lawyer (insurance carriers provide lawyers for comp claims, and they could also check independently with an employment lawyer about this) to figure out if any sort of severance package is permissible or advisable.

    3. Taking a larger view, what is this going to do to morale in the workplace? People at the company are likely friendly with both Liz and Jack, either together or individually. They’re likely to take differing views on this, and the workplace could end up losing more employees as a result. I can see where some people might find the handling of this distasteful for whatever reason and could start looking for employment elsewhere. This entire incident could have disastrous results for the whole company.

  81. Roscoe*

    I’ve also noticed people really piling on Jack for his apology. Look, we don’t know WHAT happened with him in the aftermath. I can easily see HR or a lawyer saying “Under no circumstances should you go visit her or call her without someone else present”. And honestly, that makes sense. I had a union job once and I made a mistake. The first thing my union rep said was “don’t admit you made a mistake, and don’t talk to the discipline board without a rep present”. Jack probably feels bad, but he still needs to cover his ass on this too.

    1. DArcy*

      The way the OP described the situation makes it sound like Jack’s apology wasn’t made until after Liz had already quit, and came as part of the company’s efforts to convince Liz that she was “overreacting”. Under those circumstances, it’s easy to see understand why Liz would see the apology as insincere.

  82. HannahS*

    What a nightmare of a situation. I think the main question at play is what happens (and I’m talking legally) when someone’s health condition causes serious physical harm to someone else? It’s the whole toe-stepping thing; your right to _____ ends where my right to _______ begins. If I were Liz, I would feel that my right to bodily safety trumps any person’s right to have a job. So I don’t blame her for her fury, and I think she’s entitled to having her medical bills paid for and an excellent reference. People up-thread have discussed whether or not Jack was being negligent–I actually think that’s massively important. The question of was this a freak accident (tragic, but no consequences are due for Jack) vs. something that could have been avoided is what should decide the outcome. OP, you should definitely talk to a lawyer. One, to figure out what should happen with Jack and the ADA–whether that’s firing him, or changing things going forward to protect your other employees. Two, to figure out what your company owes Liz. She’s looking down the barrel of a long recovery followed by potentially a lifetime of pain, potential disability, and disfigurement, plus is out of a job (likely due to trauma). I feel so awful for Liz, and sorry for Jack, too.

  83. Mari*

    This won’t sound very sympathetic, but I would interpret the company’s response as an indicator of the value that they place on Jack in contrast to his colleagues. If I worked at this company and saw how this was handled, based on what has been described here, I would leave. Honestly, I would be surprised if he isn’t a pariah at work right now. Even as a third party, I do not think I would feel safe or comfortable working with him after this.

    2. Starbuck*

      This would be my reaction too. Especially if the cause of the accident (Jack’s phobia) wasn’t widely known- and I’m assuming there wouldn’t be any staff-wide announcement to that effect. If all I knew was that Jack had pushed Liz towards a moving car, severely injuring her, and that she’d quit without any apparent consequences to Jack…. yikes. I wouldn’t feel safe.

  84. Recruit-o-rama*

    I think a lot of people are mischaracterizing Liz’s conditions to return to work as “demanding that he be fired”

    She isn’t demanding anything. She didn’t ask for her job back, she quit. She reasonably doesn’t want to work with Jack so she left her employer, she didn’t ask them to do anything.

    They ASKED her to come back and she told them what her conditions would be. She didn’t demand anything.

    She is entitled to her anger, she is entitled to accept or not accept his apology or reasons. They are entitled to ask her back. She is entitled to have conditions to return and they are entitled to accept or not accept those conditions, but she has demanded nothing.

    1. designbot*

      Exactly! It seems like the LW is still viewing her as his employee (and still calls her such), responsible to the company. But at this point she’s severed ties, and any demands are really conditions upon which she will or will not do as he requests. He’s the one making demands by expecting her to come back.

    2. Falling Diphthong*

      Very good points. I can see anyone quitting in a normal manner, and when the company discovers “ooh this is going to hit the Culpepper project–tell them they need to come back for a few months” declining to unquit. Because they don’t want to work with someone who harasses them, or always misses deadlines, or just grates on them for no logical reason. Or who shoved them into traffic. And might do so again.

  85. GarlicMicrowaver*

    This truly sucks for both parties. However, I echo Allison. You can’t force an employee to come back after resigning. Nor can you fire someone for a documented illness. On the other hand, there are so many gray areas. All points aside, the pushing is not acceptable. Again, it depends how you look at it. If resigning employee refuses to come back because she feels threatened, then the company should be required to separate the two or change work assignments. Both should be accommodated in some way. I don’t think it’s fair that the doctor’s note should excuse physical contact.

    Sort of beside the point, but phobias are real. They’re ridiculous by nature, hence the definition: “irrational fear.” I have a phobia of moths. I dread summer, outside lights and anything that attracts those evil, winged things. Something happened in childhood that triggered this fear. I have been in therapy as well. I’ve gotten to the point where I can walk past a moth, but I still cannot be in the same room as one and I refuse to go to sleep until any moth in the house is killed.

    1. Observer*

      Nor can you fire someone for a documented illness.

      That’s actually not true. I’m not saying that they need to fire him, but it’s pretty clear that they actually could.

      It’s interesting to me that HR doesn’t want to fire him, but apparently hasn’t even asked a lawyer about this.

  86. Britt*

    I haven’t read all the comments because there are so many, but putting all the commentary aside about Liz, I would honestly be figuring out some kind of severence package for Jack. Regardless of the ADA and his phobia, there is now a situation at work where gossip is going to run rampant and everyone will be looking at Jack as The Coworker Scared of Birds and Pushed Liz into Oncoming Traffic. I fear his reputation will be too damaged for him to continue working there regardless of the steps the company takes. It might not be “fair” but this is so outside the scope of normal office issues that I don’t see how he would be able to recover from this and function in a professional manner there.

  87. Not Karen*

    Wow, these comments are disgusting. How someone instinctively reacts to a phobia is not under their control. Yes, this sucks for Liz. It sucks for everyone. There doesn’t have to be someone to blame. It’s called an accident. Jack probably is staying away because is mortified and it’s a preservation mechanism for his mental health to remove himself from the situation as much as possible else the guilt would be too much to handle. This doesn’t mean he is cold and heartless. You have no idea how is feeling.

    P.S. If I got fired due to my phobia, I’d be calling a lawyer.

    1. Kinsley M.*

      He wouldn’t be getting fired for his phobia, he’d be getting fired for pushing a co-worker into oncoming traffic.

      1. Managed Chaos*

        “pushing a co-worker into oncoming traffic” =/= “pushing co-worker out of the way, causing her to stumble in a parking lot.”
        Both are bad, but one reeks of hyperbole compared to what we know of the situation.

        1. TL -*

          He would be fired for sending a coworker to a hospital for emergency surgery, not for being irrationally afraid of birds.

        2. Observer*

          Please, this is a distinction without a difference. It’s nothing but excuse seeking.

          He pushed her in front of a car. He didn’t mean to, but that’s what he did. Perhaps if the company started from that place, things would have turned out better. Even without firing her, there are a lot of things that can and should have been done differently. And, I think there is a real possibility that some of the might actually have been done if the OP and their chain of command recognized it. On the other hand, considering that the OP’s only concern seems to be the deadlines that Liz won’t be making, it could be not.

          By the way, I don’t think that the HR is actually being compassionate to Jack. It sounds to me like they are covering their rears.

          1. LBK*

            Oh c’mon, there’s absolutely a distinction. Intention may not be magic but it does matter – I mean, if he had purposely pushed into traffic with the intention of hurting her, I seriously doubt people would be saying “Well, it’s not really any worse than if he’d done it by accident.”

            1. DArcy*

              Yes, intention is the distinction between <attempted murder and simple assault and battery. He’s still guilty of the latter, under the circumstances described by the OP.

        3. Temperance*

          We actually don’t know that it was merely stumbling in a parking lot. We know that she was on the sidewalk, he shoved her, and she went into the path of a moving car.

    2. a*

      What about Liz’s mental health, though? I am sympathetic to Jack, but Liz went through bodily injury and trauma and I don’t think it’s very kind or compassionate to her mental health to dismiss that as “sucks for her.” That’s not to say all of her demands should be met, but she deserves as much respect and compassion as Jack does.

      1. Gadfly*

        It isn’t unreasonable for a person to be unreasonable at a time/place/circumstance that it is unreasonable to expect them to be reasonable. She doesn’t magically feel better because he didn’t mean it–if anything it adds to the trauma (irrational and random/freak things are more traumatizing.) Wanting his head on a platter, even if there is no way it will happen, is about as reasonable as it gets in this circumstance. Unless you are demanding Liz be a saint.

        1. Artemesia*

          This. I got a callous vibe from both the letter and the response. There was no sense that ‘we explored several approaches to making sure Liz didn’t have to work with Jack and could feel safe at work.’ It was all poor poor Jack and how Liz is inconveniencing us with her ridiculous fear of being around Jack. Surely more consideration should have been shown the person so seriously injured than the person who did the deed, even if they don’t want to or can’t fire him. It reminds me of the friend of ours who had a small child who projectile vomited upon suddenly being awakened. He dozed off in a movie and when they picked him up he massively vomited all over the stranger sitting in front of them. Her take was ‘I don’t know who felt worse about it.’ I think I know. I feel worse about Liz than Jack’s feelings of guilt or whatever; she is the one who has to live with the damage for the rest of her life and the one who apparently is considered a nuisance and whose needs don’t need consideration. So you can’t fire him? Maybe not. But surely a more aggressive attempt to create a safe space for Liz is required.

    3. Speechless*

      I’m given to understand as his workplace didn’t know about his mental health issue until after this happened he can’t then fall back on it to protect him from the gross misconduct of pushing a colleague out into traffic. If he’d disclosed and they decided together he didn’t need any accommodations than I’m assuming he’d be covered.

      Mental illness is a real thing and I have every sympathy for those dealing with it. But mentally ill people kill other people and they don’t get to go ‘oh it was my mental illness – here’s some proof I’m in therapy’ and get away with it. I know that’s an extreme situation in comparison but it’s still true. So really no, Jack doesn’t get to say ‘sorry I maimed and permanently disfigured my coworker but oh, I have mental illness and here’s a letter from my therapist.’ That doesn’t fly. You harm another person, no matter what your reason, you are responsible and his feelings really don’t matter. Liz is disfigured. Liz had to be hospitalized, have major surgery, will have months of recovery and maybe PT, may never get her full normal function of her arm back, may end up with PTSD. Liz felt she couldn’t come back to work as her company was only concerned what liability they might have to Jack due to his disablity he didn’t tell them about and thus seemed more concerned about getting her back at her desk to make deadlines than making her feel safe there now that this happened.

      His mental health really doesn’t get to be the most important factor in this situation as it applies to Liz. He has a bird phobia that we know of. Thus his phobia of birds shouldn’t directly stop him apologizing to the person he wronged ASAP and sincerely off his own back. I’m mortified when I make a mistake at work. Because of my anxiety I find it really hard to admit I’ve done something wrong and minor errors seem much worse than they are to me. But I have to gather myself and go tell my manager.

    4. BananaPants*

      I’m hoping Jack has retained legal counsel regardless, because if I was Liz, I’d be suing him in a heartbeat.

  88. Ryan*

    Oh my goodness. I totally sympathize with mental health issues, but this should not be about Liz’s “demand.” I cannot believe that no one has pointed out that *Jack should volunteer to move on within a set period of time.* The fact that he isn’t, knowing that Liz is quitting her job otherwise, speaks volumes. Certainly I see the HR issues with a firing (I guess? Although I’d probably fire him) — but someone should be able to get through to him that he should be the bigger person and move on.

    1. Britt*

      I have to say I agree with this. I’m trying to put myself in Jack’s shoes and I feel that I would be so racked with guilt that I wouldn’t see another option but to resign. Liz didn’t ask for this and shouldn’t have to leave her job because of it. Nor should she be forced to work with the person who caused what happened to her.

    2. Ryan*

      Also, a lot of people are characterizing this as “you shouldn’t fire someone over a legitimate phobia.” I completely agree. In this case, Jack would not be getting fired for his phobia, but for causing a coworker to break her arm and then not help her(!!!!!!!!!!!!!!). I mean, seriously, take this to its logical conclusion — what if he knocked her out of a 2nd story window? He can just bring in a doctor’s note after the fact? This is not about belittling anyone’s mental illness, and implying it is does a *tremendous* disservice to those who need reasonable accommodations for their issues.

      1. AndersonDarling*

        There is a lot of focus on the not helping/apologizing, but we could be at the same place even if there was help and an apology. Liz could still be furious and demanding that Jack be fired. In my mind, the phobia doesn’t even play a part in my consideration. Jack could have been a regular employee who was spooked by something, ran away, and the accident occurred.
        There was an accident, Jack didn’t help or apologize because of fear or social immaturity, Liz was severely injured and does not want to work with Jack. Liz decided to quit. As awful as the situation is, it seems to be resolved…until the lawsuit is filed.

      2. Amy*

        I don’t think it’s actually a problem that he didn’t immediately leap in to help her. One of the worst things about panic reactions is that they aren’t an instant-reaction-and-then-done thing; lots of people experience dizziness from blood rushing around due to extreme elevated heart rate, faintness, hyperventilation, etc., and those can go on for a good chunk of time after the original trigger (20+ minutes is pretty common).

        Somebody called an ambulance, so presumably there were other witnesses who were taking steps to help Liz. She wasn’t in additional danger anymore–this was a parking spot where the car had already hit her and presumably stopped, not the middle of the road where someone would need to stop traffic to prevent additional harm. And it’s pretty likely that Jack was in no shape to assist, for that first 20 minutes or so. Based on that, I’m thinking that his instinct to stay back was probably good–he’d likely have been in the way of people who could actually assist if he’d tried to get involved.

        1. Artemesia*

          I agree that it is not the follow up but the act that is the problem here. There were others helping Liz.

      3. EleanoraUK*

        This seems a little harsh, he was likely in no state to help anyone off the back of the kind of panic that made him run away and shove a coworker in the process. I don’t think you just snap out of that 30 second later.

        1. Speechless*

          He snapped out of it enough to stand there watching until the ambulance arrived and then go into the building. He’s not still running down the street somewhere unable to control himself.

          1. EleanoraUK*

            There’s a long way between running down the street and being any use in a crisis, when you’re coming down from extreme panic caused by phobia. I don’t think it’s fair to expect him to be any use to anyone that quickly after.

            You can read this two ways, and neither of us knows what was going on in his mind, but people aren’t generally evil and the OP has mentioned no track record of Jack being a callous and horrible person, so I’d be inclined to give someone coming off the back of a severe anxiety attack the benefit of the doubt on how to respond to a crisis.

            People not suffering from phobias freak out in a crisis and act completely uselessly. You’re setting the bar very high for Jack, considering the very reason any of this happened was his blind panic.

      4. MJH*

        I don’t understand why everyone has missed in the didn’t help her discussion that he didn’t help because the BIRD WAS RIGHT NEAR HER. Going near her would re-trigger him and make the situation worse again! An injured person doesn’t need the person who originally injured them freaking out right next to them.

        1. Gadfly*

          It appears to have been an unusually bold bird…

          Anyway, there are lots of better options, he could have done a things differently and better, etc even without going to her. But some people are just no good in a crisis even when not dealing with the after effects of a panic-run.

    3. Here we go again*

      I like this approach a lot. If I was another coworker in this office, I would avoid Jack at all costs. Not because of his phobia or that he accidentally pushed someone into a car, but because he has handled it like crap.

  89. Kinsley M.*

    I think my biggest issue with this is that every action Jack has made has been completely about him. Everything has been CYA for him. His first reaction, after gaining control of himself again, wasn’t “OMG what have I done and how can *I* make it better?” It was “Here’s why none of this is my fault and you can’t punish me for it.” He didn’t go see Liz in the hospital. He didn’t call her and see how she was doing. He didn’t send her flowers. He didn’t help her in any single way. He made the entire incident about himself, and how it affected him.

    And then the company saw ADA and somehow decided that meant they couldn’t do jack squat? Why wasn’t there any punishment whatsoever? No write-up? No reprimand? Nothing? For causing physical, bodily harm to another person. I cannot even imagine being Liz. The first time she hears from the man who injured her is on a call from HR. And to compound it, he’s not just offering an apology, he’s giving excuses. Again, making it about himself. I don’t blame Liz even a little bit. The company has shown her that they value her less than they value Jack. Even still, the question here is how do we get her to come back so we don’t lose money/keep projects on schedule, not how can we make this better for Liz? I really am astounded by how thoughtless the whole thing has been for Liz. She is the victim here.

    1. LisaLee*

      I think this interpretation is a little uncharitable towards Jack. I’m betting someone from HR or Legal told him not to contact Liz without permission, honestly.

      1. Apollo Warbucks*

        Not only that but if Jack didn’t have Liz’s phone number that’s not something that they should give me, so maybe he had to meet with HR and make the call then.

        1. Kinsley M.*

          According to the post, Jack only called Liz to apologize, with HR, after Liz quit because nothing was going to be done to Jack. The timing suggests that it was an attempt to get her to come back to work, not that Jack just didn’t know how to contact her.

          1. Apollo Warbucks*

            The timeline really isn’t clear, but maybe HR wanted to be involved in the contact between the two of them, or that they felt it was best to let some time pass so that people may have calmed down a bit, or to allow Liz to recover from her operation and not be bother whilst she was in hospital or something else I’m not thinking of.

      2. AndersonDarling*

        It’s possible Jack went to HR and cried for hours about what happened. He could have been such an unstable mess that HR said they would handle the interactions. We simply don’t know what happened on Jack’s side.

        1. aaanon*

          Either way, though, that’s still all about Jack; if he DID do that his actual actions to Liz(how she sees it) is exactly as Kinsley described: she doesn’t know(and probably doesn’t care, considering her own PHYSICAL anguish) about any emotional anguish Jack is experiencing because he made no effort to apologize until he had his own defensive ducks in a row.

    2. CM*

      I’m not taking a position on whether Jack is a good or bad person, and I don’t think it matters here. I think the company has been completely unsympathetic to Liz. This line in the OP’s post seemed especially blatant: “Liz was working on a few projects, and without her the could be delays and extra costs incurred. We have tried to get her to come back…” Seriously?? One of her coworkers just pushed her in front of a moving car, and once she gets out of the hospital, your reaction is, “It’s not Jack’s fault, he has a phobia. Now come back so your projects won’t be delayed??” The company should be scared that Liz is about to sue their ass off, and they should be horrified and supportive about what happened to her, regardless of why it happened.

  90. puzzld*

    First, her name should be Diane.

    But at any rate is there anyway Liz can be offered an accommodation for her quite reasonable issues with Jack? Can one or the other of them work remotely? Can schedules be adjusted so that they aren’t thrown together in the parking lot, elevator, etc.? Can one of the other of them be moved to a different work group/area.

    I think I would offer Liz the option to work from home, as she recuperates and if it’s reasonable to do so allow her to continue doing so until she feels able to return to the work place or she finds other employment.

  91. DCGirl*

    I posted this in a response up above, but let me do it again here.

    I used to work at a nonprofit organization that held its annual meeting one year at a hotel with a soaring atrium that had escalators going between floors. Two employees, Decca and Jessa, were riding the escalator down one morning and had almost reached the bottom when the escalator malfunctioned and stopped suddenly. Decca, who was in the rear, lost her balance and fell into Jessa, who was in the front. This knocked Jessa off her feet, and both of them tumbled down to the bottom with Decca landing on top of Jessa. Jessa sustained a broken arm and a lot of bumps and bruises. Decca had bumps and bruises as well as whiplash. Hotel employees immediately rushed over, and both employees were taken to the hospital.

    There was a significant weight difference between the two employees, with Decca being what medical professionals would classify as morbidly obese. Jessa felt strongly that her injuries would not have been as bad had she been landed on by a thinner employee and chose to go around the office blaming her broken arm on “that fat cow” and other similar terms. She stated that she refused to work with Decca anymore because Decca couldn’t physically control herself in a dangerous situation and could harm other people with her lack of coordination and large size. I happen to know that a significant contributing factor to Decca’s weight was taking prednisone for another medical condition; her choice was the side effect of that condition or weight gain on the medication. Jessa was counseled for her comments about Decca’s weight and, when the continued, she quit rather than be fired. It was like the behavior ramped up after she was counseled because she felt she was the only person being punished.

    So, when Jessa was refusing to work with Decca, what should we have done? Quite possibly, Decca’s medical condition made her more susceptible to dizziness. Equally possible, medications she was taking could have affected her balance. In other words, it’s possible that she was less likely to be able to maintain her balance than another person. Should we have given into Jessa? She would have disciplined Decca for losing her balance on a broken escalator?

    I do sympathize with the employee in the original post. At my Old Job, I suffered an injury to my right wrist and then suffered for 18 months more as I fought with the company’s workers comp carrier to get the surgery I needed. My HR rep was monumentally unhelpful in getting the WC carrier to speed things up. I worked with my arm in a splint the whole time, and I’m convinced that the reason I ended up with as high a permanent disability rating as I did was because of the many delays in the process. It sucked in so many ways. More than once, I was tempted to tell everyone in management at the job exactly where to go and how to get there. I really, really sympathize with Liz.

    But, I have to agree with Allison on this one. You can argue all you want to me that Jack should be fired because he’s a menace to other employees in the presence of birds, but my lawyer told me that you can’t litigate for what my happen in the future (like, OMG, what if overweight Decca trips and falls again). You can only address what’s already taken place.

    I don’t think Jack’s apology doesn’t count because he did it with HR in the room and didn’t show up at the hospital. His phobia is a sensitive issue, and it needed to be handled with care. (I know someone who is deathly allergic to bees and caused a traffic accident when one got in her car and started buzzing around.) There are no neat, easy solutions to this one, but I think HR did the right thing.

    1. AndersonDarling*

      Agreed. There is an unknown risk with many employees and you won’t find out until something happens to expose the risk. You can’t point to the known risks and say that they are the only risks, you have to acknowledge the unknowns. If the exact scenario had not occurred, no one would know Jack had a phobia and was a “risk.” At the same time, there could be a disaster and Jack is the only one brave enough to save his co-workers. It’s all “what ifs” and they could go in any direction, risk or hero.

    2. LisaLee*

      I actually don’t think these situations are similar at all. For one, there’s no evidence at all that Jessa’s injuries had anything to do with Decca at all. It was a completely external situation that might have happened with a lighter coworker, and Decca’s weight didn’t in any way cause it. Jack’s medical condition directly caused Liz’s injuries.

      Second, Liz quit first! She didn’t demand Jack be fired, and it was only when the company asked her to come back that she said she could not work with him and it was him or her. I don’t think it’s fair to compare her to someone who returned to work and then insulted her coworker for months while campaigning for her to be fired.

      Third, it sounds like your company investigated the situation and had serious talks with both coworkers. I don’t see any evidence in the above letter that ANYTHING was said to Jack in the vein of “this cannot happen again, so let’s figure out what we need to do.” Employees cannot be shoving other coworkers, even if it didn’t result in injury and even if it’s because of a medical condition. I don’t really blame Jack and I don’t think he should be fired, but I do blame the company for their non-response on both sides.

    3. CM*

      I think the Jessa/Decca situation is different because it was due to an unforeseeable external cause, the escalator malfunction. It’s not like Decca had a condition that caused her to regularly fall down for now reason. Both of them got hurt. And it was inappropriate for Jessa to take the opportunity to make inappropriate comments about Decca’s weight. With Liz and Jack, Jack knew he had this phobia of birds, and birds are going to be around if you’re outside. Liz didn’t go around telling everyone that Jack is a terrible person, but she understandably did not want to work with him after he pushed her in front of a moving car. I agree with Wakeen Teapots’ comment below that the only workable approach would be for either Liz or Jack to leave with the full support of the company.

      1. JessaB*

        OMG I just have to say you wouldn’t know this, but I have a horrid phobia of down escallators because I fell down them two different times. I always take the lift. So the Jessa in this is no relation. :)

    5. Observer*

      The situations are totally not similar. Many of the differences have already been covered, so I’m not going to go over this.

      But, you seem to be misunderstanding what your lawyer told you. You can’t litigate about what might happen. But you CAN – and are in fact REQUIRED – to plan for foreseeable accidents. You can’t plan for an escalator stopping. But, you CAN plan for the fact the your employee has a serious phobia. If the job is such that the person cannot do it without coming in contact with the trigger, then you can definitely fire him. If the person can do the job without coming into contact with the trigger, even if it means some level of accommodation, then you need to accommodate. In either case, you need to take reasonable steps to keep the phobic person from being triggered in a situation where he could hurt someone.

    6. MeridaAnn*

      I think this incident is a good comparison – someone with a medical condition reacting to an unexpected external stimulus and accidentally causing harm to a coworker in a way that likely would not have happened if not for that medical condition. Thank you for sharing this perspective.

  92. Mimmy*

    Behavior and mental health issues are, to me, such a gray area in the context of the ADA. I don’t have the time right now to look up the specifics, but if memory serves, you do not have to withhold disciplinary procedures just because these types of incidents may be the result of the employee’s disability. The ADA requires that each case is looked at individually. My belief: Yes, a phobia should be taken into consideration, but should not be a reason to completely excuse an individual’s behavior, particularly when serious harm or damage occurs.

    I am mixed on Alison’s answer. I agree that an employee cannot just demand that someone be fired and that you cannot make an employee come back if she does not want to. However, OP should consider that others might be wary around Jack, particularly if outside where there might be birds.

    Also: Yes, having someone quit with unfinished projects is fairly common and can be very inconvenient. However, in skimming through, I see that some commenters find this to be a bit callous. I don’t think the OP intends to be callous; I just think that if they decide to keep Jack on board, there needs to be a firm plan in place to prevent this from happening again.

    These ADA-related questions really make this ADA-nerd think! :)

  93. Amy*

    This is just a bad situation all around.

    Jack has an illness (which may qualify as a disability). He’s in treatment and doing what he can to handle it, but it’s not all the way under control yet. It’s not contagious and doesn’t generally impact his work at all, so he didn’t seek formal accommodation at work. In an unusual and unexpected circumstance, his illness ended up unexpectedly becoming a problem in a work scenario, and a coworker was seriously injured as a result of it. That’s awful.

    But it sounds like he did what he could to minimize the odds of this–namely, he was already getting treatment. Maybe he should have also disclosed this at work, but I don’t think it’s a major fault that he didn’t. First, I don’t think disclosure would necessarily have prevented this; accommodation plans don’t generally include things like ‘what to do if you happen to bump into a coworker while experiencing symptoms and it leads to an accident’, and they don’t necessarily mean that your disability is disclosed to random peers (so even if he had disclosed, Liz may not have been aware of it or known to do anything differently). Second, mental illness is still heavily stigmatized in a lot of places, and disclosure can backfire pretty heavily; I understand not wanting to disclose something that you truly think won’t affect your work at all (and let’s be real, how many of us think about work and go ‘birds are totally relevant to this’?).

    Liz was at work on an ordinary day, and ended up getting shoved into the path of a moving car by her coworker. She suffered pretty severe physical injuries as a result, including a badly broken arm. She also no longer feels able to work with this coworker. Finally, she’s not in a place where she’s interested in apologies or explanations from him. That’s awful.

    But it mostly sounds like she did what she could to handle this. She realized she couldn’t work with Jack anymore, and let the company know that she’d be leaving. When pressed, she let them know that the only way she’d be returning is if Jack wasn’t there. That’s understandable–no one wants to work with something that caused them severe injury, whether it was intentional or not! It’s also understandable that she’s not accepting his apologies; she’s still in the midst of major consequences here, there are limits to what is reasonable to ask of someone.

    At this point, I think the employer has to accept that Liz is not coming back, and do their best to do right by her. That means a solid reference based on the work she’s done, and not disparaging how she quit (being in a nasty accident not her fault, and her desire to leave is really understandable). It may also mean filing the injury under worker’s comp, if applicable.

    I also think they need to work with Jack to come up with reasonable accommodations for his disability, now that they and Jack are aware that it can actually impact the workplace. I don’t think they should fire Jack, personally, regardless of ADA protections; sometimes accidents happen, it sounds like this could have happened just as easily from someone randomly tripping at the exact wrong time, so I don’t think it’s reasonable to consider Jack a particular danger. But there may be ways to minimize disruption going forward–maybe Jack takes a cab to offsite meetings rather than walking to minimize potential bird exposure, for example, or maybe Jack would prefer to just not do offsite meetings until he and his doctors can get this to a more managed level.

    But overall this just sounds like a terrible accident where no one is the bad guy, to me. It’s awful that it happened, and there are some steps that can come out of it, but sometimes awful things just happen no matter how hard anyone tries to prevent them.

    2. irritable vowel*

      It’s unclear to me whether Liz is quitting because she truly is unable to work with Jack, or because she doesn’t want to work for a company that wouldn’t fire an employee who injured her so badly. Probably some combination of both.

  94. Wakeen Teapots, Ltd.*

    Imma comment all the way down here where it’ll probably be 1000 comments by the post and probably nobody will scroll all the way down but anyway………….

    One of the costs of doing business is sometimes the business takes it on the chin, through no fault of their own. If I were the OP I would probably, given all of the information we have, and assuming that Jack is an otherwise kind and productive member of the team, I would probably not fire Jack, but extend all of the support and understanding and $$$ help to Liz to help her transition to another company, if that’s what makes her feel the most whole right now.

    Alternately, I could choose to fire Jack, but if I did it would be with all of the support and understanding and $$$ help to get him to transition to another company where he could have a fresh start.

    The business can’t get through this without loss. It’s a thing that happened. Do your best to help both parties and if you keep Jack, best to insure it doesn’t happen to anyone else. And that’s kinda it.

    2. Mona Lisa*

      I appreciate your balanced view in light of some of the inflammatory comments I’m reading here.

    4. Manders*

      Can I have you as a manager? Pretty please? Because this is the best possible solution.

      OP wants things to go back to the way they were before, and that’s just not going to happen. The only thing to do now is to figure out how to support whoever’s leaving.

      One other concern: even if OP decides to keep Jack in the short term, I really doubt he’s going to stay in the long term. People have been focused on the legal consequences of his actions here, but I think the social and professional consequences are going to be significant. This happened right in front of the office and multiple witnesses saw it–Jack is just not going to be able to shake that kind of hit to his reputation.

    5. irritable vowel*

      I think it has to be the first choice. The company is very likely to feel that firing Jack will expose them to a potential lawsuit, given that his documented mental health condition resulted in the accident. Whether or not it’s a lawsuit that Jack would win if it went to court is of secondary importance; any lawsuit costs the company time and money, and they would perhaps end up settling with him to keep it from going to trial. He would probably not agree to sign away his right to sue at the time of firing – any lawyer he’d be likely to retain would advise him to forego any severance the company might be willing to provide, in the hopes of getting a bigger payout from a lawsuit or settlement.

      1. Wakeen Teapots, Ltd.*

        Yeah, I’d get legal advice, but I’m not worried about Jack’s grounds to sue. He didn’t (according to the OP) have any condition or accommodation on file. Anybody CAN sue. If you fired somebody for performance and then they said they had a condition that made them distracted by the birds out their window, they can sue. People have written us lawyer’s letters for the most ridiculous things, can’t be held hostage by what might happen.

        I probably wouldn’t fire Jack because, assuming he’s been a kind and otherwise productive employee all along, I think that’s the right choice. Sometimes you have somebody running on the bubble – weak or mediocre performance, inability to get along with other team members, etc., and then a final incident is the final incident.

        Now, LIZ suing is something that may very well happen, regardless of what the business does next, because she’s got some grounds. It happened while at work and through easily argued negligence of an employee. I don’t know if a lawyer would advise for or against firing Jack as the next right move re Liz, and I don’t know how much that would change my decision, but I’d sure try to help everybody as much as I could, whichever way the decision fell.

    7. LBK*

      The business can’t get through this without loss.

      Yep. This is the crux of it: there’s no black-and-white solution, but given that Liz has already made the decision to remove herself from the workplace, I think you just proceed with that as your best possible outcome.

  95. Kristine*

    I’m surprised by the number of people admonishing Jack for not visiting Liz at the hospital. If one of my coworkers (all of whom I like) injured me to the point of hospitalization, even on accident, they would be the last people I would want to see show up at the hospital. I’d already know they were sorry and didn’t mean to harm me. I would want to rest and heal in peace and ideally not see anyone other than super close family and friends.

    1. Kyrielle*

      Also, if my coworker is in the hospital, I don’t go visit them. Even if I wasn’t the one who caused it. Unless they are also a personal friend. (Unless I get told that they asked for us to stop by, but otherwise, I assume they want close friends/family at most!)

      I would sign the office card or chip in for the office flowers, absolutely. But I wouldn’t go try to chat with them and make them feel better (or apologize face-to-face!) while they are in the hospital, probably hurting, possibly on medicines that make thinking hard, and vulnerable. (Being in a hospital bed is vulnerable. Being doped up is vulnerable. This is not when I want to deal with people I don’t know super-well and like, so I assume it is also not when others want to.)

    2. Creag an Tuire*

      I know. Ms. Tuire didn’t even want me or her mother to visit very often the last time she was hospitalized (routine surgery gone complicated) — quoth she: “I want to sleep, not chat.” Unless I heard that co-worker was specifically requesting visitors, I’d consider it a huge imposition, even if I wasn’t the reason she was in the hospital!

    3. Observer*

      You have a point. What I’m wondering about is why Jack didn’t ask the OP or HR what he could do for Liz. Now, it’s quite possible that HR would have told him “Best not to contact her, but we’ll let her know that you asked”. But, why didn’t he ask?

      1. Tau*

        How do we know he didn’t ask?

        People are reading a lot about Jack’s post-incident behaviour into the letter, and frankly there just isn’t that much there. I can come up with a reading where Jack is a complete jerk more concerned with CYA than the harm he caused and one where he’s a horrified, concerned coworker who’s doing his best to be sensitive to Liz’s needs, both fully in line with the information given.

        1. Observer*

          Because the OP doesn’t mention it, although they do mention a lot of other things that Jack said, and whether or not Jack expressed any remorse or attempted any level of apology before Liz quit and her boss tried to get her back is UTTERLY relevant to the question.

  96. Merida May*

    If the only apology Jack made was the official HR call, I’d be a little miffed if I were in Liz’s shoes. From the OP’s description I can’t really get a read on whether or not he reached out on his own prior to that. Jack caused an accident that sent someone to the hospital. I understand he has a legitimate phobia which prompted the whole thing, but he *did* cause injury to a co-worker. The read I’m getting off the letter is he’s doing a lot of explaining to management, but is any of that making its way down to Liz? Just from person to person, especially someone you know/work with, wouldn’t you want to say ‘I’m really sorry that happened’? He certainly could’ve and she’s just not ready to accept that apology (and maybe she never will), but if he didn’t make a good faith effort just on his own I can see how a conference call would feel a little insensitive. I get that you want to have things on record or be uncomfortable with reaching out as the person who caused the accident, but there is a personal component to this that I think is getting missed in the shuffle. At this point, though, this is all probably moot. I don’t think you can turn back the clock here. Give Liz a good reference and let her go. Even if she came back I’m not sure it would be worth the conflict that is bound to come up with the two of them working in the same office.

  97. GirlNamedJake*

    No single employee should EVER be so important to your business that you cannot exist without them. If they are? YOU have failed as a management group. Liz should be expendible. Not without a few growing pains & a little adjustment, but you should be able to move ahead without her if that’s what she chose. My first inclination when hearing Jack pushed her & ran was that he had a fear (my sister is the same). Liz’s request to have Jack fired is wholly unreasonable. Ensure you’ve documented everything well as a company as I’m certain Liz will likely attempt Legal Action of some sort once she realizes the sun CAN set at the end of the day without her.

    1. LCL*

      Liz should not be expendable. She was pushed and hurt, of course she’s going to be mad. If anyone should be fired it should be Jack. I would try to find a way to fire Jack over this, whether or not Liz returns to work. Not to keep Liz, no employee should be able to make firing decisions if it wasn’t part of their job, and she’s already left anyway. But she’s not expendable.

      1. Amy*

        I don’t think GirlNamedJake is saying that Liz should be any more expendable than Jake or another random coworker, but that in a well-run workplace, there should be no such thing as an irreplaceable employee. Everyone should be replaceable, and the fact that an accident happened doesn’t make Liz less so than everyone else.

  98. CG*

    One thing people are latching on to here is the inappropriateness of Liz demanding that Jack be fired. I didn’t read it as Liz reaching out to her employer and demanding that Jack be fired – if she was demanding that of them, presumably it would have come as a “fire Jack OR I quit”, not “I quit” and then responding with “only if you fire Jack” when they tried to convince her to come back. I can understand someone with that trauma being unwilling to work at the same employer as someone who harmed her in that way (intentionally or not), especially so soon after the incident and without much offered recourse from the employer. (This is an assumption, but… presumably OP would have mentioned it if the employer had made any particular accommodations for Liz like offering severance or immediately jumping in and proactively offering to cover her medical bills.)

  99. Ms. Anne Thrope*

    OMG, I can’t anymore with people defending indefensible conduct because “We must be aware of mental illness” or whatever. Pushing people out of the way and into traffic, or running around so out of control that you do so accidentally, is simply not acceptable.

    For the phobia defenders who are saying he couldn’t help it because phobias are so all-consuming: OK, many analogies have been offered and deemed inadequate. How about this one? There’s a plane crash. The plane is burning. If Jack doesn’t get out, he’ll die. The emergency slides are activated, and Jack pushes Jane out of the way to get out. She falls out the door and breaks her arm, etc. Is this to be excused? Condoned? No. It’s simply unacceptable in a civilized society to shove others out of your way to save yourself. If my boss had said “well we can’t fire Jack because the plane was on fire” I’d quit too.

    The fact that all of this was triggered by a bird makes it all the more absurd. Birds are objectively harmless. People with phobias need to learn to control them. Plenty of much worse mental illnesses are kept under control by those who suffer from them. Stop infantilizing the mentally ill–all but the most severely afflicted are perfectly capable of dealing with their illness without harming others.

    1. StopThatGoat*

      I think your analogy doesn’t quite nail it either. In a fight or flight situation, people aren’t considering others. They are only looking out for themselves on an instinctual level. There are numerous examples of people falling and dying in stampedes of people trying to escape from fire.

    2. Viola Dace*

      Thank you for this comment. I’m shocked at the number of people defending this because mental illness. I am absolutely freaked out by rodents. I was driving with one of my children in the car and a mouse ran across the dashboard. I did scream, for sure. But I absolutely did not veer off the road, or jump out of the car, or lose control. Because the welfare of the other person in my car is more important than my fear. That’s the bottom line. Everyone is saying Jack’s fear is an excuse for abominable behavior. No. And the worst thing? He didn’t go to help her because a bird was nearby? Hard to believe a bird would be sitting next to her while she was screaming in pain and the driver of the car was probably there as well.

      1. Dankar*

        Then you don’t have a phobia and your situation isn’t analogous. The welfare of other people (though maybe not one’s own chilren? I’m not sure) pretty much goes out the window when you’re in a fear-for-your-life, this-is-the-end kind of panic.

        The RO-Cat does a good job describing what that feels like below. Phobias are irrational, but the sufferer’s reactions aren’t made up.

        1. Sunglow28*

          In my phobia group I had a woman whose child nearly died after she could not get an IV to have a c section. She loved her child no doubt and felt deep regret and guilt, but in the moment her brain could not allow her to receive a needle – no matter what the cost. For all those who are saying, I can just mentally overcome my fear – then you do not have a phobia. A phobia is not something one can control.

    3. MuseumChick*

      I agree with you until you used the work “absurd”. That’s really disrespectful. Jack would probably throw himself in harms way to avoid a bird and even though that doesn’t make logical sense it’s where he’s at and that is not going change quickly. Many mental conditions don’t make sence to people who don’t have them (someone with OCD for example who believe that if they don’t lock the door exactly 7 times something terrible will happen) .

      Let’s not disparage those with mental health issues and pretend its oh so easy to get over them.

    4. The RO-Cat*

      “OMG, I can’t anymore with people defending indefensible conduct because “We must be aware of mental illness” or whatever”

      OMG, I can’t anymore with people believing they know everything about phobias because they are afraid of something and experience fear sometimes! :-)

      On a serious note: no, from your comment I can say you haven’t the slightest idea how it’s like to have such an attack. Have you ever been in danger of drowning, to the point your lungs burst, you inhale water, your lights dim and every cell in your body screams “Get out! Get out now!” but you have no idea where that “out” is? Have you ever been buried in sand or dirt, with no way of knowing how deep, with sand or dirt clogging your nostrils, on the brink of fainting and thrashing around without control, in that confined space six feet under? If you ever experienced that (a thing I don’t wish on my worst enemy), then maybe you begin to understand Jack’s reactions. Maybe. So, (a) you analogy is way off the mark because you presume jack’s action were somehow controlled by rationality (they’re not) and (b) your “C’mon, it’s logically absurd to be scared by birds” is also off the mark – phobias aren’t about the logical side of things; they’re a different beast altogether.

      I do think Jack should suffer consequences for the result. I resent the absent-mindedness of treating a panic attack as an absence of volition and constructing a whole worldview on such a crooked and false assumption.

  100. ThePM*

    What an absolute disaster.

    I don’t know any of the legalities involved, so I of course can’t comment on that, but I think looking at this with the help of an attorney (rather than just HR) would help to clarify the situation and OP’s responsibilities (legal and ethical) associated with this.

    If I was a colleague to Liz and Jack (which is how I’m relating to this situation), I’d be extremely concerned with working with, close to, or around Jack. I’d be afraid for my own safety. Bottom line, his reaction was unpredictably predictable. He had a prior indication that something like this could happen (presumably, as an adult, he’s aware that there are birds outside?), and he did not take steps to protect others around him from his reaction (not necessarily disclosing to the company, but even monitoring the situation from the car, waiting for other people to be inside before exiting, etc.). What happens if a bird gets into the office (it happens)? How is the safety of others being addressed? What if it happens again? What is being done to protect others? I can’t imagine the law forcing the company to have no recourse in this situation.

    Legalities aside – let’s think about the ethical/emotional/morale implications on a broader level. If I were a colleague to Liz and Jack, I’d also be looking at this situation with wide eyes, and how Liz was treated, which I think…from the description of events…seems pretty crappy. Through my lens, it looks like HR and OP are clutching their pearls and hiding behind ADA without addressing the bigger picture. Jack’s reaction was, ultimately, dangerous to Liz, his colleagues and others around him, and he presumably had some sort of warning/indication (therapy for years) that he could have this sort of reaction to a bird. Period. Regardless of his mental illness, regardless of whatever. I’m not unsympathetic to him – but bottom line, his reaction was dangerous, he had an indication that there could be an issue with birds, and he had an obligation to protect others, therefore, this situation could have been mitigated.

    There’s not going to be a “make everyone happy scenario” – but what I’d be pushing for here, OP, is legal advice, financial compensation for Liz for hospital/dr/therapy bills, clear communication to Liz, continued salary/insurance until she gets a different job or you can package out Jack, and an exit strategy for Jack. This is not going to be something that Jack professionally recovers from at your company, in my opinion.

    [and AAM, we desperately need an update here! :-)]

    1. she was a fast machine*

      I think your second to last line really hits home; Jack will not be able to recover his reputation at this company, and it’s distinctly possible other employees would quit as well as a reaction to how they’ve seen Liz and Jack treated. OP should be getting on this ASAP to provide whatever support they can for Liz.

      1. Victoria Nonprofit (USA)*

        I think you’re both making assumptions about how other people will react. As a colleague, I would not have a negative reaction to this situation (other than sympathy for both parties, and frustration if the company treated either of them poorly, which I don’t see evidence of in the letter. My opinion of Jack would not be changed by this situation.

        Now, I realize — and see from the many comments on this thread! — that not everyone shares my beliefs about this situation, so I don’t pretend that all colleagues will have my reaction. But neither will all colleagues share your reaction, and I don’t think we can draw the conclusion that Jack’s reputation among his colleagues has been damaged.

      2. Lioness*

        Especially since Liz had to be disclosed that Jack has a phobia, If this hasn’t been disclosed to the other employees (I know he may want to keep it private), but if they don’t know; Jack will just be known as the guy who pushed Liz into traffic with no reason.

    2. Shiara*

      Honestly? Based solely on the information shared in this letter (which, of course, is limited) I’d be more freaked out by the driver in the parking lot than my coworker Jack. I would probably make a mental note not to walk super closely to Jack when outside in the future, but it wouldn’t forever tarnish his work reputation with me. (It’s possible that his behaviour toward Liz post accident was poor and that might tarnish his work reputation with me, but I really don’t think there’s enough information in the letter to judge.)

      I do think the company needs to focus more on “How do we treat Liz graciously in light of this tragic accident” as a separate issue from Jack, and less on “How do we get Liz back”

    3. em2mb*

      But do the other coworkers know that this happened because of Jack’s phobia? It’s unclear to me that they do. Clearly management/HR know, but do people similar in position to Liz and Jack know? Because if I were a coworker who *didn’t* know that a phobia caused Jack to shove Liz into the path of a backing up car, I would be thinking, “This is utterly insane; why wasn’t Jack terminated on the spot?”

      I would be more sympathetic to Jack if I were a coworker who learned this was mental illness-related, but I still think he needs to go. He seriously injured a coworker. No, Liz doesn’t have the right to demand he be fired, but I could see why her thoughts about working with Jack again might be somewhat inarticulate given what all she’s been through. If it were me in her situation, saying, “I want him fired!” would probably be a best case scenario.

  101. Jerry Vandesic*

    It’s entirely reasonable for Liz not to want to work with Jack, or even work for an employer that tolerates Jack’s behavior towards her. So, Liz quitting is reasonable. Her response that she wouldn’t come back unless Jack were gone is consistent with this reasonable POV.

    It’s also reasonable for Liz to hold Jack and her former employer financially responsible for her injury and trauma. This would include any out of pocket medical costs, pain & suffering, as well as any lost income (potentially long term) resulting from is event. This number could be significant, and if I were the employer I would be concerned about the financial liability.

  102. Victoria Nonprofit (USA)*

    I haven’t read most of the comments, but I have to say that I’m surprised by the overall tone in the first 100 or so that I read.

    To me, this seems to be clearly an accident, and I can’t imagine reacting the way that Liz did. Liz is perfectly within her rights to not trust Jack, and not want to work with him; I’d give her the reference she earned based on her work with us and wish her well.

    1. em2mb*

      I think without knowing more details about the office where they work, it’s hard to say whether her request is unreasonable. If it’s a big company with lots of departments, then it might’ve been better to frame it as, “I do not want to work with Jack ever again. Can we move him to the campus across town to minimize our interactions?”

      But if she works for a small company, then the only practical way to avoid Jack is termination. I agree that demanding he be fired comes across as irrational, but I think you get to be a little irrational about anyone that’s shoved you into the path of a moving car. I know if it happened to me, I’d be saying, “The only way I’d consider coming back would be if you terminated Jack.” Frankly, even if that happened, I’d be looking because after that, I don’t know if I could trust my company to do the right thing.

    2. fposte*

      I think that’s a viable response, certainly, and I wouldn’t just take action against Jack because Liz wanted him to.

      But the problem in here is that it wasn’t entirely an accident, because he volitionally pushed her. That would quite likely be a workplace problem even if there hadn’t been the subsequent injury; it just wouldn’t be quite as serious a workplace problem.

      1. em2mb*

        Honestly, I would kind of expect to lose both workers over this. There’s no great way to give what Liz what she needs – a workplace free of Jack – without taking something away from Jack. Like his job. I’m guessing the embarrassment of what happened will likely end with Jack looking for work elsewhere.

        I also think the tone of this conversation would be different if Liz hadn’t quit but was refusing to come back to work until Jack was fired. I think you’d have a much stickier wicket there where maybe the conversation would include terminating Jack among the possible options. As it is, Liz has quit, so she’s made the decision for you to keep Jack, even if it would’ve played out differently under different circumstances.

        1. fposte*

          I think that’s what I’d advise Jack, especially if Liz was well-liked (which doesn’t matter ethically, but will matter big time to relationships). I also hope that this doesn’t metastasize into people “teasing” Jack. If that’s something your workplace might be prone to, OP, keep a close eye and a firm hand for a while.

          I think if I had talked to Liz, I’d have tried to get her to accept a paid leave and then a chance to have a conversation when she was recovered; I’m simply not going to act on an ultimatum, and a later conversation might give us a chance to find an alternative workable arrangement.

    3. Gadfly*

      I think it is surprising everyone thinks it is reasonable to expect Liz to be reasonable in circumstances where being unreasonable is reasonable. Pain, trauma, medication, fear, anger, etc–all times when expecting someone to “be reasonable” about niceties like demanding never to work near a coworker again versus demanding he be fired isn’t reasonable.

      1. Allie*

        This. Jack is allowed to act in an absurd manner because phobia, but Liz is not allowed to be reasonably afraid and upset. I get it, I have a cousin with severe mental illness. But she was also not allowed to hurt anybody and when she did start hurting her mom and sisters, steps were taken to protect them. Someone not intending to hit our doesn’t mean you don’t have.physical damage.

  103. A fly on the wall*

    Long emotional comment thread here.

    This is a terrible situation and I have to admit that it’s not going to work out well for anyone.

    Liz has done nothing wrong, is probably suffering from trauma (as much a legitimate mental illness as Jack’s phobia – and just as much deserving of accommodation). Liz may even be on medications that are altering her impulse control and/or affecting her perceptions. The way I think I’d deal with her (assuming my lawyer approved, because I’d definately involve them in a situation this fraught) would be to attempt to defuse until after her recovery (which in this case I would insist on paying whether she returned to work or not – she was injured on my time, at my facility, even if she doesn’t come back to work, I’ll get employee morale mileage out of it). If, once she recovers physically, she still can’t return to work, then we’re looking at a parting of the ways here. No, she doesn’t get to dictate the firing of another employee, but I can have some compassion for the situation.

    Now on to Jack, Jack and I would be having conversations about the impact this specific incident is going to have on his reactions with other employees. I wouldn’t require him to disclose his mental illness, but we’d have a realistic discussion about the social consequences of not disclosing, and what are – frankly – very likely to be the social consequences of this situation and the very few effective ways the employer has to control them. I can’t order people to like him after this, even if I can require them to work with him.

    As for the employer, the projects are delayed – at a minimum until after Liz recovers. This is a really good example of the risk you take when you only assign one person to a project. If Liz had come down with some debilitating illness or had to go out on FMLA suddenly because a child was ill, you’d be in the same situation. Beyond that, on this path you’re likely to lose both employees, and will probably take a noticeable morale hit. Looking at this from the outside, with only the information a bystander would have, it looks like you’ve chosen to not discipline an employee for some pretty reckless behavior while (at best) not being particularly sympathetic to a person who was injured as a result of this behavior. Getting out of that would require you to do some pretty reprehensible things, such as sharing details about Javk’s mental illness or Liz’s recovery, which are obviously non-starters. A way to attempt to diffuse things from this perspective might be to try to shift focus to the parking lot. Is there anything you can do to increase the safety of this happens again? Can you install mirors or sidewalks/walk zones in front of, rather than behind cars (I’m pretty sure this is considered a good idea for stuff near an entrance anyway for ADA access)?

    1. fposte*

      Just to be clear, if by “trauma” you mean PTSD, she’s not all that likely to have it; more people don’t get it than do after traumatic events.

        1. A fly on the wall*

          In this case, I’m referring to the social-emotional/physical reaction to a traumatic event or series of events. This can run a gamut from (for example) a perceived slight distraction to full blown PTSD and can last from no time to a lifetime.

          Theres recently been a lot of research in it in K-12 education and its long term effects. I’m not sold on it as an explanation rather than a predictor, but that’s what research is for.

  104. Beaglemeister*

    It seems to me that Jack should have disclosed his phobia to his employer and to all employees traveling with him outside of the office. Some might say, “That is private and Jack may not feel comfortable disclosing it,” but the problem here is that because he did not disclose it, someone got hurt.

    It was his responsibility to let people know that as a result of his phobia, he may panic and react physically when seeing a bird. This warning would have encouraged Liz to keep a fair distance away from Jack while walking anywhere outdoors and perhaps the accident could have been prevented, since birds are mainly outside where Jack will see/run into them.

    In failing to disclose his phobia and how he tends to react when seeing birds, he put Liz in danger. He may not have pushed her on purpose, but as a result of his crippling panic, he put her in harm’s way.

    1. A Person*

      I don’t know if he should have to disclose the phobia, but he could have taken other actions, for example being the one to walk closest to the curb or the one to say ‘go on ahead, I need five minutes/I forgot something’ or ‘sorry, must dash, need the bathroom’ or any number of other things.

  105. Amy*

    I’m also really surprised at what people think are ‘reasonable accommodations’ for this.

    It’s not generally reasonable to expect someone to not be anywhere physically near another person. Sidewalks are often crowded, it’s just not always possible to stay 5+ feet away from other people! It wouldn’t be a reasonable accommodation for a person to ask for, and it’s probably not a reasonable thing for an employer to ask their employee to do either.

    It’s also not reasonable to expect Jack to manage things so he’s never ever exposed to a bird. Sure, he can probably minimize exposure, and I bet he does that (who wants to be around a phobia? no one). But sometimes birds exist and you have to do things anyways; it’s not possible to avoid them all the time. I’m betting Jack knows that, and knows that he can handle exposure in certain circumstances, and this probably fell in those circumstances…until something changed and it didn’t. Sometimes shit happens, no matter how hard people try.

    I’m not saying there aren’t any accommodations here that could improve things. Maybe Jack could take a cab to external meetings rather than walking outside. Maybe he could conference call over rather than being there in person. Maybe it makes sense for someone else to go to external meetings, while Jack focuses on internal stuff. Likely there are a lot of things I’m not thinking of. But accommodations do have to be reasonably possible, and keeping 100% control his environment just isn’t a feasible thing for Jack to do. If it were, phobias would never be a problem because people would just do that in the first place.

    1. Victoria Nonprofit (USA)*

      Walking separately seems like a perfectly reasonable accommodation to me, but it’s not up to us. There’s a process, and legal support available.

      1. A fly on the wall*

        Yeah, I wasn’t referring to reasonable accommodations, because that’s someone else’s job. I was referring to leading my team. Assuming that I have employees other than Liz and Jack, I need to be aware of the implications for the rest of my team’s productivity if they start seeing me as an “asshole boss,” a “hr weenie,” or start fighting amongst themselves. Keeping Liz is a secondary concern at this point.

        Again, the parking lot stuff isn’t about reasonable accommodations, it’s about creating an alternate place to blame now that it’s been established Jack is staying and Liz isn’t. I need Jack to be able to work with his colleagues in the context of any reasonable accommodations that are established. In my view, that means not having my other employees think he’s a reckless jerk. Thus, instead of creating a situation where people will (wrongly) blame him, I’m redirecting that blame to myself (for not previously fixing the parking lot) and the parking lot.

    2. Kyrielle*

      Hm. Different living places, maybe. Most of the time when I am walking along a sidewalk, if I’m not in a group already, there’s no one within 10-15 feet of me. If it’s a busy city environment, that may not hold true, which I hadn’t considered. But here in suburbia the people on the sidewalks are mostly only going from their car to the business and back. Staying out of arm’s reach of them is very possible except when clustering up on a corner to wait for the light. (And it’s still possible there, just means you have to hurry a bit to cross.)

    3. Beaglemeister*

      I agree it would be difficult to stay a certain distance away from Jack outdoors at all times, but at the very least, if Liz had known about his phobia and his tendency to react physically in fear, she may have been to keep a relatively safe distance from him, or have stepped away if she saw the bird as well knowing that Jack would react to it.

      It is impossible to know if the accident could have been prevented, of course, but since Jack never disclosed his phobia, I guess we will never know.

      The whole thing is truly a terrible situation with no real solution that makes all parties happy or “uninjures” Liz.

  106. NPO Queen*

    Hey OP, why not ask if Liz can work as a contractor to finish up her projects, and offer her time/space to interview for other positions? Be a positive recommendation, cover the medical bills. Can she do this work from home? That way, your projects get wrapped up, Jack keeps his job, Liz finds a new job and doesn’t incur terrible medical expenses.

    As a person with mental illness, I can understand Jack not wanting to say anything about it. I’d never want to tell my boss about my issues, and I am also diagnosed and on medication. Plus, people understand a phobia of snakes or spiders or flying; saying that you’re afraid of birds isn’t as common. And while the manager might have taken it to heart, I wouldn’t want to tell my coworkers that I was afraid of birds. Even in an open and caring environment, I can’t imagine that wouldn’t come with some level or ridicule, or “Birds aren’t bad! Let me show you pics of my bird Mr. Chirpy.”

    I won’t go into who was right or wrong in this, it’s not my call. But if you need the help OP, consider contracting until you can get someone new in place.

    1. Former Retail Manager*

      I think the suggestions in your first paragraph are excellent and could be a great solution for all parties.

    2. CG*

      +1

      This would also give some non-reference evidence to future employers that Liz’s work was highly valued.

    3. Jerry Vandesic*

      “Be a positive recommendation, cover the medical bills.”

      Covering her medical bills is not something that would be nice to offer, rather it should be expected. In any event it could be covered by an eventual lawsuit against the employer and Jack.

  107. I'm Not Phyllis*

    I can see where Liz is coming from completely, but I also agree that she shouldn’t be able to dictate Jack getting fired. I think it’s perfectly reasonable to request that the employer find a way to keep her safe at work, but from what I’m reading that’s not what she asked for – she wanted Jack fired (and again, I can see where she’s coming from). I’m hoping the employer offered her some alternatives to make sure she felt safe, but if she wasn’t willing to accept them and said that she would come back only if Jack was fired, then that was her decision. I’m not going to debate the severity of Jack’s phobia or mental illness because I normally err strongly on the side of taking people at their word when it comes to issues such as these. This was an incredibly unfortunate situation and I hope they can both recover.

  108. Chriama*

    One interesting thing in the letter is that Jack is portrayed as sympathetic and Liz is portrayed as angry Why does Jack’s mental illness give him one characterization whereas Liz’s ordeal gives her a different one? I feel like sympathy is falling strongly on one side here and it’s surprising that it’s on the side of the person who *wasn’t* seriously injured. I guess I’m just wondering about how Jack has been through all of this. Has he shown remorse to Liz, acknowledging that this was an involuntary reaction that had serious consequences that he regrets, or has he been more about trying to wave this away as “not his fault”?

    I don’t think Jack should be fired, but I think more sympathy for Liz is warranted. Another message from you and HR empathizing with her, explaining what systems you’ve put in place to prevent this happening again to someone else, and offering potential solutions for her return to work that don’t necessitate her working with or being in close proximity to Jack would be a start. If she doesn’t want to return (and her anger could be as much a reaction to trauma or ptsd as Jack’s original actions were) then working out some sort of severance deal, workman’s comp payout and/or a wfh arrangement long enough for her to transition her current tasks would be appropriate.

    1. Chriama*

      Another question – who called the ambulance? If it was Jack, points in his favor. If not, I’m really wondering why he gets to be the poor guy with an illness that caused an unfortunate, unavoidable accident while she gets to be the unreasonable woman who wants her poor, sick coworker to be fired.

      1. Ell*

        Idk if he’s in the middle of a panic attack I don’t think that’s necessarily a fair criticism.

        And for the record, I do think this was an accident but not an unavoidable one. And Liz isn’t in any way unreasonable.

    2. Kyrielle*

      Agreed. I am sympathetic to Jack, and I also don’t know if he knew his phobia could hit him like this, or any number of other things.

      But I’m _also_ sympathetic to Liz, and I think labelling her as angry is not kind – “traumatized” might be closer. (And, if I’m wrong and she’s “merely” angry, she’s earned that anger – she got hurt, and she had no way to anticipate or mitigate it.)

      I don’t think firing Jack is reasonable. But I’m not sure Liz does, either; she simply quit, and when asked what it would take to bring her back, that’s when she mentioned if Jack were fired. She may not have expected it to happen; she may have been simply laying out “I cannot deal with this while he is there; whether it’s reasonable or not, that’s where my line is.” She’s obviously fine with the end result being no job, more-so than with the end result being continued exposure to Jack.

      As a result, she has a badly broken arm (if this is anything like a badly broken ankle, she may be in for months of recovery, and not being at 100% ever even after that), she may or may not have medical bills (she shouldn’t – worker’s comp seems like it would apply, if not insurance seems like it would apply, if not then their employer should step up and sort it out!), she may or may not have PTSD or anxiety to deal with now, she’s been through a lot of pain, and she’s without a job. (Which is why severence, keeping her on payroll, and/or letting short term disability cover part of it would be a big kindness here.) And, given the OP’s reaction, she has to be wondering if she’s going to have to talk her way around a bad reference, as well.

      That’s also not awesome.

      It is possible to have a victim without having a “bad guy” and I don’t know if I’d cast Jack as a “bad guy” because I don’t know if this sort of reaction is typical for his phobia experience, or if it was a perfect storm and he didn’t even know he could react that blindly to a bird.

      But Liz is definitely a victim here, and deserving of care. Please, OP – don’t treat her just as an inconveniently-upset cog that needs to be coaxed back into the machine. She’s been through a lot, and she deserves better than that.

      1. LBK*

        It is possible to have a victim without having a “bad guy”

        This is the nuance that seems to be missing from most of this discussion and why this is one of the worst, most frustrating comments sections I’ve ever read on this site. There’s so much emphasis on assigning blame, which doesn’t help anyone, least of all the OP who’s the one that wrote in for advice.

        FWIW, I think it’s fair for the OP to be more focused on taking care of Jack because he’s the one who’s still her responsibility. I think she certainly has some moral obligation to be sympathetic to Liz and do what she can to support her, but Liz isn’t her employee anymore, so her managerial obligation there is done.

        1. Kyrielle*

          Except in that she’s hoping to lure Liz back. If she doesn’t accept that that won’t happen (and I suspect that’s the case, but, I’m not in the situation immediately), then she does have to consider what her responsibilities to Liz are/would be. And she should consider her responsibilities to the other existing team members, as well as whoever may be hired onto the team in the future.

          But agreed, her direct obligation to Liz at this moment is less than that to Jack.

        2. Kyrielle*

          This is the nuance that seems to be missing from most of this discussion and why this is one of the worst, most frustrating comments sections I’ve ever read on this site. There’s so much emphasis on assigning blame, which doesn’t help anyone, least of all the OP who’s the one that wrote in for advice.

          Also this. I think I’m not coming back to this thread any more. I’m finding it endlessly painful and frustrating that people are responding to lived experiences of “this could have been a new reaction” by denying that, doubling down, saying it’s impossible it was new or something he didn’t expect for another reason. And some cases they’re saying it separately and may not have seen the earlier comments, but…I just am not up to more of that.

          Do we know it was something unpredictable to him? Nope. The letter doesn’t say either way. It may have been, it may not have been. But it’s a possibility.

          I hope Jack never sees any of this. It’s such an unusual situation that I’d expect he’d recognize himself in it, and the comments have been very unkind, at best.

          2. LBK*

            Yeah, I think it’s easy to debate in a vacuum, but I’d be surprised if most of the people here tearing Jack apart would actually say to his face that he was squarely to blame for the whole incident because he didn’t appropriately manage his phobia…and again, I come back to wondering what purpose that even serves, since in the few hundred comments I’ve scanned through, I haven’t seen anyone suggest Jack should be fired. They just want to make it really clear that it’s his fault, so they can…I dunno, make him feel bad?

            1. AD*

              Sadly, loads of people have called for Jack to be fired (and arrested for assault, and sued, and….)

        3. MWKate*

          This is a great comment. I admit I did fall into the “who is to blame” but it’s always good to remember the most important thing is not assigning blame. I wish this was higher up.

      2. Kyrielle*

        And to be clear, when I say months of recovery, I don’t just mean months of waiting for it to heal and not being able to do everything she normally could. Muscles get weak; other soft tissue gets used to being that way. We’re talking pain, the bone healing, and then progressively increased movement, exercises, physical therapy, and more physical therapy. The person I know who broke their ankle still isn’t out of PT, although it’s no longer an hour twice a week, at least. They still do lots of exercises to continue to strengthen it each day. I don’t know if an arm bone is better/worse than an ankle for that (not weight bearing on the one side, and not a flexing bone also), but my suspicion is she has a lot of work ahead of her.

  109. amy*

    Um…okay. About The Birds.

    I had a bee phobia when I was a kid. Would lose my s*** entirely if something buzzed me. Flailing, running, knocking things over, crying, refusing to go back to the area, the whole thing.

    I was also, at twelve, capable of foreseeing danger. So when my dad told me to go mow the lawn, I said no. Because I did not want to be responsible for whatever happened with the lawnmower after I abandoned it because bee and ran in a panic for the house. Nor did I want to hurt *myself*, because as anyone who’s run in a panic knows, you’re not too careful about use of force to get away. My dad was not at all nice about that, but whirling blades = no.

    Jack knows he has a serious bird phobia. Jack knows outside is full of birds. It seems to me that at some point, Jack is responsible for saying to the people he works with: look, I have this problem. If we’re going to be walking outside, here’s what I need. I need either a support person who gets the problem and can protect me and other people, or y’all need to stay well away from me. Because if there’s a bird near me I will freak the hell out and I cannot be responsible for what happens next.

    It is then HR’s job to make sure Jack suffers no retaliation or discrimination for disclosing his phobia.

    No?

    1. Ell*

      Agree. I have a phobia too (though not one as common as birds, and I’ve never harmed anyone but do have an extreme physical reaction) and I always disclose it to my manager if I’m in a situation that I might encounter my phobia and take steps to make sure I won’t encounter it. I feel terrible for Liz and completely understand her reaction. Those were not minor injuries.

      I don’t think Jack should necessarily be fired, but he made a big error in not disclosing this sooner and some serious steps need to be taken to ensure the safety of those around him.

    2. Christina*

      Yes, exactly what you said. I have been struggling with Jack’s situation & you nailed it. He has a responsibility in managing his phobia. I’m not saying he can control his reaction but it’s a phobia that seems could be very easily triggered, no matter where or when. He was in therapy for over two years, he must have a list of tools to utilize when he’s going to be in a situation that might involve birds (if he doesn’t, he needs a new therapist). Liz had no idea that Jack was dealing with this phobia, she’s walking 1/2 step in front of him (she probably would have positioned herself differently if she knew of a potential reaction by Jack), & he had an immediate/severe reaction to a phobia that is not new to him.
      Agreed that Jack, with the support of HR, won’t suffer retaliation or discrimination for disclosing his phobia. Liz can’t demand he’ll be fired but I can’t understand why she’s pissed.

    3. Woman of a Certain Age*

      When I was a child I saw Alfred Hitchcock’s “The Birds” on TV, several years after its theatrical release, and it terrified me for years. (Poor Suzanne Pleshette!) I can really understand a grownup having a fear of birds.

  110. Master Bean Counter*

    Here’s my take on the situation. Jack has now disclosed a medical condition that has shown itself to be a hazard to his coworkers. So much so that it sounds like Liz is, rightly, afraid to work around him. Liz may have her own issues after this incident that need consideration. So the way forward that I see in this situation is that Jack needs to be put on medical leave until he comes forth with a plan in conjunction with his health professionals that guarantees that an incident like this is not likely in the future.
    Liz needs to be told that she is welcome to come back. It needs to be shared with her that Jack is on leave and will not come back until the risk to others can be mitigated. Also Liz probably needs to be provided with some counseling to go along with her medical treatment. And if Liz decides not to come back the company should do everything in its power to help Liz out in her future endeavors.

    1. LawBee*

      “health professionals that guarantees that an incident like this is not likely in the future.”

      That is an impossible standard to set.

      1. Master Bean Counter*

        How so? If it is impossible that Jack can’t be trusted not to cause major bodily harm to coworkers in the future he’s a major liability for the company now.
        The solution to this problem can take many forms. Jack could be conscious of how close he walks to coworkers outdoors. Jack could possibly find a medication that helps with his problems so that he doesn’t hit fight or flight when a bird flies up from the sidewalk. Maybe the solution is they find a way for Jack to work from home, so as to lessen the risk of being around birds.
        Maybe the solution is that work pays up the $$$$ for a bird mitigation system for the work property so birds don’t land on the sidewalk.
        I get that Jack may never find a solution to his phobia. But I know there are steps that can be taken to make him less dangerous around people. And the steps that will work for Jack and that are reasonable for the employer should be identified before he can return to work.

        1. Amy*

          Because it’s entirely possible, as many people in the comments have expressed, to go years living with a phobia and never having a certain reaction, and then suddenly have that reaction one day. Because if it wasn’t Jack and a bird, it could have been Chris and a loud car noise, or Robin and a peal of thunder, who knows. Because the future is never 100% predictable and can’t be guaranteed.

          Mostly, because the ’cause’ here was a lot broader than just Jack’s phobia–yes, he happened to panic, and his panic happened to take the form of a flight reaction, but his coworker also happened to be close to him, she happened to be right by the curb, there happened to be a car pulling up to the curb at that exact moment, etc.–and no professional can guarantee that a string of coincidences won’t happen. And it’s not really useful to try and prevent those exact things from happening again! None of them are inherently bad; it’s the combination that led to the big problem, and there are a million things that happen every day and could cause similar problems if they happen in exactly the wrong combination. Having a phobia isn’t dangerous to others 99% of the time, this just happened to get caught in the exact wrong combination where it was.

          Just because an accident happened once–even a bad accident!–doesn’t actually mean that Jack is generally at high risk of causing major bodily harm to coworkers in the future. Sometimes accidents are just a combination of a lot of smaller things, and it’s awful but it’s not really anyone’s fault.

          1. Master Bean Counter*

            While this was an accident and not anybody’s fault. The employer will be held to be at fault in the future if this happens again. And it’s the employers responsibility to mitigate this risk in the future. And part of that risk should be making sure that Jack is taking steps to help prevent this from happening in the future. Because this could happen the next time Jack sees a bird on a sidewalk and another coworker who doesn’t know his history is standing right next to him. If the company has done nothing, then when the second Liz gets hurt the company is very much on the hook for negligence.
            In fact as much as Liz is hurt, this situation probably isn’t doing any good for Jack’s condition either. So it’s not only prudent for any future Liz that may be near Jack that he find a way to cope, but it is most likely that Jack will need help dealing with situation as well.

            1. LawBee*

              Well, fortunately for Jack, he is already in therapy and I am sure they are working on this.

              I just don’t know what Jack is supposed to do that would satisfy all the people in the comments. Tell everyone that he has a phobia, when it is none of their business, on the off chance that this particular confluence of events will happen again? Keep a five foot radius between himself and other people at all times and be stigmatized as “the bird guy”? Ratchet up his anxiety and probably exacerbate his phobia by now knowing that his job is on the line?

              Accidents happen. Jack is already working on his phobia. Liz is rightfully angry. It sucks for everyone all around and that is just how it is sometimes.

  111. Allison*

    I totally sympathize with Liz. Not only would I not want to work with someone who pushed me into traffic and put me in the hospital, I have a really hard time trusting people who hurt others (physically, emotionally, or otherwise) and then throw up their hands and say “but my illness made me do it!”

    I struggle with anxiety, and I’ve known people with worse problems, like really bad bipolar disorder. Mental illnesses can, even with treatment, cause you to act in ways you know you shouldn’t. When this happens, I do believe an understanding of the person’s illness should be taken into account when deciding how to respond. However, a person who can’t accept any consequences for their behavior, and get angry when people are upset with them, is not someone I’d want to see every day. Compassion is a good thing, but everyone has their limits.

    That said, Liz can’t demand Jack be fired. She can, however, say “look, I can’t work with him, and if leaving this job is the only way to avoid seeing him every day, then that’s what I’ll need to do.”

    3. Evan Þ*

      … which sounds like it’s exactly what Liz did. She resigned; OP asked what could possibly get her back; she said “only if Jack’s gone.”

      1. LawBee*

        “We have tried to get her to come back, but she refuses unless Jack is fired.”

        That’s pretty clearly Liz demanding Jack be fired. Liz isn’t saying “put Jack in a different department” or “let me work from home” or “change work schedules so that I’m not around Jack”. She is saying that she will not work for the company if Jack is still an employee. Not much wiggle room there.

        1. Amy*

          I think there’s a major difference between “I quit because I couldn’t work with him; I’m not coming back unless he’s gone” and “You have to fire him or else I quit”. The first is reasonable. That’s recognizing the problem, recognizing that you can’t reasonably demand he get fired, and quitting yourself, and when you’re asked what would bring you back, giving an honest answer (which isn’t reasonable, hence why you quit instead of asking in the first place). The latter is an entirely unreasonable demand paired with an ultimatum. I don’t think the letter’s phrasing gives us enough info to know for sure which one happened here.

  112. Going anon for mental illness talk*

    So this one is kind of personal to me, on Jack’s side. I have a phobia of an animal–not birds, but a bug, specifically the kind that has way too many legs, colloquially about a hundred of them. It’s a pretty bad phobia; I’m choosing not to name them because frankly reading or writing the name is enough to elevate my pulse a bit, and that’s quite unpleasant. This is a diagnosed phobia, and I receive treatment for various anxiety disorders, including this one.

    I haven’t disclosed this at work for several reasons. First, I don’t expect it to ever come up; they’re not all that common in my area (the only kind we have is a minor house pest), and I’ve never seen them or heard of them being seen in my workplace. Second, my typical reaction isn’t dangerous; at worst, I cry a lot and hyperventilate and maybe freeze up, which ruins my ability to function, but isn’t going to hurt anyone. The worst consequence I can foresee is really that I’d need to take the day as a sick day, which isn’t something I need special accommodation for. Third, it’s pretty well managed; I have been in scenarios where I’m exposed to them with some frequency (my parents’ house does have them), so I’ve learned to manage most symptoms well, and I have meds to take in the case of a very extreme reaction. Based on all that, I don’t have any accommodations to request or dangers to warn about, as far as I know! And fourth, there is a significant downside to disclosure–stigma re: mental illness is a serious problem even in many relatively progressive places. Of course I’d disclose it if I needed to for some reason, but if there’s no benefit to anyone, I’d rather not suffer the negative consequences for no reason.

    But there is a remote possibility that one of these bugs might show up on my desk one day, despite all odds to the contrary. And there is a remote possibility that I might react in a new and unforeseen way that has never happened before. And if that were to happen, there is a remote possibility that the new reaction might hurt someone. The probability is extremely low, but I suppose it’s technically possible.

    If that unlikely scenario were to happen, am I wrong to feel like I’d done everything I could already? I’ve been in treatment. It’s been mostly under control for years now, and I have techniques for managing even my most severe reactions. I don’t expect it to ever come up at work. If it did come up, I don’t know of any needed accommodations (beyond the sick leave policy we already have for everyone), and I don’t know of any potentially dangerous reactions that need to be accounted for. What else could I possibly do?

    (None of this means that I’m not also sympathetic to Liz. It’s awful that this happened, it’s understandable that she’s upset and doesn’t want to work with Jack anymore, and I hope the company deals with her in a fair, accommodating, and supportive way. But I guess it’s Jack’s predicament that I have more personal insight into, hence the focus here.)

    1. amy*

      That’s pretty different, though, from this situation. Your known reactions have nothing to do with anything that might hurt others. Someone who’s going to run in a panic already knows that Things Could Happen. I mean who knows, the guy down the hall may one day have a pyschotic break and do something dangerous, but we’re looking at the likely rather than the theoretically possible.

      1. Kyrielle*

        Do we know, however, that Jack’s known reactions before this incident included flight? Or was he prone to freezing and hyperventilating, which is embarrassing but unlikely to harm bystanders?

        My response to dogs for a long time included trembling, racing heart, difficulty breathing, backing away, and occasionally screaming.

        Until the day one I *hadn’t known was there* barked from behind a high fence (yes, I felt very silly afterward, patently the dog could not reach me, my phobia did not care) and I fled frantically away from the sound.

        Luckily it was late at night, no one was driving down the road, and all that happened was I ran right into the side of a parked car. (For bonus points, it didn’t have a car alarm, so I didn’t wake the neighborhood.)

        But I had had my phobia for eight or nine years at that point, and had no idea that panicked flight was something it could trigger until then.

        1. LBK*

          Yeah, I think it’s really frustrating and kind of bizarre that people are so confident that Jack could’ve prevented this situation completely if he’d been more diligent about getting treatment. For one thing, there’s no way in hell to know that unless you’re Jack’s therapist, and for another, it doesn’t change what happened. He clearly didn’t undertake this specific action intentionally, so arguing butterfly effect ripples all day is pointless and doesn’t help the OP.

        2. Going anon for mental illness talk*

          This is what I was thinking–we know that Jack was in treatment for a phobia, but we have no idea what his known prior reactions were, how he’d been responding to treatment up until now, whether this particular scenario was a known trigger, etc. There’s a lot of detail missing. But people are pretty clearly thinking that he could and should have predicted, and therefore prevented, this incident. I guess I got nervous that I’m missing something obvious.

      2. fposte*

        I think it’s different if Jack had reason to believe this would be his response from previous experience. If this was a new one on Jack, then it’s pretty similar.

      3. Pwyll*

        But it’s not clear that he knew his reaction would be as severe either. Hell, I don’t have a bird phobia and I’ve been startled at the pigeons taking off towards me, flinched, and bumped into someone on the sidewalk before. Granted, I didn’t knock them over, but I certainly could have. City pigeons will fly directly into you and not care.

        1. LBK*

          Seriously, I love birds but I’ve still been freaked out by city pigeons dive-bombing me on multiple occasions. They’re not great at planning trajectories.

    2. Speechless*

      I think Jack has a pretty good chance of encountering birds everywhere he goes outside though, where as it sounds like your particular trigger is something you can hope to mostly avoid in your average day to day life. Most Americans certainly will struggle to avoid birds anywhere outdoors.

      1. Going anon for mental illness talk*

        It’s true that I don’t currently encounter it in everyday life, but it’s also something that could turn up unexpectedly.

        We also don’t know if Jack’s specific trigger is birds in general (which would be very likely to happen) or specifically a bird flying at him (which is a lot less common) or some other more specific bird-related thing.

        1. Speechless*

          The letter says the bird was on the sidewalk and flew away as Jack approached it. It was the bird’s action of flying off which caused the phobic reaction. When you walk near birds they tend to walk away or fly off so that’s going to be a pretty typical bird reaction to Jack coming near them.

    3. Gadfly*

      But, even if you had done everything you could think of to do in advance, wouldn’t you feel like you were still responsible for trying to make good the injury your response caused another person?

      1. Going anon for mental illness talk*

        I’d feel incredibly guilty. Of course I’d want to make things as right as I could make them. That would probably involve an apology to the injured person, working with my care team to handle it to minimize the chance of anything similar happening again, and (depending on what I decide with my care team) possibly making some accommodations with my workplace. (All of which, I’ll note, we either know Jack did or at least don’t know that he DIDN’T do.)

        But there’s a difference between having a sense of personal responsibility for something, and being held institutionally responsible for an incident. I’d be pretty hurt if people (other than the injured person, who can feel however they want, they got hurt) were blaming me for not somehow preventing it, given I had no way to anticipate it any more than anyone else did. If the injury resulted more from unfortunate circumstances than from me being violent, I’d be really upset if people started treating me as a massive danger or acted like I was likely to kill someone.

  113. amy*

    It occurs to me that Liz also has legal remedy that, unfortunately, she may be wise to take. If she winds up with ongoing problems because of the injury, that’s expensive. And it’s clear who’s at fault. ADA protection does not include the right to assault and endanger others.

    I can tell you that, were I still the single mom of a not-yet-toilet-trained toddler, I’d be seeking those damages. Because I’d have to hire someone to do a tremendous amount of the housekeeping and childcare work I did, and that could easily run to five figures by the time I was solidly healed up. I would probably also be offering to pro-se sue the company for not warning me about the potential risks of walking next to Bird Phobia Man outdoors, and hoping that, rather than spend lawyer time on the case (which they’d probably win), they’d come up with a settlement that’d help me pay expenses.

    1. Casper Lives*

      I don’t think you can sue you the company for not telling you when they weren’t informed until after the fact. I agree with your general point!

      1. Erica*

        It’s the company’s job to provide a reasonably safe working environment. It’s not their job to know each employees idiosyncrasies or hidden disabilities, but working liability often is a case of intent-doesn’t-matter: it’s their job to provide safety, not to know any particular details. (If the janitor leaves a floor too wet and someone slips on it, the company is liable, even the janitor had forgotten his normal schedule and mopped the wrong area.)

        They’re likely liable for the damages (worker’s comp, at least), and may have a case against Jack for not telling them that he wasn’t safe around birds.

    2. LawBee*

      She’s probably eligible for worker’s comp, which (at least in my state) will cover all her medical bills current and ongoing, as well as prescriptions and the cost of travel to/from her appointments, and the cost of help/nurse’s aids. She’s not going to be left out to dry.

      Look, I’m sympathetic to Liz. I wouldn’t want to work with Jack either, and I definitely wouldn’t want to walk around outside with him. And we don’t know what HR is doing with Jack because that’s confidential between HR and Jack. But the OP was asking about Liz’s ultimatum of “him or me” and that is not her decision to make.

    3. fposte*

      You would not have much luck suing the company (especially pro se, which is basically a kamikaze move); there’s more possibility that you could sue Jack, but that gets into areas of what worker’s comp precludes you from and how much at work this event would be deemed to be that I am not qualified to judge.

      1. CM*

        Really? I would think that the company would have vicarious liability for the actions of Jack, an employee of the company who injured another person in the course of his work-related duties, just as they would if Jack were driving back from the meeting and ran someone over.

        1. LawBee*

          It would be an interesting legal research project, for sure. If Liz hires a lawyer, that’s probably one of the arguments the lawyer will make, but it’s not a definite. (And I agree with fposte, going pro-se would really be a gift to the company’s legal department.

          But depending on the state, worker’s comp (which hopefully Liz filed for) may preempt this theoretical lawsuit. I can’t imagine a judge agreeing to punitive damages for this, so WC would likely meet the goal of “making the plaintiff whole”.

  114. LoiraSafada*

    I don’t understand why the letter sounds so sympathetic to Jack. I have anxiety; I’ve never pushed someone in front of a car because of it or otherwise put someone in harm’s way as a result. Having a mental illness isn’t a free pass to mistreat others. This guy sounds like a massive liability. How does this person get himself to work every day? Or function at all as an independent adult? Birds are everywhere. A lot of the letter also sounds like BS with regard to his actions (or lack thereof) after the fact. Either way, good luck getting anyone to want to work with this guy. The damage has been done.

  115. LBK*

    I think everyone in this scenario just kind of has to go their own way and do what feels right to them. There’s no possible way to make everyone happy because this is a horrifying incident and those just don’t have nice, neat resolutions; you don’t solve a problem like this, you just get through it and eventually get past it. Liz leaving might really be the best possible outcome that can be achieved given the reality of the circumstances, because I don’t think it’s fair to fire Jack, nor do I think there’s any sane way to guarantee to Liz that this will never, ever happen again, because the odds of it happening in the first place were so low.

    There’s a ton of comments focused solely on taking sides in the issue, which I think is wildly unhelpful and unproductive. Assuming the OP is unwilling to fire Jack and Liz is unwilling to return to work as long as Jack is still, I think there’s no merit in trying to continue to assign the blame or argue who’s right and wrong. OP just needs to accept that this was a terrible situation with no winners, accept that Liz isn’t coming back and figure out how her department is going to operate going forward. It’s not pretty, but it’s life.

    1. amy*

      Yeah…well, this is why there are laws. So you don’t have to rely on someone feeling what’s right to them in an ethical manner.

      1. LBK*

        I don’t see what laws are at play here unless Liz decides to file a suit or press charges. Since she hasn’t done that yet, that doesn’t really have anything to do with the advice we can give to the OP. Unless I’m missing something there’s no laws that would guide the OP’s actions here.

  116. Out on a Day Pass*

    For everyone who is on Jack’s case for not having previously disclosed his phobia .. how many times have you been fired for having a mental illness? I have schizophrenia, and I been fired several times for it. Not because I’m a danger, but because it scares people. You can see the same reaction in people saying how dangerous Jack is in this comment thread.

    After the last firing led to me living on the street for several months, I absolutely wouldn’t disclose a mental health issue unless it was absolutely necessary. It’s easy to badmouth Jack for not doing now that an incident has occurred. It’s a lot harder when you know it will lead to you never again getting a raise, having decreased job security, and your co-workers treating you like a dangerous sub-human. The stigma of the mentally ill is very real.

    Now Jack has to live with the fact that his mental health condition led to the pain and suffering of another person. I’ve been down that road, and the guilt is terrible. I suspect Liz’s wounds will heal much faster than his will.

    1. amy*

      Except…he’s already been dangerous. I mean he shoved her into the path of a moving car. She spent four days in the hospital, and who knows how well she’ll heal, whether she’ll have a fully functional arm and not have to live with chronic pain from the injury.

      I get that the stigma is terrible, but that’s the HR job: protect employees from stigma. Not, however, “help employee to hide the fact that his illness makes him actually, demonstrably physically dangerous in certain situations.”

      1. LBK*

        Oh come on. He’s not hanging out on the sidewalk waiting for wayward pigeons to give him an excuse to attack his coworkers. To describe him as “dangerous” is ludicrous.

        1. amy*

          Dangerous in the office, no. Dangerous to be walking next to outdoors, apparently yes. I guess you could ask Liz about that.

          1. AD*

            This was an accident. Stop painting Jack as a villain. Regardless of the phobia at issue here, should anyone who has ever been the cause of an accident (car, bike, whatever) be forced to wear a Scarlet Letter of shame or be vilified?

            1. Temperance*

              Literally no one is suggesting that he wear a scarlet A, but it’s so silly to pretend that he hasn’t hurt someone, and that he hasn’t ever been a danger. He pushed a woman in front of a moving car. Come on.

              1. AD*

                You are: a) misrepresenting the facts in the letter (pushed Liz in front of a moving car is not an accurate description of Jack’s actions) and b) you’re throwing smoke in my eyes claiming there isn’t wide-scale vilification of Jack on this page, when that contradicts the text that I’m reading in front of me

      2. Out on a Day Pass*

        Everyone, and I do mean everyone, can be actually, demonstrably physically dangerous in certain situations. Even my cat can fit that description at the top of a flight of stairs. Thanks for providing a nice example on why us mentally ill types tend to hide our illness, which is because of attitudes like yours.

        1. amy*

          I’m trying to think of the situation in which I’m prone to losing control and potentially becoming physically dangerous to other people at work.

          …
          …
          …

          nothing. Trying to think of times when I might have lost control and caused property damage, even.

          Nope. I’ve been working for a long time, too.

          I get that mental illness carries stigma. I really do. My daughter’s dad has struggled with it most of his life, spent years on disability. On the other hand, minimizing or dismissing known risks to other people helps nobody. On the contrary.

          Do I think everyone with a mental illness is physically dangerous? No. But if you know that your condition can make you lose control and run around in a blind panic in certain situations, then you have to take steps to make sure that others are aware. My main worry in a case like this is that the boss would be so uncomfortable with the idea of a phobia that she’d insist that he’d be fine, just think positive, etc. I’ve been in situations like that with physical illnesses, and in that case you have to be firm and say no, I know you may not be personally comfortable with the idea, but this is the reality and you will have to accept that.

          Yesterday a prospective tenant did an excellent job of that: she has a support animal for a mental illness, and knew her rights, so right up front she said so. So good, now I’m aware, and the only questions I have are to do with other accommodations she might need. The law is clear enough on most of these things.

          2. Out on a Day Pass*

            LBK stole the easy one, but I have more. Have you ever driven a co-worker to a work function? If you lost control while driving, you would be physically dangerous to a co-worker. A high heel shoe that breaks on a stairway could have you knocking your co-workers down like bowling pins. A minor cold could kill an immune-compromised co-worker. None of these things require malice, but they are all situations where a person could be physically dangerous to those around them.

            I also categorically deny that I have any obligation to disclose anything. The ADA doesn’t cover <15 employee businesses, and to even qualify for ADA protection you have to prove that your mental health substantially limits one or more major life activities, a diagnosis isn't enough. If society wants to demand that I disclose my mental illness, it needs to make sure it is safe for me to do so. It is not, either physically or socially. I'm not going back to living on the street because an ill-informed boss believes schizophrenia = dangerous crazy person. And yes, I have been fired for that exact reason.

    2. Speechless*

      Liz is maimed for life. She had to have surgery the break was so bad. Her scars are for life now, she’s stuck with them. I see no reason why Jack shouldn’t be stuck with is either if I’m honest.

    3. Casper Lives*

      Wow. I realize you sympathize with Jack, but saying he will suffer longer is just wrong. It’s likely she’ll have years if not lifelong physical effects (visible scars, tissue healing badly, bones aching in the rain, etc.) and mental effects (PTSD from the traumatic incident of someone shoving you into a car with painful injuries). Try to have more compassion for Liz.

      1. Out on a Day Pass*

        I do have compassion for Liz. I have had my left forearm broken, though mine was by a steel toed boot and not by accident. The pain was real. I required surgery, and the pain from that and the recovery was real too. Years later I have full range of motion and minimal scarring in my arm. My shattered hip was a different story .. I’ll walk with a cane for the rest of my life. So please don’t think I don’t understand what it’s like to be assaulted, because I do. I’ll add that even with my permanently damaged hip, I don’t consider myself maimed for life, and I don’t consider Liz maimed for life either.

        I also still stand by my statement. Psychic scars heal slower than physical ones.

        1. a*

          It’s not a contest! “X’s pain is worse than Y’s” is not only unproveable, but irrelevant here. Liz is dealing with physical and emotional trauma here. You don’t need to downplay that in order to express sympathy for Jack.

          1. Out on a Day Pass*

            I can’t say whether Liz’s or Jack ‘s pain is worse. What I am saying is that I have experienced the trauma of being assaulted, as well as the trauma of my mental illness causing me to harm another. The second was far, far worse, and haunts me far, far more even a decade later.

            Given the reaction here to Jack, and this comment thread in general, I do feel the need to point this out. Most people can empathize with the trauma of being assaulted. Few can comprehend the trauma of mental illness and the things that it can make you do. I’ve seen people driven to suicide over guilt for far less.

    4. Observer*

      I was sympathetic till your last line. All I can say is Spare me!

      When people who hurt others complain about how terrible it is for THEM, I have *zero* sympathy.

      And what gives you the right to even speculate on how easily she will, or will NOT, heal?

      1. Temperance*

        Thank you for saying this. So many comments are basically excusing Jack fully, and painting him as the victim. F that.

      2. Out on a Day Pass*

        Did you read the part where I pointed out that I was once assaulted badly enough to have had my forearm broken? Both bones on my left arm were broken, one in three places, and I required surgery so the bones would set properly. In addition, my hip was shattered and I lost most of my teeth. I was in the hospital for months, not a mere four days. So my pain and personal experience gives me the right to speculate. I’ve personally been down that road, and I suspect most of the people here have not.

        I still have sympathy for Liz. She’s hurt, in pain, and barely anyone here is denying that. This does not change that I also have sympathy for Jack, who is probably also in pain, even though it’s not physical. I’ve tried in the past to explain to the neurotypical how terrifying it is to not be in control, but they never really get it, so I’m not bothering here.

        1. Observer*

          No, it does NOT. Your experience is yours alone. Hers is hers, and you have absolutely no idea how this will affect her.

          It sounds like you believe that since this was not an intentional assault, the psychic fall out to the victim must be considered as minimal, and since it didn’t do even more extensive damage she’s fully heal from the physical wounds in short order. These are incorrect, and deeply offensive, assumptions.

  117. Althea*

    After reading some of the discussion, it feels like one of our ethical conundrums.

    You are standing near a train switch, that will switch a train between 2 tracks. If it goes down its current track, it will kill 10 people. If you push the switch, it will divert the train to a different track where it will kill 1 person. Do you push the switch?

    On the other hand, now you are standing on an overpass over a train track. 10 people will be killed if the train goes down the track. Next to you is a person. If you push the person onto the track, it will cause to the train to stop before it hits the 10 people. Do you push the person?

    In general, a large majority of people answer “yes” to the first scenario and “no” to the second. The math is the same but the action of *pushing* a person vs. a switch is what gets to people.

    In this scenario, I feel like a lot of people are hung up on the physical act of Jack “pushing” and can’t accept the accidental nature of it – due to the physical motion of the push.

    1. amy*

      This is why in law, responsibility is attributed to both intentional and unintentional acts of harming others, and greater costs imposed on those who do it intentionally.

      Have a look at the varieties of fault and penalty under CA law when it comes to killing someon with your car: http://www.shouselaw.com/vehicle-manslaughter.html

      If Jack had never had a phobic attack before, or his attacks had always taken the form of freezing, then that’s one thing. He’d have had no way to’ve known about this — there might be an “well, he should’ve known that other types of reactions can happen” argument, but probably if this was a brand new thing and he’d had 15 years of going catatonic instead, there’s no reasonable way to have foreseen it. But if this is Jack doing Phobic Jack, then it’s negligent of somebody not to have looked to mitigate the danger — probably negligent of Jack.

      1. LBK*

        The law isn’t a moral guide, though, and it doesn’t help the OP figure out how to handle the situation. Unless you’re saying that the OP should fire Jack, it doesn’t make a lick of difference whether he’s technically considered at fault or not.

  118. Sutemi*

    I wonder why Jack was walking so close to Liz. If she was 1/2 a step ahead of him it sounds like she was pretty close and that he was partly in control of their personal distance. Many commenters who addressed how others deal with bird phobias mentioned that an accommodation was to walk a little further apart, to leave room. Even without disclosing a phobia, Jack could have discreetly have left more room or been known as someone who wanted a bit larger personal space.
    You need to think about what accommodations need to be made to keep all of Jack’s coworkers safe, not just Liz. That ship has sailed and it doesn’t sound like you are willing to offer Liz any accommodations she might accept. What do Jack’s other coworkers deserve to make sure this never happens again?

    1. JS*

      I feel like there is a lot of variables we don’t know. Like how narrow the parking lot is. Some lots are huge and some barley have a sliver that can be considered a walkway. We don’t know if Jack was originally in front of Liz but Liz passed him, or waited for him to catch up to her, she went back to the car for some reason, etc. All we know is when it happened he was close to her for whatever reason. He may have those particular spatial cautions in place but it was a Series of Unfortunate Events on this particular day.

  119. Casper Lives*

    I don’t want to repeat what others have said. I’ll say that what gets me is that Jack didn’t take steps to mitigate his phobia. He probably should have disclosed it, yes, but stigma from what people will consider “ridiculous fear” is real. He could’ve made sure to leave a few feet of distance between himself and anyone else when outside, for starters. That’s unlikely to be remarked upon by coworkers so there’s no “risk” of the phobia coming to light.

    There’s also the part where I personally would be even more terrified if a man touched me in a way that caused me to hurt. That’s related to past experiences, but I couldn’t go back to work with a man who hurt me (the pushing & injury would be too emotionally related to separate them for me). Who knows, maybe Liz has her own problems she doesn’t want to disclose. I guess I’m arguing for more compassion for Liz.

    1. Amy*

      He did, though. He’s been in treatment for 2 years. We can debate about whether that treatment has been effective or whether his therapist is any good (though I’d argue we don’t have nearly enough information to actually comment productively on that), but it’s incorrect to say that he hasn’t taken steps to mitigate this. This also presumably hasn’t happened until now, considering the workplace doesn’t seem to have known about it, so clearly he’s got some kind of mitigation strategy that works most of the time.

  120. anon for this*

    If I were Liz, I would go to my own therapist for a note and ask for mental accommodation because I cannot work with a man who assaulted me. How would that play out? Battle of the acceptable accommodations. Whose note would trump whom?

    1. fposte*

      That’s not really how accommodations work, though. There’s no simple “mental accommodation” and no simple note, and it would definitely be outside of the scope of reasonable accommodation to require other employees to be fired. If an employee has difficulty with the presence of another person for ADA-protected reasons (let’s say serious, though not usually life-threatening allergies), accommodation can include offices distant from each other and assignment to different teams, but they would be unlikely to rise to a promise you’d never ever see this other person; if that’s the requirement of the other employee, they may then have to decide whether they can work with the accommodations offered or not.

      1. Borne*

        Reasonable accommodation should surely not include allowing individuals, like Jack, to injure co-workers like Liz.

        1. fposte*

          Nobody’s saying it does. But they also explicitly don’t include requiring another employee to no longer work for the same employer.

  121. Rebecca*

    I purposefully looked for birds during my lunchtime walk. There were dozens of them, some on houses, some in trees near where I was walking, several flew down and lit down on the sidewalk and flew quickly away. I also live in a rural area, and I see dozens, if not hundreds, of birds of many sizes, from a tiny Chickadee to turkeys or turkey vultures circling overhead.

    I can’t imagine how Jack gets through every day of his life dealing with this phobia. It must be crippling! There are birds literally everywhere here. The only way to avoid them is to go out after dark, and hope you don’t see an owl or whipoorwill (which I have when I’m out walking after dark). Jack really needs to work harder with his therapist to see what he can do to mitigate his extreme reaction, and at the very least, he needs to stay out of arm’s reach and away from other people when he’s outside. Period.

    Liz has every right to be upset. Jack’s reaction to his phobia caused her to incur broken bones, surgery, and months or years of recovery time. I say this because my Mom shattered her wrist, and underwent surgery, a hospital stay, then months of healing, therapy, and special exercises so she could regain mobility and use of her hand. It’s not like she had a few scrapes and bruises, which would be bad enough. This is a life changing injury for her.

    I hope the OP can help Liz to find another position. I’d also not truly accept her resignation just yet, just in case it was done in the heat of the moment. Perhaps she could return to work, and you could move either her or Jack to another department. As for Jack, he needs to take responsibility for his phobia and if he has such an extreme reaction, it’s up to him to keep his distance when he’s outside and around other people, or at least tell them he has an extreme phobia so they are aware and can perform evasive maneuvering if necessary.

  123. em2mb*

    Honestly, I’m surprised Liz didn’t file a restraining order against Jack. I’m guessing she went a couple of days not knowing *why* Jack pushed her in front of a moving car then refused to come to her aid because he had not disclosed his bird phobia before the incident. If it were me in that situation, the first thing my partner/family members would suggest when they learned I’d been rushed to the hospital with a severe fracture because a coworker had knocked me under a moving vehicle would be to ensure I never, ever had to be near that person again. From Liz’s point of view, she gets out of surgery and finds out that Jack is claiming he reacted as he did because of a previously undisclosed bird phobia? I don’t think the onus is on her to be the rational, reasonable one in this scenario when she suffered great bodily injury.

    (That said, we know nothing about the size of the office. Asking to transfer teams, or for accommodations be made so she never has to see Jack again, those might not be practical solutions. In my small office with fewer than 50 employees, it would probably take them terminating the person who did this for me to come back to work.)

    It’s not useful to come up with imaginary scenarios where Jack has hallucinations, or uses a kid as a human shield, or whatever. But if Jack had been a stranger who suddenly took off running and shoving people under moving cars, I can’t imagine the police wouldn’t end up arresting that person. It’s a shame that our society stigmatizes mental illness, but the bottom line is, Jack severely injured a coworker. I’m amazed he wasn’t terminated on the spot.

    OP, I’d be worried about how other coworkers react to this. From the outside looking in, I’m guessing the optics are terrible. Liz gets pushed under a car, and Jack gets to keep his job? If this is how management treated one of my coworkers, I would be looking.

    1. fposte*

      There’s no reason a restraining order against Jack would have been granted, though–there’s no personal animus toward her or particular danger she’s in from him.

      1. em2mb*

        But my point is that Liz wasn’t involved with the after-the-incident conversations that happened at the office where Jack disclosed his phobia. She was being rushed to the hospital. From her point of view, her coworker suddenly pushed her into the path of an oncoming car, then refused to render aid when she was in pain and begging for help. If this happened to someone I cared about, I would’ve called the police if the company hadn’t already.

        It’s unfortunate for Jack that whatever therapy he is in has not worked to help him cope with his phobia. But it’s more unfortunate for Liza that she was injured. It’s frustrating to me that so many people seem to have more sympathy for Jack than the person who suffered great bodily harm as a result of his actions.

          1. em2mb*

            Back when I was covering courts, I saw temporary restraining orders granted for far less than, “My coworker shoved me off the curb into the path of a car.” Why he did it isn’t really relevant, especially if she spent four days terrified her coworker was deranged.. If Liz hadn’t been in a position to quit (say, she needed her insurance for the injury Jack caused her), this would’ve been a reasonable way to ensure she didn’t cross paths with him at the office.

  124. Cat Lady*

    I have a cousin who absolutely hates anything that is considered “scary.” She doesn’t deal well with people jumping out at her, music that sounds eerie, etc. There have been times when people have startled her and she has grabbed me by the hair, knocked me down and nearly choked me in her panic “to be saved,” run away, etc.

    One time, a scary movie trailer came on TV when we were hanging out and she freaked out and fell off the couch, kicking me in the ribs on her way down. I was left with bruised ribs for weeks.

    She ripped out a chunk of her sister’s hair in public when she grabbed her when a loud noise went off and scared her half to death.

    She swears she cannot control her physical reactions to fear and always apologizes when she hurts someone.

    However, because of the many times she has injured family and friends, people now sit as far away from her as possible in public and at home. At work, her employer has her in an isolated cubicle to avoid lawsuits. She was forced to see a therapist and bring a letter advising of her issues so as to be able to keep her job.

    In OP’s situation, Jack knew about his phobia and surely, he has had similar reactions before this occurrence with Liz, if he has had this phobia for a while. This could not have been the first time he ran for dear life away from a bird in public and I am going to go out on a limb and say this is probably not the first time he shoved someone out of the way to run for his life away from a bird.

    My point is, he has this phobia and knows how he can react. He should have disclosed it to his employer and colleagues if outdoor time of any kind is involved with work. Here, he and Liz were walking outside and the incident occurred. If he had let her know about his phobia and how he reacts to birds, I bet my bottom dollar Liz would have walked as far away from him as possible. Imagine if she had been pregnant! What then?

    Jack failed to take responsibility for himself and his illness by choosing not to disclose it to his employer and it ended up impacting another person’s life, possibly permanently.

    1. MashaKasha*

      Ouch, I feel for your cousin and your poor injured relatives (yourself included!) I was wondering the same thing. This could not possibly have been the first time for Jack. Nor will it be his last, unless he, the people around him, and his employer, take precautions like it was done in your cousin’s case.

    2. Amy*

      The thing is, this part is incorrect: “Surely, he has had similar reactions before this occurrence with Liz, if he has had this phobia for a while.”

      People do sometimes have new reactions to old phobias. Several people in this comment thread have described scenarios where they had a long-standing phobia and suddenly had a new reaction several years into it. We don’t know that much about Jack specifically; maybe he knew he was prone to this reaction and chose not to act, maybe he knew he’d been prone to this reaction a decade ago but truly thought he was past it, maybe he’d never had this reaction before. Any of those is entirely feasible, and we don’t have enough information to know which is true.

      1. Zillah*

        Any of those is entirely feasible, and we don’t have enough information to know which is true.

        Yeah, I think that this is the key here. We just don’t know.

  125. Elizabeth West*

    I’m not going to read any more comments on this post (I didn’t get very far) because of the length and the arguing. I don’t have time for this today.

    This was a freak accident, IMO. Yes, Jack has a phobia, for which he is in treatment. No, he could not have reasonably expected a bird would fly at him at any given moment. Liz is right to be upset. But the OP is right to not let her dictate what action to take with Jack, if any, especially since she no longer works for the company.

    Regardless, the company or its work comp insurance should pay all Liz’s bills. The accident occurred at work and if they fight it in any way, they’re going to end up looking very bad, and it will affect morale. As to what should happen with Jack, I think because his actions caused serious injury, he should maybe receive some kind of discipline. What that could be I’m not certain, but I don’t think he should necessarily be fired or that anyone should automatically assume he is a threat. If the accident affects morale to a point where they do decide to let him go, they need to be very careful how they do it and definitely consult with an attorney, and I think they should offer him a severance package.

    1. Amy*

      I agree across the board. In terms of how to handle Jack at this point: I think the solution here is less a discipline per se, and more taking steps to keep a similar incident from occurring. It was a freak accident, but now it is known that this reaction can happen. I can see how Jack and his peers could all be alarmed by it, and taking steps to determine whether changes are needed to keep everyone safe, and to enact any accommodations Jack and his care team think might be helpful, seems like the most productive way to both protect all employees and keep morale reasonably level going forward.

    2. Speechless*

      The bird didn’t fly at him. The letter says it was on the sidewalk and when Jack walked near it it flew off and that’s what sparked his phobia.

      The OP might be right not to let Liz dictate her action plan with Jack but in reality the OP asked Liz what it would take to get her back in the job after Liz had already resigned over this, and the answer was Jack fired. The OP declined this, so Liz doesn’t work there anymore. The OP now needs to focus on how to keep her other staff safe from Jack and how to move on in their work without Liz as that ship has sailed now.

      This is likely to cause a lot of tension in the office when all the rest of the team sees is Jack pushed over Liz and she had to have surgery and now Jack still works here but Liz does not. That and all the company was worried about how was how to get Liz back without giving into her request of a fired Jack because deadlines were a problem. Not because we don’t want poor Liz who did nothing wrong to feel she has to stop working here but because we can’t meet deadlines without her.

      1. LawBee*

        “all the company was worried about how was how to get Liz back without giving into her request of a fired Jack because deadlines were a problem.”

        maybe “all that the letter writer wrote in and asked advice about was how to get Liz back without giving into her request of a fired Jack” is more accurate. Because that is literally all we have.

      2. Elizabeth West*

        1. Hair-splitting. Flew at, flew up–it doesn’t matter. It flew and that’s what caused the panic attack.

        2. Yep, Liz quit. She chose to leave. I don’t blame her at all because that was a traumatic incident for her, but it was her choice. OP needs to forget about getting her back and maybe hire a contractor until they can replace her. Even if they do end up letting Jack go (see #3 below), they can’t allow Liz to dictate that decision.

        3. OP and the company may have a tough time reconciling Jack’s involvement in the accident with the rest of the employees, which is why I said if they decide that cannot be done, they should give him a severance and be careful how they let him go. Maybe they could move him or something, but personally if I worked there, I would not feel threatened by him in the least. The odds of this happening again in exactly this way are astronomical.

        1. Anon for this*

          Elizabeth West, you are so often a voice of common sense and compassion on this site. I want you to know that I deeply appreciate your replies to this post and wish the world had more people like you.

      3. emma2*

        I think the company should factor in Jack’s mental illness into their decision-making – aka not firing him on the spot like he’s some criminal, since he’s not. I 100% sympathize with Liz, and would probably have reacted the exact same way, but what Jack did was by accident, not intent. That being said, I don’t know what the protocol for workplaces is to deal with this type of issue – someone causing a destructive incident to occur due to a psychological condition. Do they give him leave, or what?

    3. AD*

      Thank you Elizabeth, for being the voice of reason. I always appreciate reading your comments, and I think I agree with everything you said.

  126. Winger*

    All I can say is, some people have a limit. This pushed Liz past her limit. I don’t blame her for a single thing she has done. I don’t think any of her behavior is immature or hostile or unwarranted. I would not be in the least bit concerned about not having a good reference or needing to come up with a story about why she left her last job.

  127. Over It*

    Liz is a drama queen and wouldn’t last at my organization. The hysterics and demanding that another employee be fired for what appears to be an accident is too much. And as someone who evaluates ADA claims, if Jack were to be fired, he’d have a great case against his employer.

    1. Beth*

      Liz was just badly injured, has been in the hospital, and may be on painkillers (many of which can induce some serious brain fog). Of course she’s not all that emotionally level right now–who would be? I think we can see this for the accident it was, and acknowledge that Jack shouldn’t be fired for it, without throwing Liz under the bus.

    2. Doe-eyed*

      Liz has sustained a major injury requiring reconstructive surgery, 4 days in the hospital, likely ongoing physical therapy, and possible lifelong limitation of use and ongoing pain. I’m not sure how anyone characterizes being upset about that as “a drama queen”.

    3. Helen*

      Wow. I don’t think Jack should be fired, but someone who was pushed, got hit by a car, didn’t get help from the person who pushed her, broke bones so bad that she needed surgery and had to spend 4 days in the hospital is not a drama queen.

    4. fposte*

      Are people regularly getting their arms broken from interactions with colleagues at your workplace? Sounds pretty dangerous there; I probably wouldn’t last either.

    5. StartupLifeLisa*

      I’m afraid I can’t agree. If Jack’s phobia is sufficient to require ADA accommodation, then certainly so is Liz’s recent trauma from a serious accident requiring surgery and hospitalization. Physical trauma is extremely psychologically affecting. If Jack is not a “drama queen” for running from a bird and injuring his coworker, neither is Liz for being frightened and angry about the prospect of returning to work with someone who caused her severe physical trauma, regardless of whether or not he can legally be held accountable for it.

    6. Dankar*

      Yeesh. That seems a bit too cruel. I think calling for him to be fired was a shade too far, but I think most of us should be able to sympathize with Liz. She’s in pain, he (unintentionally) caused it. She’s chosen to quit her job–which I think was the right call for her–and now she’s in a world of uncertainty. That would be hard on anyone.

      1. Evan Þ*

        Liz did not call for him to be fired. She resigned; OP specifically asked her if there was anything that could get her back; she said she wouldn’t come back as long as Jack was there.

        1. Dankar*

          “Understandably Liz is angry. She wants Jack to be fired.”

          And after OP refused to fire him, she quit. The timeline laid out in the letter leads me to believe that she absolutely did call for him to be let go.

    7. Stellaaaaa*

      Does it actually violate the ADA if Jack didn’t disclose his phobia before Liz was hurt?

    8. Observer*

      If that’s how you actually evaluate ADA claims, you are not doing your employer any good.

      If the company had fired him without investigating the cause, Jack would have had zero recourse. Even now that Jack has disclosed his condition, unless he can come up with some sort of realistic plan to avoid a repeat of the panic attack that the phobia triggered, they would be completely safe. The law is quite clear that putting people at risk of being hit (even leaving out the issue being put into more significant danger) is NOT a reasonable accommodation.

      The OP shouldn’t fire Jack to please Liz. But, to consider her aversion to him being a drama queen is far more over the top than her wanting him fired.

    9. Temperance*

      Thanks for the sexist comment. A woman who has been grievously injured is somehow “hysterical”. Ugh.

  128. Chickaletta*

    Wow, you can’t make this stuff up, can you.

    Did anyone see the SVU episode a couple weeks ago where a rapist claimed to have a “rape gene” so he shouldn’t be held accountable for his crime since he couldn’t help it? (Spoiler) There’s no such thing, but even if there was, the premise was that he had to control it without hurting other people.

    Same for a bird-phobia friend: he needs to control his disease to the extent that he doesn’t harm other people. Having a mental illness is not an excuse for placing others in physical harm. “Oh, I’m sorry I murdured you. I have a documented disease that caused me to do it. So-reee!”

    I wish the HR department could have separated the two issues and fired Jack, not for his disability, but because he caused great harm another person. The company will be lucky if Liz doesn’t come back and sue both Jack and the company. She’s not held to ADA standards like HR.

  129. Caleb*

    It’s really remarkable to me that so many people are defending Jack.

    If you have a condition that may result in you knocking somebody into oncoming traffic, and that condition is triggered by something that can literally happen any time you are outside, it is your responsibility to make sure people know.

    I don’t think anybody here is going “Gosh, that Jack is such a jerk for not controlling his reaction to a bird.” I do think many of us are rightfully calling him out for not disclosing the fact that he will KILL people, accidentally or not (It doesn’t matter), to get away from birds.

    That. Is. Something. People. Deserve. To. Know. Before. They. Work. With. Him.

    Would you work with this guy?

    1. Dankar*

      Yes, I would. The same way I was totally able to socialize with a family member’s partner who had accidentally killed someone in a fist fight when he was younger. (And I would argue that was a much more intentional injury than the one Jack caused by fleeing in terror.)

      Why? Because intent MATTERS. Sure, Jack should have disclosed his condition. But what a freak confluence of circumstances led to this unfortunate situation.

      I understand Liz’s inability to work with him, and she is likely going to be suffering for years due to what happened. He should carry some responsibility for her medical bills, and the OP’s company should give Liz any positive reference she earned while there. But what Jack did, and the consequences that followed, do NOT make him a bad person. He’s human, he made a mistake, and kudos to the OP for understanding that and working with him to accommodate the disability he’s now disclosed to them.

      1. Erica*

        “Bird in a parking lot” is not a freak occurrence.

        And no, Jack may not be a bad person. There’s the possibility that Jack is actually a near-sociopathic asshole who happens to haul in the big-money accounts so the company doesn’t want to lose him. But yeah, from what little we know, Jack could be an amazingly considerate and sympathetic person who couldn’t control his actions at just the wrong moment.

        However – he knew he had a phobia. He knew it was bad enough to need therapy for it, for years. He knew that birds are often encountered outside, and that his reaction to them was outside his control. And he still walked close enough to Liz to push her in front of a moving car.

        The question of Jack’s intent doesn’t start at the moment he saw the bird and panicked and tried to run away; it starts at the moment he left the building and entered the world where birds move around freely. And at that time, his intent was definitely not, “keep Liz safe from my as-yet-unknown reaction to something that happens rather a lot out here.” We can infer (could be wrong; could be other details we don’t know about) that Jack’s intent was “don’t tell them I have a problem with birds because they’ll react badly to that. I’ll just pretend that birds are no big thing to me, and hope that nothing convinces them otherwise.”

        It looks like Jack put his career ahead of Liz’s safety the moment he stepped onto the sidewalk. That doesn’t make him a bad guy. Doesn’t make him an unmitigated jerk. He didn’t think Liz was in any danger that would make it worth the potential hit to his career that disclosure would cause. But he was wrong about that – on a subject where he knew he couldn’t trust his own reactions.

        1. Beth*

          Are you actually saying that Jack should have been thinking, “It’s theoretically possible that I could have a new, unpredictable reaction to this long-standing issue, so I should do…something…to keep Liz safe from this unknown possible reaction”? That seems massively unreasonable. If it was an unexpected reaction, Jack didn’t know it was coming any more than anyone else, and couldn’t possibly have known what steps to take to mitigate it. And no one can take every possible step to mitigate every possible scenario. What’s he supposed to do–hide out in his bedroom forever with the blinds down?

          1. Speechless*

            How do we know it’s new? There isn’t anywhere near enough to go on to say that this never happened before. This could be his typical reaction to birds flying away from near him and it just happens that a bird never flew away from near him while he was walking with a coworker.

        2. Kathleen Adams*

          But did he actually “know” he couldn’t trust his own reactions? A phobia isn’t like a poison – you can’t always guess exactly how a person’s going to react to it. For all we know, Jack has gone for months without a severe reaction and may have really thought he was getting a handle on this bird-phobia thing…right up until the moment when he saw the object of his phobia under a very specific set of circumstances that set him off again.

          It’s just amazing to me that people – intelligent, compassionate people – are actually willing to assign blame for someone’s instinctive reactions without knowing any more about that person than we’ve been told here. I mean, what’s the guy supposed to do? Never walk around outside anywhere near a coworker? Never drive a car because he could be swooped on by a bird? I just don’t get it.

    2. fposte*

      Sure. I work with people who talk on the phone when driving, and they’re a lot more dangerous.

    3. Victoria Nonprofit (USA)*

      Yes, of course I would work with him. I would walk next to him on a sidewalk. He’s a person, who experienced a rare (as evidenced by this being the first time it’s come up in his work at this organization) accident.

      I could kill my coworker by tripping and pushing them into traffic as I try to break my fall. You could kill your coworker by losing focus for a split second while you’re parking your car, after the baby cried through the night and you got less sleep than you need. Terrible, life-threatening things happen, no matter how many dramatic periods you put in the middle of sentences.

      Liz was far, far more likely to be injured driving to her offsite meeting than by her bird-phobic coworker. If she were injured in a traffic accident during work hours, she may decide that she is no longer willing to drive for her job — and that’s a reasonable choice for her to make. But I doubt we’d see vehemence among the commentariat that it’s dangerous and unreasonable for her employer to expect people to drive to meetings.

    4. Amy*

      Um, yes? Why wouldn’t I?

      He panicked when confronted with a phobia trigger. Okay–panic attacks aren’t a daily thing for most people (and for people who they are, they’re generally pretty disabling), and they’re often disruptive but otherwise pretty harmless. I can pretty much guarantee you know people with this exact kind of issue, actually, even if you’re not aware of it! And you don’t need to be, because they’re not generally dangerous.

      Sure, there’s a chance that Jack might bump into someone while trying to run away, and sure, in the exact wrong scenario, that might push them into harm’s way. But there are so many things more dangerous than that in everyday life–many of which I voluntarily participate in. I drive on highways with people on their phones, I fly to visit relatives, I swim in the ocean, I play with cats and dogs and other animals that can hurt me, I go hiking in remote areas, etc. The odds of me dying due to someone else’s panic attack–even someone with Jack’s exact reaction–are so relatively low that this isn’t even a danger worth worrying about, on my radar.

    5. AD*

      Putting aside the hyberbole you’ve used (and taking into account the 1700+ comments so far), framing this as “Jack is potentially dangerous, and this needs to be disclosed to employers/colleagues” is something that doesn’t make sense to me. People all over this page are saying variations of that. And it’s wrong.

      Having a phobia or aversion to birds is not inherently “dangerous”. Maybe if you had a job that was all outdoors or close to a park/sea life, that would be different. But Jack was simply leaving his car, and a bird happened to be in front of him, and so was a co-worker (very close-by), and whether Jack panicked and fled and inadvertently knocked/pushed Liz over, he had no way of knowing that Liz would fall in the path of an oncoming vehicle. This was a chain of events that led to Liz’s injury, and the unfortunate timing and the physical presence of the car were not something Jack or anyone else could have feasibly anticipated would all come together, to harm a co-worker.

      I have a really bad aversion to bees. It’s not a phobia, so I’m not claiming it’s a documented fear. But I have been known to react *pretty* startled when a bee is close by. In a couple of situations, I’ve jumped away or run out of the room and slammed a door shut if I’ve been startled by a bee close to me or on me. I can totally picture if, by a horrible chance of fate, a bee landed on me when someone happened to be really close by and I jumped away and thoughtlessly/inadvertently hit them or pushed them (I would be mortified by my reaction and much more apologetic than Jack was, but that’s not my point). To do the mental gymnastics of being a prognosticator of doom and saying to myself “You know what, that may happen to me one day, and if in the unlikely event that a colleague is 1 foot away from me, and in the unlikely event I push them out of the way, and in the unlikely event that they fall down, and in the unlikely event that an oncoming car hits them, I should probably warn my employer in case this kind of Final Destination-type of chain of events ends up happening”, then I would say that’s absurd.

      Of course anything may happen, and accidents happen to the best of us…..but saying that someone like Jack (or anyone who has a phobia or fear of insects or animals) is a ticking time-bomb waiting to explode is beyond the pale. I’m shocked that people have made this leap, irrespective of Jack’s inaction at the scene.

      1. AD*

        I’m also going to think out loud, and wonder if there is a US/Non-US divide among the comments today. The US is a much more litigious society than anywhere else, and I’m wondering if that plays into the fact that so many are advocating for Jack’s punishment/removal/incarceration. It’s sad to see this, for what essentially was a really unfortunate accident.

      2. amy*

        The phobia itself is not the problem. We’ve been over that repeatedly on the thread.

        The problem is a reaction to a phobia that can be dangerous to others. If you lose control of your body and will shove anything of the way to escape the thing you’re phobic about, and the phobia-object isn’t rare or predictable, people need to know about this if you’re going to be around them, for their own safety.

        I don’t think most people are unacquainted with phobias and phobic people — they aren’t rare. I don’t think there’s a lack of sympathy for Jack, either. But nobody wants to get shoved into traffic and physically damaged, possibly permanently, because of someone else’s phobic reactions.

        The solution is actually pretty simple. Before any of this happens, Jack has a quiet word with the boss and says look, I know this sounds weird, but etc., so if we’re walking from place to place outdoors I’d rather just do that part on my own so that I don’t have to worry about accidentally hitting anybody or whatnot, and if it’s all the same to you I’ll take a cab from the hotel instead of walking through that death-fountain-plaza full of pigeons to the conference center, because at my last job I accidentally beaned someone with my briefcase trying to get across one of those things. And the boss says that’s fine, if that works, then do it, and I’ll keep things discreet, and yes please take a cab.

        1. AD*

          I think there’s been a good deal of piling on Jack, and also marginalizing of and misunderstanding of panic reactions to phobias here, so I’m going to push back on that.

          And what you’re suggesting may sound reasonable after the fact, but I’m not seeing how that would be the manager’s responsibility (or purview) to influence. It sounds like Jack was getting out of his car either on the street or in a lot. How is the manager/company supposed to intervene in instances where Jack is outside the building and coming to/from work? There’s no “solution” or accommodation that makes sense here (unless the company can teleport people from their cars onto the premises).

          And the main point I made is that this was a chain of incidents that led to Liz’s injury and were entirely unforeseeable (in the aggregate) by Jack, his manager, or his therapist (or whoever). It was a really unfortunate, freak accident. You can’t plan around (or predict) the kind of outcome that happened here (unless all coworkers were instructed not to be closer than a 5-foot radius around Jack. And, again, how/who could implement or enforce such a silly rule?).

          1. Ann O.*

            But birds suddenly flying away are a really common event in the outdoors.

            I feel like the sticky point, more than insensitivity or sensitivity to phobias–is whether people consider this a fluke accident or a fairly predictable event. I don’t know that we have enough information to say one way or the other because we don’t know the specifics of Jack’s trigger. But I would say that the events, as described, are not an unusual combination of events and it seems reasonable that absent effective therapy, Jack is likely to harm someone again at some point in time. While it probably won’t be as severe as Liz’s injuries, frankly, I wouldn’t be much happier to be knocked to the ground and banged up due to Jack’s phobia. I don’t think it’s unreasonable to feel that Jack bears the responsibility for keeping a distance from other people while he’s in the outdoors where birds are a pretty common occurrence.

    6. Kathleen Adams*

      Yes, of course I would work with him. I understand why Liz doesn’t want to – at the very least, he is going to bring back some very unhappy memories – but jeez, he didn’t actually do anything wrong, so why should *I* shun him? He freaked out. It happens. It’s extremely unlikely it will ever happen again.

      I’d really rather work with Jack than with, for example, a former coworker of mine who apparently never washed her hands after using the restroom. That’s far more likely to cause me harm than a freakishly mis-timed physical reaction.

    8. Zillah*

      I do think many of us are rightfully calling him out for not disclosing the fact that he will KILL people, accidentally or not (It doesn’t matter), to get away from birds.

      Can we please be reasonable here? That’s incredibly overstating the situation. It’s possible to dislike what Jack did and think that he should be fired without leaping to this level of hyperbole.

      1. Chickaletta*

        He pushed her into a moving car. She broke bones and was hospitalized for four days. I don’t think saying that he’s capable of killing people as a result of his condition is overstaing the situation. In fact, I think it’s pretty darn accurate.

        1. Zillah*

          Saying that Jack should disclose that he will kill people to get away from birds is absolutely absurd. I find the insistence that it’s a totally reasonable presentation of what the OP has told us to be absolutely absurd.

    9. Chickaletta*

      I would work with him. However, I would not walk next to him near traffic, bridges, or ledges. I’d rather insult him than end up in the hospital.

    10. LBK*

      If you have a condition that may result in you knocking somebody into oncoming traffic…

      Have you ever tripped on the sidewalk? Pretty much any time you’re walking next to someone along a street, you’re in a “condition that may result in you knocking somebody into traffic”. To suggest that this was a blatantly foreseeable consequence of a fear of birds is ridiculous.

    11. Margaret*

      Many of the defenses of Jack seem to be reacting (quite rightly, I think) to comments like yours that reinforce harmful ideas about mental illness. It is possible to show concern for Liz, or even criticize Jack, without characterizing Jack as a danger to all who are in his vicinity based on this single incident. Yes, he might react unpredictably; but, so might any other person. People are clumsy, they get tired, they get distracted, they make mistakes–we generally consider those to be normal risks of being around other people. Suggesting that he be cordoned off in some manner, on account of his potential to “kill,” seems to assume that because he has a mental health issue he poses an inherent and unusual threat. This is an assumption that underpins much of the stigma against mental illness (and that has been used to institutionalize those with mental illness).

    12. emma2*

      While I consider Jack to be responsible for Liz’s injury – not because he intended to injure her, but because, at the end of the day, he just did – it’s not reasonable to expect him to anticipate a freak accident every time he walks out of the house. Technically, something like this could have happened even if Jack didn’t have a phobia (he could have tripped and crashed in to Liz, pushed her onto the road, and injured her that way.) That’s basically what freak accidents are. There is nothing about bird phobias that automatically leads one to think “omg…he might end up almost killing someone by pushing her onto the road”. The last thing Jack needs on top of his phobia is paranoia.

    13. Temperance*

      Nope. Then again, I grew up in a household with a mentally ill parent, and feeling like I was in danger pretty much every day sucked. As an adult with some agency, I would not want this man near me.

  130. Susie*

    I can’t believe some of the comments here. Don’t get me wrong, I have nothing but empathy for Jack and I would not fire or punish him. But calling Liz “vindictive” “a witch” “a drama queen” and saying things like this will make her look bad in a job interview and she needs to chill is uncalled for. She was badly hurt and had to have surgery. It is possible to have sympathy for both Jack and Liz but it is totally wrong to pile on Liz over this. I’m honestly shocked at some of the comments.

    1. Kathleen Adams*

      I am shocked at some of those comments, but I’m also shocked at those who have insisted that Jack committed “assault.”

      The thing that seems to be difficult for a few commentors to realize is that it’s possible for things like this to happen and yet – and here’s the hard part – *there is no bad guy*.

      1. RVA Cat*

        Yes, sometimes terrible things happen, and while someone is responsible, it wasn’t intentional.

        Not to derail, but there’s a tragedy all over the local news where two elementary school students (who were also cousins) darted out in front of their school bus and were killed. An adult (uncle to both of them) was watching them, but was unable to stop them. It’s just heartbreaking and terrible, people are blaming him, but…it was just a perfect storm, you know?

      2. Zillah*

        The thing that seems to be difficult for a few commentors to realize is that it’s possible for things like this to happen and yet – and here’s the hard part – *there is no bad guy*.

        Nailed it.

    2. Marty*

      Fundamentally, Liz was injured by Jack. There may be reasons that we are willing to forgive him, but that doesn’t mean that he isn’t in the wrong, and that doesn’t mean that Liz doesn’t need justice. The courts may find him innocent (and I suspect that they will), but until they do, it is entirely appropriate to consider that his actions may have been assault or battery. That process should help Liz deal with her injury, and putting up with it is part of how Jack can repay his debt.

      Fundamentally, Liz losing her job because her co worker battered her is *clearly* a miscarriage of justice, and clearly unless the relationship can be repaired (through mediation and restorative justice), one of them must leave, and that probably should be Jack (preferably with severance and some kind of positive recommendation.)

      1. Gadfly*

        Probably not guilty rather than innocent–and I think that strikes at the heart of the debate. He isn’t innocent, he did something awful. He just might not be guilty, there may not be something punishable there.

      2. Marty*

        First, thanks to our presumption of innocence, not guilty means found innocent.

        Second, I am not sure that I would say that the courts won’t punish him, in fact, I suspect they will, just not criminally for assault or battery. Instead, Jack will probably be found guilty in civil court, and forced to pay some kind of restitution. (Or alternately agree to pay some kind of restitution in mediation.) Hopefully, that process will repair the relationship to the point where Liz and Jack can be friends again, and firing made unnecessary.

        1. cercis*

          Civil court doesn’t find you guilty. It finds for the plaintiff or the defendant and awards damages as necessary, but never assigns guilt. Guilt is a criminal term.

        3. Gadfly*

          Innocence is a MUCH higher bar. It only finds that you are not guilty. Something that they sometimes have to remind jurors.

  131. DArcy*

    Stepping back and taking things “from the top”, I think the OP framed the entire situation problematically from the get-go by presenting this situation as, “Management, HR, and Jake all agree this wasn’t Jake’s fault, but Liz refuses to get with the program and let things get back to normal.”

    While it’s certainly laudable that the OP wants to do right by Jake, they barely even acknowledge that Liz suffered a severe physical injury and is likely experiencing considerable psychological trauma as well. And it does not help at all that the very first comment on this thread doubled down on that by outright gloating that Liz would have trouble explaining her actions to any future employer.

    1. Falling Diphthong*

      This is a good point.

      If it’s a small office and working well away from Jack is not a simple option, then Liz’s “he’s gone, or I’m not coming back” is a pretty rational response on her part. Not feeling safe with the person who panicked and shoved you into the path of a moving car–and apparently might again–is fair.

    2. emma2*

      I have observed a disturbing trend throughout my life: whenever a woman expresses disapproval at something that she was truly victimized by, she is the one that gets criticized for complaining (in my experience, anyway.) I understand that yelling is not the best form of communication, but Liz suffered a traumatic accident and is/was in serious pain. I’m not about to judge her for not completely keeping a cool head.

    3. Jaybeetee*

      Well it sounds rather like the company (and perhaps Jack) are trying to get back to regularly scheduled programming, so to speak. A psychological event severe enough to put someone else in the hospital is not a thing to be glossed over and have everyone back at their desks the next day (aside from the hospitalized person). But it’s also not really a firing thing. Even if this is a world where medical leave doesn’t exist, Jack should probably be put on suspension for some period of time. And I’m not sure if his employers can enforce it, but he should REALLY get a psychological work-up of some kind. Even if this was a one-off, it’s quite a severe one-off, and I don’t think anyone’s crazy for wondering if it could happen again.

  132. Erica*

    Side thought for Liz going forward, dealing with the “why did you leave your last position” question –

    “I suffered a severe injury and my employers couldn’t change the circumstances that caused it. It was accidental, but I had to consider my physical safety.” (Potentially followed by, “I’d rather not talk about it; I’m trying to put the whole thing behind me.”)

    That fudges a little bit… the employers could change the circumstances, but they refused to. But this phrasing doesn’t point fingers at anyone and allows her to say “I couldn’t keep working there” without sounding negative.

    Depending on how the interview is going, she might opt for something like, “A co-worker broke my arm. It was an accident, but once I realized nothing would be done to prevent it from happening again, I had to leave.” This is substantially more accusative, but still in the range of “interesting anecdote” instead of “detail that will overwhelm all memory of her actual qualifications in the interviewer’s mind.”

    1. Stellaaaaa*

      She doesn’t need to fudge the details to make her old employer look better. She can accuse her former employer of doing exactly what they did, which is fail to discipline the person who landed her in the hospital.

      If OP is going to protect Jack for committing the action, there’s no reason why Liz should be told that she can’t talk honestly about what happened to her.

      1. designbot*

        I’ll rarely advocate for lying, but I think Liz should avoid being accusatory in an interview. Even if she is 100% correct in her accusation, in the setting of an interview the one who most likely comes out looking bad is her. I’d say she should gloss over the details and avoid blame altogether. I got injured on the job, they couldn’t assure me that a similar situation wouldn’t happen again, I decided I needed to prioritize my safety.

      2. Wow.*

        I would absolutely want further answers if someone explained leaving their previous job because “my former employer failed to discipline the person who landed me in the hospital”, and yes, if I found that they had demanded that a person with a phobia who had a panic reaction that started a chain of accidental events that led to them breaking their arm be fired for it I would absolutely think twice about hiring them.

        Accidents and accidental injuries happen. How people react to them matters.

      3. Zillah*

        Wait, what???

        I don’t see any suggestion that Liz fudge details to make her old employer look better, nor do I see any suggestion that Liz be told she can’t talk honestly about what happened to her! Erica was talking about what Liz could say in job interviews, nothing more – and that’s a subject that comes up here all the time. Even when the OP is completely in the right, it’s typically a good idea to tread carefully when talking about your former employer for a number of reasons. It’s not about protecting her former employer, it’s about putting her best foot forward and keeping the focus on her in future interviews.

    2. Melissophoebea*

      Is it “refused to”, or would it be “unable to change the circumstances…”?

      1. Melissophoebea*

        Might it also work to say, “It was a very odd, unique set of circumstances, but suffice it to say that I was injured at work and my employers were unable to change the circumstances that had caused it or could potentially cause it again”? Something like that, but better worded?

        1. Melissophoebea*

          And if asked more, say, “I’d rather not go into further details. It was a bit traumatic for me, and I’d like to move past it now”?

        2. LBK*

          I think she could even just go with “There was a bad accident at my previous workplace that caused serious injury to me and I wasn’t comfortable continuing to work there afterwards.” I think that’s understandable without having to get into details.

  133. I'm Anon for this too*

    Just stopping by to hopefully clarify several misconceptions about the ADA in the USA, as it applies to the workplace.

    The ADA is not all-encompassing. It applies to disabilities that impact one or more major life activities. These activities are spelled out in the Act, and include thinking. As a result, a person who meets this criteria cannot perform essential job elements without accommodation. The disabled person suggests the accommodations needed, which the employer evaluates for undue hardship. The employer can also suggest alternate accommodations.

    The Act is not nearly as broad as some on AAM think it is. Not every disability has to be or is properly accomodated in the workplace if it does not impact essential job functions. Employers have many considerations when dealing with situations like the one presented here, but ADA may not be the biggest thing. Off soapbox now.

    1. fposte*

      I don’t think what you’re saying is correct either, though; you absolutely can have a disability under the ADA/ADAAA and be able to perform essential job elements without accommodation, and an employer can indeed suggest accommodations to an employee who is in need of them.

      More practically, most evocations of the ADA aren’t going to go to court, and there’s no online y/n chat for coverage; company lawyers or, more often, managers are going to make their calls based on the way existing guidance seems to point, and lawyers especially are likely to err on the conservative side.

      1. Stellaaaaa*

        I think the issue is that the ADA is generally only going to be evoked when accommodations are necessary. Otherwise why would an employee disclose a disability to her employer? I agree with the commenter that, the blame debate aside, Jack is trying to turn this into an ADA thing when it isn’t one.

        1. fposte*

          Sure, but you’re covered by the ADA whether you evoke it or not, same as you’re covered by Title VII whether you evoke it or not.

          And Jack’s phobia may well be considered a disability under the ADA. We really aren’t in a position to know where it would fall, and courts have definitely found that some phobias are covered by the ADA; however, that doesn’t mean the courts have found that accommodating that disability was required, even if it “counts” as a disability.

          1. I'm Anon for this too*

            Fposte, I stand by what I wrote as I read extensively on this topic when pursuing my own workplace reasonable accommodation, which was granted. I can quote some chapter and verses if need be. I am a long time goverment analyst and reading boring regulations and such is my job. To insure that my employer was treating me fairly, I read everything I could get my hands on, EEOC materials and my agency’s implementation guidance. There really are facts that govern the workplace ADA process.

          2. I'm Anon for this too*

            Nope. ADA accommodations are specific and there is a written accomodation plan for each disabled person that the employer and employee agree to. At the initiation of either party, the agreement can be revisited if it is deemed to no longer be effective. While the process to obtain workplace acommodations under the ADA are available to all qualified disabled persons, actual accomodations are not automatic, far from it. There shall be paperwork. I am not in any way referring to informal workplace accomodations an employer may grant, which may or may not be within the scope of the ADA. I think that formal and informal accomodations get conflated here sometimes and they are qualitatively different.

            1. fposte*

              I think we might be talking past each other, because I’m not seeing anything in your above paragraphs that disagree with what I wrote.

              You can have a physical or mental problem that isn’t covered by the ADA.
              You can have a physical or mental problem and not know if it *would* be covered by the ADA.
              You can have a disability that absolutely would be covered by the ADA and still not need accommodation at work.

              However, I do disagree with you on the paperwork–the law doesn’t require a written accommodation plan. It is absolutely considered best practice in educational spheres, but in workplaces it’s less common, and in fact has been identified as a possible bar to people receiving accommodation they deserve.

              1. I'm Anon for this too*

                I’m a federal employee, written documentation of the entire ADA process is required in federal workplaces. With the specific responsibilities placed on both employer and employee under the Act, to not have a written accomodation agreement would not be acceptable to me as employer or employee. I truly don’t get how having a written agreement could be a bar to accomodation. In the end, ADA is a legal compliance matter and I question the wisdom of engaging in the process without documentation.

        2. LawBee*

          I don’t think Jack is trying to turn this into an ADA thing – I didn’t see the ADA referenced in the letter at all.

          1. fposte*

            Good point. And if I had a response as drastic as Jack’s, I’d want outside support for my explanation as well.

            1. I'm Anon for this too*

              And that is partially my point, that the ADA is not automatically relevent or applicable because an employee has a mental or physical illness. However, posters bring it up quite frequently, almost like the “is it legal” question. And the misinformation kind of bothered me today, don’t know why, I usually just shrug and keep it moving. Nonetheless, I hope someone here benefits from my posts.

              1. Gadfly*

                Like I get about some people assuming FMLA will be of any use with any illness or any sick relative. It just isn’t so.

      2. I'm Anon for this too*

        If you can, as a disabled person, perform the essential functions of the job, then you don’t need to invoke ADA. And yes, an employer who notices an employee having difficulties can initiate an ADA discussion, but unfortunately it usually doesn’t happen this way. Under the Act, direct supervisors are typically the decision maker with regard to granting accomodations, there is usually no lawyers involved. I’m not sure of the point of your last sentence.

    2. DArcy*

      If the ADA was as all-encompassing as some people think, Liz could come back in a few days with a letter from her therapist stating she now has a phobia of Jack. . .

  134. StartupLifeLisa*

    Question for the llamas in the room: Whose needs take priority if Jack’s next job is in a workplace where someone’s necessary service animal is a bird?

    Obviously this is a pretty unlikely prospect, but I’m curious if my instincts are correct. My initial thinking is that the employer would be required to attempt to accommodate both (perhaps by allowing one party to work from home, or giving Jack an office so that he can close the door and not see the bird, or by seating them on opposite sides of the office) but that, if it is an undue burden to keep Jack apart from the service bird, it would be permitted to terminate Jack, if he is unable to perform essential job duties because of the presence of a bird that is a necessary service animal for another person.

    Correct?

    1. MuseumChick*

      My understand int he employer would have into enter into a dialogue with both parties and offer a solution. If either party were unhappy with that solution the employer would not necessarily have to offer more.

    2. fposte*

      Birds cannot, in the U.S., legally be service animals, so that’s not going to happen. Dogs and mini horses are the only legally protected service animals.

      However, let’s make Jack’s phobia a dog phobia. And the answer is pretty much what you say–you offer the accommodations you can offer–but you don’t terminate Jack just because you can’t meet his accommodation request. You tell Jack what accommodations you *can* provide, and then let him decide if he can work under those or not. It would be wise to negotiate a smooth transition out that works for both if you if he can’t.

      1. Dankar*

        Really? I didn’t know it was limited to just those two. I thought that mules were gaining some traction as service animals, too, but maybe I’m thinking of therapy animals.

        1. Stellaaaaa*

          My understanding is that service animals need to be trained to perform actual tasks. This is why if someone tries to bring a service dog into a bar, the bouncer can’t ask about your disability, but he can ask you what job the dog is trained to do.

        2. fposte*

          There’s nothing to stop somebody training a mule to perform service tasks for somebody; however, they’re not covered by the law. (Even mini horses get a separate set of considerations than dogs.)

      2. StartupLifeLisa*

        Ahhhh good call, thanks! I’ve seen a service bird on a flight, but looking at the ADA just now I realize it does indeed only cover dogs.

        1. Gadfly*

          There are other regulations, separate from ADA, that cover therapy animals for things like flights. But technically only dogs trained to perform a specific task are service animals.

          However, just because the ADA doesn’t require accommodation for the bird doesn’t mean that other laws might not be at play. State can expand the protects and there are examples (like the bird on the plane) when therapy animals are also protected.

          1. fposte*

            To clarify what’s kind of a complicated mess:

            The ADA covers service animals, dogs or horses that are trained to perform tasks to assist a person disabled under the ADA; they are protected in workplaces and other venues where the ADA applies (which doesn’t include airplanes)

            The FHA (Fair Housing Act) and ACAA (Air Carrier Access Act) cover emotional support animals (which aren’t therapy animals, because that’s something different). All you need for an emotional support animal is a prescription from a health provider, there are no species limits, and the animal does not have to be trained. They are covered in housing and on airplanes, but not in workplaces or other public venues.

            Therapy animals have no federal protection at all; they are animals certified by various private programs to give people therapeutic access to cuddly comfort, especially in stressful situations such as hospitals.

      3. LBK*

        This whole disaster of a post has been completely worth it because I now know that mini-horses can be service animals, which is the most delightful thing I’ve heard in months.

        1. cercis*

          It gets even better – they get little tennis shoes to wear. It is one of the cutest things I’ve ever seen.

      4. Gene*

        This one falls into the “Except in California” proviso.

        I don’t know about California, but in Washington, any animal can be a legal service animal, provided it’s been trained to provide specific tasks for the person who needs it. Federal provisions are that only dogs and miniature horses can be Service Animals.

  135. Melissophoebea*

    I have a severe phobia of bees, wasps, hornets, etc., which my family members repeatedly mock me for. Personally, I can stand bees being a certain distance away, and I’m only terrified when they buzz in my ear or get up in my face. If I pushed someone to get away from one (which I can’t imagine I’d ever do, because even in pants-crapping terror, I’d be spatially conscious of what’s going on around me), I would rush over after the bee was gone, or stand far away, but be mortified, freaking out, and begging to know if this person were okay, whether this were a total stranger or my best friend in the world.

    Maybe we’re just not getting the full story, but the way OP puts it – and again, I know this is a second or third-hand account – Jack didn’t react all that concerned during or after the event. I wonder if other coworkers and onlookers were berating him, like, “Oh my God, what is your problem?!” and he was just retreating out of shame and remorse.

    1. Kathleen Adams*

      I don’t personally see anything that indicates one way or another whether Jack was concerned or not. All we know is that he didn’t approach her after the accident, but that does not mean he didn’t care. It also doesn’t mean he did care. The OP doesn’t seem to know, so we can’t know either.

      1. Melissophoebea*

        True, which is why I say it was a second or third-hand account. Someone told OP, who is now telling us. There could be no major details left out, or a bunch. I’m just wondering based on my own personal experiences.

  136. Anon for this*

    As someone who has a mental illness and has gone to therapy for it, I would also be p!ss#d if I were Liz. So we don’t know the full story, but the OP suggests that Jack didn’t do anything to help Liz after the accident, which just looks really bad. (I understand he may have felt remorse and not expressed it, but I would have at least offered to pay some of the medical expenses resulting from the accident I caused, if it were me.) My mental illness has directly caused me to hurt others emotionally in the past, and while I can’t always control my symptoms, my condition does not, in any way, remove me from accountability or justify my actions. Liz has every right to be upset/angry.

    1. Anon for this*

      That all being said, I do agree with the practical decision of not firing Jack, but I definitely don’t blame Liz for being upset.

  137. Marty*

    Messy situations like this is *why* our society has mediators, lawyers, juries, and courts. This isn’t an ADA issue, in fact, the ADA has nothing to do with it. This is a criminality issue; whether or not Jack should be fired ultimately depends on the answer to another question: does Jack’s pushing of Liz count either the criminal assault or criminal battery of Liz. This is a question that can only be answered in a court of law. Should he be found guilty, the answer is easy, fire him. Should he be found innocent, it is equally easy, don’t fire him (and encourage mediation and/or civil action to resolve any remaining issues between Liz and Jack, potentially including which of them remains at the post).

    Of course, such things take time, and there is the question of what to do in the meantime. Clearly, they can’t work together. So either figure out some method to keep them far apart, or put one of them on leave (hopefully, there is insurance for that). That leaves the question of who, and I would probably rely on a lawyer’s advice for that.

    1. animaniactoo*

      Do you go to trial to determine if somebody who shoved someone else out of the way while fleeing from gunshots was guilty of criminal assault/battery?

      Because at the root, this is the same issue. In Jack’s head, what he was fleeing from was the equivalent of gunshots. Fright or flight, that basic, no intended harm, just trying to survive.

      If that seems irrational to you, that’s because that is the situation Jack is in – he has an irrational fear, with limited control over it that he is in therapy to try to fix. He’s not claiming he was right because birds are scary. He is claiming he is not at fault because he did not have control of himself at the time of the incident and he’s got proof to back that up. The courts recognize the inability to form intent in that moment/situation.

      1. AD*

        It was an accident. I think that’s what’s not sinking in for a lot of people, and the intent question is an important one to consider.

        1. Caleb*

          Why?

          Why is the intent important?

          People keep saying that like it matters. Like, intent doesn’t matter to institutional oppression. Intent doesn’t change the damage to my toe if somebody steps on it. Why does everybody here care so much about what Jack did or didn’t “intend” to do? His intentions don’t matter; his actions do.

    2. Marty*

      Going to court has nothing to do with whether Jack was being rational. The reason that someone who pushes someone under a train doesn’t have to go to trial is that the people with guns are clearly responsible, and go to trial instead.

      Fundamentally, an injury was delivered, relationships were damaged, and a need for justice incurred. Some process or social ritual is required to restore the relations and provide justice. Now I suspect that you are right, in that he won’t be found criminally responsible, but it is still a necessary step toward repairing the relationship between Liz and Jack.

      Furthermore, I strongly suspect that, if this goes to a civil court, there he will be found guilty, and charged some kind of restitution (or agree to in a mediated settlement). After all, regardless of his intentions, or thoughts, he *did* injure Liz, and that injury *did* incur a debt. Hopefully all this process will allow him to truly accept his guilt, and Liz to understand his innocence. Hopefully, that will enable them to become friends again.

      2. Marty*

        You are right, IMNAL, and I am guessing what the outcomes will be here.

        However, from the letter, it is clear to me that Liz feels wronged. Her feeling wronged is not unreasonable, her injuries were not insignificant. They were caused by Jack, and he must take some responsibility for that.

        Fundamentally, humans need rituals to help heal issues like this. The resentment that Liz clearly feels needs some kind of resolution, even more so if she is ever to get along with Jack again. This means that some kind of trial and mediation procedure is clearly needed to ensure that everyone is fully understood, which is a necessary prerequisite for healing. That is fundamentally why we invented courts.

        1. animaniactoo*

          However, the courts are not always the right answer, and that’s why in a situation like this, my general understanding (IANAL either) is that they wouldn’t bother with the arrest.

          Precisely because the push was not *intentional*. Cops would recognize it, prosecutors wouldn’t waste the resources on it, etc.

          There are other paths to healing, and they don’t have to involve legal proceedings or charges. Those are what should be being pursued right now.

        2. Marty*

          It is certainly possible that they won’t want to go through criminal proceedings, but then that doesn’t mean that civil proceedings or some kind of mediation or conflict resolution wouldn’t be helpful. Basically, until some kind of proceedings are completed, the issue, and the OP’s question can’t really be resolved.

          1. Zillah*

            It’s not the OP’s job to help Liz “find closure,” and none of us have any idea what Liz needs to “find closure.” The fact that you keep suggesting mediation is bizarre to me; Liz has quit and said that she won’t work there anymore. She doesn’t need to forgive Jack or learn to work with him; she’s clearly said that she wants to get away from him, and that’s a boundary that she’s well within her rights to make that the end of it.

            1. animaniactoo*

              This. Liz has actually rejected all attempts at creating a mediation space. Now I’ll readily acknowledge that they seem pretty poor attempts*, but she’s flat out rejected them and pushing one rather than accepting her stance would be even more damaging to someone who already needs space to figure out what they need to heal.

              *When I say this, I mean that it sounds like they went about this all bass ackwards. With something that traumatic having the “offender” call to apologize is not a good first step, and having them do it with “Authority” “in the room” as it were is an even worse move in general. It would have been far better for somebody to reach out to Liz, talk to Liz about what had happened, fill her in, give her some space to process and then bring the idea to her that Jack would really like to talk to her and apologize and would she be okay with that? It doesn’t look like a lot of thought was given here for where her mindset was or could predictably be expected to be at, and all the decisions that have followed since are just compounding her sense of not being taken care of or the injury to her not being the prime consideration. I’d be curious to know if they consulted anyone outside the company to discuss how to approach this with Liz, given how abnormal the entire situation is.

      3. Marty*

        Another way of putting this: until Liz feels heard and understood, there is no way that she could abide the presence of Jack. And, unless Jack is willing to accept some kind of consequences or mitigation, his apology is meaningless. Until some process designed to allow those two things to happen occurs, there will be no satisfactory resolution for everyone involved.

  138. animaniactoo*

    OP, I haven’t had time to read through all that’s been said here. I’ve read through some of it, and there are a number of wildly varying factors involved and many opinions based on what seems to be either extreme reactions or extreme misreadings of the situation.

    I think there are really only 2 real issues here:

    1) Jack. How often is this likely to be a problem, and what accommodations can you make to mitigate any risk of harm to other employees? Therefore, how great a risk are you taking by keeping Jack on with you? Examine that from all the angles – was this his standard reaction? Was it an abnormal trigger response for him (these days)? Was the risk of being triggered to that extent that he should be considered to have a responsibility to warn somebody he was walking with outside that he might have a panic reaction and they should be on guard? Are there other issues that might trigger a panic attack to that level?

    2) Liz. If Liz does not have some form of PTSD right now, I’ll eat my hat. There should not be a single thought in your head(s) towards any responsibility FROM Liz rather than responsibility TOWARD Liz who has suffered horribly from this unique, rare, accident. The entirety of your focus toward Liz should be making sure that she is okay both physically and mentally and working with her for whatever steps are in your power to help her. With compassion and sympathy for what she has been through, through no fault of her own.

  139. Zathras*

    The unfortunate thing here is that Liz’s ultimatum is nudging many people to see this as a situation in which they need to take sides. I don’t think that’s the right way to look at it.

    This was a terrible accident. Like any terrible accident, it should be thoroughly debriefed, and determinations made about what could reasonably have been done to prevent it, and how to prevent it from happening again. I do think it’s useful to realize that given the same initial starting conditions – two employees walking close together on a sidewalk next to a car that was moving – there are any number of events that could have led to Jack knocking Liz into the path of the car and Liz getting injured.

    Should Jack have disclosed his phobia? We don’t know. It depends on specific details of his past experience with it, which we don’t have. I am hesitant to classify “failure to disclose a disability that later ended up being relevant in an unexpected way” as a huge, automatic-firing offense. I think it’s plausible that until this happened Jack might not have realized that his phobia could be dangerous to other people besides himself.

    It’s also not guaranteed that disclosure would have prevented this situation – it’s unclear to me whether anyone noticed the bird before it flew away and startled him, and we can’t assume that “keep 10 feet away from other people while outside” would have been a precaution OP/HR/whoever would have thought of in reaction to a disclosed phobia of birds.

    Compassion for Liz is also important; she has been the victim of an extremely traumatic accident at your workplace, and this needs to be acknowledged. But she does not get to dictate your reaction to the incident.

    If she hadn’t quit yet, I would say to her “I understand that working with Jack or even near Jack would be traumatic for you going forward. Let’s talk about what we can do to make sure you feel safe at work.” Figure out whether there’s something you can do that would be acceptable to her. Even if you could only offer it short term, perhaps it would be worthwhile to both of you for her to stay and finish her projects while job searching. If you can’t offer it at all, offering whatever severance pay you can manage would be a kind thing to do.

    Independently of that, you would figure out out whether Jack’s phobia is something you can accommodate safely, and what those accommodations need to look like. You would also talk to a lawyer about the legal implications of the situation – are you as the employer allowed to move him to another role because of this incident? Are you allowed to let him go? Are you able to have a frank discussion with him about the impact of this on his coworkers’ perceptions of him, and whether he wants to stay here long term? I don’t know. I’m not a lawyer.

    Finally, please don’t let this cause you to start asking bizarre interview questions about phobias when you are hiring.

    1. Hiker 1546*

      Liz isn’t trying to dictate the OPs reaction to the situation, she just said that if Jack is still there that she is not coming back to work. Liz totally has the right to dictate her own reaction to the situation.

      1. Zathras*

        I read “She wants Jack to be fired” in that she was specifically advocating for him to be fired, presumably as justice for his behavior. Possibly that’s not a correct read on what happened. But if it is, there are potential solutions to “I can’t work with Jack any more” that don’t involve Jack being fired. (They might not apply if it is a very small company.)

        I agree that Liz definitely has the right to make whatever choice she needs to in this situation, and I think the OP and the company should support that to the best of their ability – offering some kind of severance pay, not contesting unemployment, giving a positive reference, etc.

  140. LadyPhoenix*

    After much pondering, I decided I am on Team Lisa.

    Whether or not he had a phobia, he did push his coworker, she got seriously injured, and she had to deal with the hospital. Unless you are working with special needs people, harming your coworker does not give you “special accomendations” (hell, even when you are working with special needs, you can be covered for injuries.).

    In addition, he brought his phobia up AFTER the accident. This should have been covered the moment he started his job. And yes, there are ways to help birdphobics, there is always a way to help minimize a trigger (even if it means giving him wider berth, a windowless office, etc).

    1. Allie*

      I have worked with kids with mental disabilities, and not tolerating physical violence is rule number 1. You are not actually required to take physical abuse from patients and a patient who hits and hurts, even if they have the mental capacity of an infant, isn’t just allowed to flail and hit. Often the person they hurt most is themselves but staff is 100% protected.

      Not putting yourself in risk of bodily harm is totally normal, even for those for which it is more common at work.

    2. J-nonymous*

      If this letter were from Jack who’d been fired ultimately because of a mental illness, we’d all rightly be piling on the employer, because that’s a shitty move.

      It doesn’t absolve Jack of his responsibilities to say “The accident you caused does not warrant your firing from this job.” And are you truly suggesting that people with mental illnesses, particularly ones like phobias which are routinely misunderstood and negatively judged, need to disclose their illnesses to their employers on the off-chance that their illness causes them to accidentally knock someone into a parking lot where they get hit by a car?

      Jack isn’t a villain here because he didn’t anticipate this situation arising. It’s so far beyond the boundaries of predictability.

      1. Temperance*

        I actually would be supportive of the employer firing Jack, if this letter was from his perspective. He caused serious harm to another person. Let’s stop conflating “firing because of a mental illness” and “firing because he caused a serious injury to a coworker”. They might be related, but we can’t excuse all bad acts caused by a person with mental issues.

      2. Observer*

        I’m not so sure I agree. If the employer sees someone as a safety risk, then that’s a legitimate issues, regardless of the reasons (outside of a few very narrow exceptions.)

    3. Nicole*

      I totally agree. What about if he had actually killed her. Would he still be justified?????? Like you said he should have made this known to his coworkers so they know his triggers and to to be safe around him.

  141. Tiger Snake*

    I’d say let Liz go – at this point, any action would probably be too little too late, something that stews in the back of her mind and makes her unhappy to work for you.

    Because Jack did cause her to get hurt. There may have been other factors at play, but that still happened – and from Liz’ point of view, everyone else wants to sweep it under the rug, and is more upset that she won’t than the fact she was hospitalised because of Jack. Jack didn’t help with the expenses occurred, there was no reprimand, just an excuse of “But Jack has a phobia!” The phobia opens up room to a middle ground in discussing what would be reasonable remediation, it doesn’t absolve responsibility.

    An apology with nothing else is just words, it doesn’t mean anything. An apology from the same room as HR just reads as lip service – because it was expected, or because he was told to. On its own, its worth less than nothing. What I don’t see in the letter is _action_, from either the company or Jack; just an “Jack says he’s sorry, don’t you Jack?”

    Liz is angry, and that’s as understandable. At the moment its focused on Jack, but in time it could dissipate to resentment for the company as well (as I’ve tried to describe above). Just let her go, give her a good reference, and focus on getting a new employee who hasn’t suffered massive trauma at the unwitting hands of a panicked co-worker.

  142. Searching*

    When I first read this late last night, I thought it might turn into a letter of norovirus type proportions. We’re just about there.

  143. Jaybeetee*

    Alright folks, I read a bunch of comments, but admittedly not all 1500 or however many there are now. So apologies if this has already been chewed over, but I didn’t happen to see it discussed where I did read.

    But some years ago I worked reviewing case files for service members for our country’s military (not American). PTSD and strong startle reactions (not to mention alcoholism, insomnia…) were common in these files. The guys who jump three feet in the air when they hear a car backfiring because they think for a minute they’re back in the Middle East.

    Because this was military, these soldiers were generally well looked after in terms of treatment and therapy. But progress could still be slow, there could still be backslides, and there could be incidents at work (though I don’t think I ever specifically read about that, I did read about similar incidents outside of work, or horrifyingly, with family or children). I think the “plan” in a case like that, should someone have a psychological episode at work leading to the injury of a colleague, would be to place the person who had the episode on some kind of medical or administrative leave for a period of time, to ensure that they had things under control well enough that they COULD work. And there might be a fitness to work evaluation thrown in there as well if there was real concern that the condition was not well managed enough for the person to be working.

    I do wonder if any of this would be possible for the OP? Now that Jack has disclosed his issue, he could theoretically be placed on leave for a few weeks with orders to check in with this therapist. There could be a fitness to work evaluation if they feel it’s needed. And perhaps, knowing that Jack won’t be around the day she gets back, knowing that concrete actions are being taken, and knowing that the company isn’t just pretending nothing happened, Liz might be willing to come back to work under those circumstances.

    1. Gadfly*

      There have also been some pretty horrifying stories about women being seriously and repeatedly hurt and unable to get help because they should just be more understanding and sympathetic to the military spouse trying to kill them (some PTSD, some DV).

      It is an ugly mess all around. And I do think we have a cultural expectation that women just should accept violence and being violated in many ways whenever a man has a good excuse/explanation. I think it plays into the military problem and this problem.

  144. J-nonymous*

    OP – it really seems you’re trying to find the perfect way to solve both Liz’s and Jack’s problems, and I don’t think they can both be solved. Jack doesn’t *deserve* to be fired for his actions anymore than if he’d tripped and fallen into someone. It may seem worse from Liz’s perspective because he’s the cause of the accident (and much pain and suffering) and didn’t (truly: couldn’t) provide aid when she was first injured. But that does not warrant firing him — as you’ve rightly pointed out.

    Similarly, Liz doesn’t *deserve* to be cajoled back into her job. She is understandably angry and injured and she has determined she cannot work alongside the man whose actions caused her pain. That’s reasonable. There’s no way to fix both sides of this and there’s no magic thing that will convince Liz to forgive/forget and move on (aka come back). It’s time to reassess how to distribute her work and to make the calls to stakeholders or customers whose work may now be delayed.

    The only thing I may suggest is to let Liz know that she’s eligible for rehire should she ever want to come back (even if she failed to give proper notice, make her eligible) and that if she ever needs a reference, you’ll provide what you can. If she’s in the US, presumably workers comp covers at least part of the hospital costs – but if there’s anything additional the company can do to help her out & it’s within your power to make that happen, make it happen.

    2. AnonymousNow*

      These comments have been so hurtful to me, and I just wanted to let you know that I love you a little for what you’ve said here. You made me smile, and honestly this comment section has made for a pretty terrible day for me. Thank you.

  145. Wow*

    Reading some of the commentary here has given me a lot of anxiety. I’m trying to remember that everyone sees things differently and reacts differently, but goodness some of these responses are cruel and irrational. Also, the amount of people changing what the letter actually said and describing the incident differently than what was written right there in the letter or adding or subtracting things that we do not happened or didn’t happen astounds me. It reminds me how things happen at really high levels that shouldn’t happen because people actually don’t take the time to actually take in what is actually presented to them, and instead change the narrative to fit their personal feelings about it. WOW.

    I’m sitting here struggling with personal feelings now and doing some deliberate breathing exercises myself to calm down because it scares me the way people will change the facts to argue a point that wouldn’t exist if they looked at the facts. We have the letter in front of us. Why are we adding or subtracting to it?

    On top of that, why are we so cruel and dismissive of mental illness, still, in 2017? Consider yourself blessed if you don’t have to manage one, but don’t dismiss the severity of one just because you’ve never seen it or experience it yourself. You wouldn’t dismiss the severity of a brain cancer or ALS or something just because you’re not personally dealing with it. Please start to remember mental illness is the same as a physical illness, it just manifests in a part that you can’t touch or see.

    Knee-jerk reactions like FIRE HIM IMMEDIATELY and BAN HIM FROM BEING ALLOWED TO WALK WITHIN 10 FEET OF ANOTHER LIVING CREATURE are why I am glad that most of you all AREN’T managers.

    A lot of you seem to be imagining a scenario where Liz was standing still, and Jack came behind her with a two-handed shove into an intersection on a busy street.

    They were walking back inside from the parking lot. It’s highly likely, and it’s how I am picturing it (and remember that the letter writer was NOT there, so they themselves cant describe it accurately and may be using words that create a stronger response than what happened,) that as Jack went to take off in what seemed like the straightest path to his panicked brain, that since Liz herself was STILL moving too that it caused him to knock into her. She fell off the curb and a car was parking (this means it was NOT a fast moving vehicle, yes it was a vehicle nonetheless, and she of course was severely injured) but that matters on context.

    All this talk of assault and violence and intentionally throwing her just baffles me and it really made me upset about having to deal with other people who would react this same kind of way given scenarios.

    We do not know if Jack was apologizing as he stood aside. Letter writer wasn’t there. Letter writer is taking in the accounts from Jack and Liz and the witnesses, who probably ALL saw a slightly different series of events happen. Because everyone’s perception is going to be different and their recall will be different and what they were paying attention to in the moment and the after is going to be different.

    1. leslie knope*

      i feel the same way. guess us people with mental illnesses should just go f ourselves then

    2. Jaybeetee*

      I think some of it might be “cultural” so to speak. I’ve heard from other sources that the US doesn’t do too well with the whole mental health thing, and there may be a particular gap concerning mental health and the workplace. It sounds like there isn’t much protocol in this case as to how a mental health incident should be handled.

      My first reaction, indicated above, is that Jack should be put on leave in some way, and made to be cleared by a therapist before returning to work. A mental health incident resulting in anyone’s injury should not be ignored, but it shouldn’t result in firing either. Requiring medical documentation to return to work is advantageous for all parties involved – and if the assessment comes up that Jack *is not* fit to work as a result of his phobia, it’s valuable documentation for the company to lay him off (not fire him) and for him to transition into a disability pension with perhaps an eventual aim to return to work once his mental issues have been further resolved. IANAL, but I would imagine that causing a workplace injury is ample justification to demand that Jack get a psychological assessment, and that failure to do so in light of events could be considered grounds for dismissal due to negligence. Accommodation still assumes that the employee is working to manage their own condition. (There’s a lot of debate as to whether Liz could plausibly sue Jack. What I can say with relative confidence is that firing Jack for a disclosed mental illness could REALLY open up the company for a lawsuit unless it’s handled the proper way – that is, with tons of documentation).

      My guess is that these are interim steps rarely seen in the USA outside of government or other “nearly impossible to fire people” jobs, so people are going more black and white with it – Jack stays or he goes. I’m also noticing a lot of armchair-quarterbacking regarding Jack’s relative fitness to work or the likeliness of recurrence of his psychological episode – stuff that would be better reserved for a professional with initials after their name who can actually assess the guy, as opposed to us internet commenters going off third- or fourth-hand information (remembering that OP hizzerself didn’t witness the actual event).

      My apologies if I am off-base with how this kinds of matters are handled in America, I could be mistaken. I’m just noticing that in the comments I read, no one seemed to suggest putting Jack on leave or getting him assessed, and even Allison didn’t seem to go there in her answer.

    3. Temperance*

      I have anxiety issues, and I still think that Jack needs to be held accountable for hurting Liz. From the letter, which is incredibly on his side, we know that he shoved into her, and she fell from the impact into the path of a moving car. That is not up for debate. It absolutely matters that she was hurt.

      Why are we just okay with this set of circumstances? Should he not face consequences? Liz is going to face lifelong consequences from her injuries.

      1. Leslie knope*

        Frankly, I’m a little tired of the weird straw man people are building all over this page. No one, literally no one, is saying it doesn’t matter that Liz was hurt. That’s not happening anywhere on this page. It’s extremely upsetting as someone with mental illness to see people saying over and over that jack is a menace and a danger to the public and should (essentially) sequester himself forevermore because of his phobia. I realize most of you probably don’t mean it this way, but trust me, mentally ill people don’t really get off Scott free the way people here seem to think they do.

        1. Ann O.*

          You’re talking about straw men, but literally no one is saying that Jack should sequester himself forevermore because of his phobia. The closest I’ve seen to that is people saying Jack should disclose to co-workers and keep more distance when he is outside where birds suddenly flying either towards or away is a fairly common occurrence.

          1. Margaret*

            But saying (as some commenters have) that he poses an inherent danger or threat to those around him because of a reaction he *might* have implies that he should only be around other people if he takes special precautions (above and beyond what is normally expected). Suggesting that other people deserve to be warned about his presence isn’t that far removed from suggesting he be sequestered.

        2. Trout 'Waver*

          But, Jack is a danger to others. He injured someone else in a very serious way. You can say it was a freak accident that’s unlikely to happen again, but it still has happened once.

          I have had a mental illness. I get the stigma. You can’t just dismiss everyone you disagree with as ableist, especially when many of the people you’re dismissing have mental illnesses.

        3. Temperance*

          Oh please, she was called a witch and “hysterical” for being upset about her injuries, and there were many comments suggesting that his issues are the real problem here, not her serious injury and potential lifetime disability.

          I do think that Jack is dangerous, but I did not say, nor did anyone else, that he needs to lock himself in a tower so he doesn’t catastrophically injure someone else. I don’t see how pointing out that this mentally ill person who did cause serious harm to another is dangerous is like saying that all people with mental illness are dangerous. I think it’s awful that we just automatically need to forget that this ever happened because the perpetrator is ill.

      2. AD*

        Jack needs to be held accountable for hurting Liz

        According to who? You? Liz? Vindictive colleagues? A court of law?

        Liz is more than welcome to try a civil suit (there’s no guarantee of success, but it’s worth a shot) but the sheer spite in the commentariat on this topic, of those who feel the need or want to punish Jack, is abhorrent at this point.

        If Jack didn’t have a phobia, and he and Liz were just driving around and Jack rear-ended Liz and she was injured, would we come at him with pitchforks? Accidents happen, there are options for recourse (insurance, civil court, etc.), and that’s that.

    4. Dot Warner*

      We do not know if Jack was apologizing as he stood aside.

      Well, he was in the building and Liz was not, so it’s not likely that he was apologizing directly to her.

      I’m not unsympathetic to Jack; I have a phobia of my own and I understand how mortified he is. But at the same time, he can’t work with Liz anymore. It wouldn’t be a healthy environment for either of them. That doesn’t necessarily mean he should get fired, though! Maybe the company has another team or location that Jack can transfer to, or maybe he can work from home or work an opposite shift from Liz.

      1. Wow*

        Jack didn’t go inside until the ambulance arrived. He was standing aside, but not physically offering help because the bird was still there. It says this in the letter.

        Unless an ambulance just happened to be in the parking lot with them, it would have taken a few minutes, to several minutes, to arrive at the scene. This is plenty of time for Jack, while sidelined, to have been expressing his remorse audibly. We do not know if he did or did not. The comments here that claim he was not remorseful until “forced” by HR really blew my stack. How do any us know – including LW – we weren’t there.

  146. leslie knope*

    i had to stop reading these comments. 90 percent of this page is ableist garbage.

      1. j-nonymous*

        Not really. Numerous commenters (including long-term commenters here) dismissed Jack’s documented phobia as being ‘scared’. That is the definition of ableist – and it’s also garbage.

    4. Pixel*

      Jack caused real, palpable damage. Why is it ableism to say he should make restitution for the damage and that the harm done to Liz and her fear of a repeat incident need to be addressed?

  147. Indoor Cat*

    I don’t have any solid advice to add, but, man, that sounds traumatic. Like, I would not return to a workplace where I had a traumatic accident, let alone one where the best strategy to ensure it never happens again isn’t going to be implemented.

    Not saying OP is in the wrong; OP works there and they know all the skills Jack brings to the workplace.

    Just, you know, I would 100% do what Liz did. I would not ever risk even potentially putting myself through that experience again. In fact, I essentially did in a similar situation. You’ve gotta protect yourself.

    This is not exactly the same as choosing a perpetrator’s well-being over a victim’s, but I can guarantee it feels that way to Liz. Not that I can read her mind, but I would probably be very mentally trapped in that moment in which, after being hit by a car and bleeding out on the road, in incredible pain, I suddenly realize I am alone. Jack is not coming over to check on me. He seems not to care about me. Maybe he even pushed me maliciously; I don’t know. I am in so much pain. I can’t see. Breathing hurts. I am alone.

    That feeling is terrifying. It stays with you a long time.

    That fear, pain, and isolation almost inevitably becomes one of two things: despair or rage. Believe it or not, the rage will protect you far better that despair will. Rage makes you fight for consciousness. Rage makes you remember all the things you love about yourself, all the people you love, how fundamental your right to exist without this seemingly all-consuming pain really is. Rage keeps you alive.

    So, that’s the memory, probably, if Liz’s traumatic experience was anything like mine. It is basically impossible to “re-write” that memory simply by being informed of additional facts much later.

    And the rage doesn’t mean the fear isn’t gone. In fact, the best way to temper the rage is to reduce the fear. The best way to do *that* is by figuring out and taking concrete, actionable steps to prevent the same trauma should similar situations arise again. Or, as my therapist says, “The opposite of panic is a plan.”

    Part of Liz’s plan involves never being around Jack again. Because either one accepts that his actions at the time were something he could control, in which case he ought to be held responsible for them, which means by not firing Jack the company is genuinely considering harm done to Liz as something to take seriously; therefore, not a safe place for her. OR, one accepts that Jack’s actions at the time were *not* something he could control, which means there would be no way for him to intentionally prevent himself from harming Liz in the future in the same context, should she stay.

    Either way, that workplace is not a safe place for Liz. Again, not saying the OP made the wrong choice. Just saying Liz made the right one. Sometimes that’s just the way these things play out.

    1. Falling Diphthong*

      I would not ever risk even potentially putting myself through that experience again.

      Yes, I think Liz’s reaction probably has a lot of “Fool me twice, shame on me.”

      And I agree that OP and the company are not necessarily in the wrong here. But, Liz is not in the wrong.

    2. Gazebo Slayer*

      Thank you. This comment is beautiful and perfect.

      If I were in Liz’s place, I would have laughed bitterly in disbelief at hearing after the fact, while in pain, on medication, and in the hospital, that Jack had pushed me because of a bird phobia. I’d have believed it was an outright lie and hated him even more for cravenly dodging responsibility.

      No, I wouldn’t have been right to do that. Yes, I, Gazebo Slayer, who has never experienced what Liz experienced, rationally know what a phobia is and understand and believe that Jack has one. But it would be a completely understandable reaction from Liz.

    3. Pixel*

      So, so beautifully worded. You have captured the fear-rage-must-get-through-this train of thought so accurately. I’m up to my eyeballs in tax returns and reading an eloquent, elegant piece of prose makes my day a little happier.

  148. Indoor Cat*

    Also, food for thought on apologies, intent, and impact: http://everydayfeminism.com/2013/07/intentions-dont-really-matter/

    It’s a bit to the extreme end in that the author seems to find impact so much more important than intent that intent has zero bearing. But, it might be useful. After all, regardless of where one stands on the Intent / Impact spectrum when it comes to ethical actions, impact is very important. It is why an apology should involve not only words but actions, even if the harm caused was unintentional.

    1. gsa*

      That right there was awesome! I suck at apologizing because I know I no control over how you feel. And tend to get all, “How is my problem you don’t like a particular result?”, in the vain of the link, “since I didn’t mean to…”

      Intent vs. impact. I’m not blowing smoke, this very may well have been the best piece of Internet advice I have ever read.

      When Jack was forced, my words, to apologize I could tell that he thought that there was nothing wrong with what happened and that he probably didn’t realize that what he was really saying was, “it’s not my fault, now get over it.”

      I don’t know Jack, both a pun and a non-pun, and my general thought is Jack is either so self centered that everything is always about Jack, or Jack was very embarrassed.

      I will admit I have not read the 225,653 responses here, however, an honest to God apology would’ve been along the lines of, “Oh my God I’m so sorry, when I saw that bird I freaked the you know what out, what can I ever do to make it up to you.”

      Just in typing the above I had to stop myself from saying, “that was not my intent”.

      I have a very difficult time dealing with people whose feathers are easily ruffled. Anyway great link.

      Take Care,

      gsa

  149. Falling Diphthong*

    To add one more thought to this Russian novel, the following is important in understanding Liz’s reaction:

    Jack didn’t try to help Liz after it happened. He stood far away and came into our building as soon as the ambulance arrived.

    That’s why analogies like “what if you had a seizure and bumped someone?” or “what if you accidentally startled and bumped someone?” don’t work. In the seizure, it’s very obvious to Liz as she lies there why you knocked her over. In the latter, you are presumably apologizing a blue streak as you call the ambulance and try to help her. If you hurt someone and then leave and don’t even try to help, that is far outside the bounds of normal behavior. It’s frightening.

    If she had known about the phobia (or PTSD or any other ‘I have intense episodes of overwhelming, illogical fear where I try to escape’ condition) beforehand, maybe she would have been just about as upset. Or maybe she would have realized what happened and not blamed him much. But she didn’t get the explanation until days later, when she was in a lot of pain and stressed and probably exhausted. Under those circumstances, I really don’t think I could pull up beatific compassion and an immediate, effortless shrugging off of anger or fear toward the person who shoved me into the path of a moving vehicle. Months later, I hope so. But I don’t think I could manage it immediately. I’m not surprised that Liz didn’t say “Oh, a bird phobia! That explains everything. In that case, I feel fine now. And absolutely dedicated to getting those spout analyses out on time and under budget.”

    1. Temperance*

      It seems like that’s what everyone expected her to do, though, and that makes me so angry. She’s been seriously injured. She can be angry!

    2. AnonymousNow*

      Yea, as much as I’m in the “Jack did nothing wrong” camp, I’m also sooooo much in the “Liz did nothing wrong” camp, too. This is just a shitty situation all around. I don’t love Liz’s reaction, but I don’t expect people to understand phobias well enough to put that stuff aside when they’ve been stewing in anger for so long over something that, until that point, must have felt intentional and not nearly as much of a freak accident that we now know it to be (especially since most of the population can’t actually grasp this as a freak accident, because of the stigma surrounding stuff like this that currently exists, as is evidenced by this comment section)

  151. gsa*

    Holy cow 2067 comments…

    My comment is simple, Jack’s mental fear should never have comprised Liz’s physical safety.

    Extrapolate this until the cows come home…

    If I were Liz, my attorney would already served everybody involved.

  153. Ugly Mammal Paws*

    The comments on this post, and some other recent posts, are convincing me that humanity is even worse than I thought. Things like “will KILL someone” as a certainty when the information given does not suggest that. What looks like an obsession with punishment, at times with a large streak of gleeful cruelty. (Snark warning.) Would it be enough for the evil monsters to spend the rest of their lives as indentured servants? Make a will leaving everything they own to the person the monsters have wronged and promptly commit suicide? Immediate execution without trial, since the monsters are clearly so dangerous there’s no possible justification for letting them live? It doesn’t seem to be satisfying enough to, say, get as much relevant information as is practical, look at the applicable laws, company policies, contracts, et c., and impose consequences like a reprimand, a warning that if this happens again you will be fired (and doing so), or firing on the spot and giving a bad reference. In all fairness, this sort of thinking is getting popular in a lot of places.
    If this is too snarky, please remove, and my apologies.

    1. emma2*

      There have been mean comments directed towards both Jack and Liz. Jack – insensitive comments about his mental illness; Liz – misogynistic comments about how she is an overreacting “drama queen”.

      But there are a lot of good comments as well!

      1. Out on a Day Pass*

        I did a word count for Drama Queen – 12 hits. 20 hits for just the word drama.

        Next I did dangerous – 80 hits. 188 hits for just the word danger.

        So yes, there are mean comments towards both .. but there are far, far more for Jack.

        1. Observer*

          No. Because not every comment about danger is “mean” and claiming that Jack is terrible or such a menace to all people that he needs to lock himself up. But EVERY single time that Liz is called a “drama queen” that’s an insult, and an utterly undeserved one.

          1. Ugly Mammal Paws*

            Not every comment about danger is “mean”. Correct. Most of them are ableist straw men. A lot are based on speculation about what Jack may have known, thought, or cared about. Unless the OP has made an update I haven’t seen, there is not enough information to say. Many of them do say Jack is too dangerous to be around other people. That actually is saying he should be put in an institution, never allowed to work, et c. It’s also telling everyone here with any mental illness the same thing.
            Liz has obviously suffered major physical harm and psychological trauma and absolutely should get all the financial help and medical care she needs. She should get a generous severance and a good reference. She has every right to hate Jack and be enraged. She has every right to quit if her conditions for staying are not met, including that Jack be fired. She has every right to never forgive and hate him for the rest of her life. She can sue the company, the driver, and Jack, and if she she gets something, great. She’s clearly the one who has suffered most, and the comments insulting her or calling her a “witch” or “drama queen” are undeserved, cruel, and sexist. The OP does seem to have been insensitive, and maybe this could have been handled more sympathetically or fairly.
            What bothers me is are comments about “punishment” and inflicting harm in this and other threads,
            and the toxic ableism in this one. Firing someone is an accepted and reasonable consequence of serious enough mistakes or doing harm. So is a lawsuit. Asking if someone has been “punished enough” or suggesting “hitting where it hurts” (another thread) is going beyond reasonable debate. So is armchair diagnosing someone as dangerous and and needing to be removed from society. Nobody is owed
            any and all revenge they want. No matter how satisfying and blissful it might be to get your enemy’s actual severed head delivered on a platter, nobody gets that, or should get it. Ableism against mentally ill people does real people, who are more likely to be victims of violence than to be violent, real harm.
            That’s what I’m objecting to.

  154. specialist*

    I can’t believe I read this whole thing. I should be working.

    Liz’s injuries should be covered by worker’s comp. It was travel between a work meeting and the workplace. She should also get wage compensation during the period she was unable to work. She will have some type of permanent partial disability that will result in a payment that will be much smaller than anyone realizes. This will be made up of ratings on her loss of range of motion, loss of strength if significant, and pain. She may hire an attorney to sue the worker’s comp company for a better settlement, likely that would have something related to future treatments for her scarring–estimated in future dollars. (Don’t open that can of worms.) Yes, I treat worker’s comp patients and do disability evaluations.

    Jack knew about his phobia. This was an accident, but it was a preventable accident. Jack was just behind Liz in an area with heavy machinery and his trigger item (bird). Jack didn’t take reasonable care in this situation. He was the only one who had knowledge of his phobia. He should have been practicing some safety protocols specific to his issues. I strongly suspect that he was in a regular habit of walking through this area in close proximity to other people and the inevitable finally happened. There was no requirement for him to disclose the specifics of his phobia. The statement that he needed space when walking outdoors would have been sufficient. Or driving himself. Or having someone drop him at the door of the building instead of walking up. There are any number of things he could have done but didn’t. Jack deserves some sort of formal reprimand for this. The consequences to Liz and the company were quite severe. Sometimes the punishment is more related to the consequences than it is to the mistake. Firing Jack would not be outlandish and I think many firms would do just that.

    Liz can’t work with Jack. That is her decision to make. She can ask that he be fired, but she doesn’t get to pick the punishment, nor does she get to be privy to what his punishment will be. She knows that he won’t be fired and it is up to her to determine if she wishes to stay given those circumstances. The post upthread about giving her a way of saving face to come back is really quite reasonable. I have no idea who wrote it or where it is now, and I’m not looking for it again. The one thing you’ve done right is to refuse to let Liz dictate your hiring, firing, and disciplinary policies.

    It seems the OP’s question is more about how to get Liz to come back to work than it is anything else. Well, you can’t get her back. You also need to stop bothering her. She’s made her decision. Tell her that you understand and are sorry for the whole situation. Provide your clearly-valued former employee a great reference. Help her to find another job if possible, maybe even with some severance. Realize that, when you keep after her to come back, you are trivializing what happened to her.

    I also note that nowhere in your comments did you say Jack was a good worker and I find this conspicuous in its absence. You said you were afraid to fire someone with a mental illness, not that you really valued him. So are you making good management decisions? I can’t tell from what you’ve written here, but I think you may want to explore that question.

    1. Katie the Fed*

      Question – in workers comp, is there any compensation for pain & suffering/loss of enjoyment?

      1. specialist*

        In my area, no. There is coverage for chronic pain that is ongoing. It is a permanent partial disability rating, so if you heal just fine you get a rating of 0%.

    2. Other Duties as Assigned*

      I also can’t believe I read this whole thing, but I’m now glad I did…specialist’s response is spot on. The aggrieved party here is Liz. OP and the company should be doing everything they can for her. I agree she’s not ever coming back, so stop badgering her. I also agree that the original letter seems more concerned about Liz’s project and less about the terrible accident she suffered which is forcing her to quit a job she’s good at and presumably liked. The company should pay all of her medical bills, physical therapy and anything else stemming from this. A severance would be nice as well. OP, use your connections (and those of your higher-ups) to help her find something else and provide her with a glowing reference…you (and the company) morally owe her this.

      The bigger problem is how to handle the optics of this event vis-a-vis Jack. What your employees see is that a person who is injured by another employee is now gone from the workplace without explanation and the person causing the injury is still there, also without explanation. I don’t know what to do about this, but Jack is likely a pariah now.

      This would make an interesting case study for a management class.

      Also: update, please.

  155. Cassie*

    I think Liz is perfectly within her rights to file a civil suit – against Jack and/or the driver. You can pretty much sue anyone you want, and everyone agrees his actions caused her bodily harm. There could also be criminal charges against Jack and/or the driver (depending on the jurisdiction). And then there’s the company’s liability in all of this. Even if Jack did disclose his phobia, I still can’t quite agree that they would be responsible unless they purposefully sent them to a bird sanctuary or something like that. What if Liz and Jack were walking from their respective cars when they arrived at work in the morning, and they just happened to be walking near each other when this happened? So now everyone who has a phobia or could suffer a panic attack is required to keep their distance from everyone else? It’s just not feasible.

    So since I don’t think the company is liable, I also don’t think the company should fire Jack. Based on the limited info we have, it seems like a freak accident. If he’s charged with a criminal offense and convicted, then the company could consider firing him.

    BTW, I think it’s probably worse for Jack if the coworkers *DON’T* know about his phobia. I get not wanting to tell everyone but you may have employees thinking that Jack intentionally pushed Liz and think he’s a monster. People might not be understanding about his phobia and how it led to this series of quite unfortunate events, but at least it would give them more context over what happened.

    1. Gadfly*

      And, like probably for Liz, it may be too little too late to tell people now. Gossip and rumor has been at play and people already have feelings about it. You can apply new information and be all sorts of logical and still not touch those feelings at all.

  156. DArcy*

    The only fair way to judge Liz’ actions is based on what she knew at the time, not based on what what OP knows in retrospect. Per the OP’s timeline, Jack only apologized to Liz and Jack’s mental condition was only mentioned to Liz when the company was trying to pressure her to rescind her resignation.

    So as far as Liz was aware, she was in a situation where a coworker shoved her in front of a car and then stood around watching without making any attempt to aid her before the ambulance arrived. I’m pretty sure everyone would agree that if that was all there was to it, they would absolutely expect that coworker to be terminated on the spot. That’s the context for Liz’s expectation that Jake should have been fired over this incident with no negotiation; that’s the context for Liz being outraged when management declares that Jake not only isn’t being fired, but won’t face any disciplinary actions at all.

    You absolutely cannot expect Liz to be forgiving of Jack based on information that was withheld from her until after she’d already quit, unless Liz has a TARDIS in her cubicle.

    1. Falling Diphthong*

      So many AaM answer would be different if everyone sensibly kept a tardis in their cubicle.

    2. she was a fast machine*

      Yes, this exactly! Liz spent days(weeks?) thinking he maliciously pushed her into a car and that quitting was the only way to get away from more violence because her company seemed to not stand up for her.

    3. Temperance*

      I’ll be honest, even if I did know about his mental health issues sooner, I’d still be angry that he injured me and put me in that position.

      1. animaniactoo*

        Yes, I think the idea would be some sort of restitution that addressed the idea that even though this was a freak occurrence and might be more in the “act of god” territory, it had been examined for aspects that could reduce the possibility of a repeat occurrence – no matter how unlikely that was.

        I mean, could it have been avoided by something as simple as Jack walking a little further behind Liz so that *if* he felt the need to dodge he had more open space to dodge into and was less likely to have bumped her? Or maybe walking ahead of her? Yes, possibly he lurches back and still bumps into her, but is that still less likely than if he was in back of her?

        Access to a counselor/therapist, fully paid for by the company or Jack for whatever wasn’t covered under insurance, to be able to process, etc.?

    4. specialist*

      I want a TARDIS.

      I think you’re really underling a very important point here. My read of the OP is that they feel Liz is being ridiculous with her demands. She had no idea of the underlying cause of Jack’s behavior. She didn’t know for quite some time. That must have been horrible to be lying on the street injured and in pain and to watch your coworker refuse to come to your aid.

      I don’t think that Liz can be portrayed as an unreasonable person merely because she doesn’t ever want to work with Jack again.

      Maybe we can take the TARDIS into the future and see what happens if Jack applies for a job at Liz’s next company…….

  157. Scion*

    I think a lot of people are hung up on a few of Jack’s actions that can be interpreted in different ways. Using a charitable interpretation, all of Jack’s actions are reasonable. Due to the lack of information, we will never be able to know which of these interpretations are true (likely it’s somewhere in between).

    Here are the 4 main actions that people object to and their charitable/uncharitable interpretations. I’ve also included the evidence that makes me believe that the charitable interpretation is more likely (spoiler alert, it’s mostly that people generally aren’t giant dicks).

    Action: Jack did not disclose his phobia
    Charitable Interpretation: Jack has never had a reaction this severe or injured anybody before. He and his therapist implemented multiple coping mechanisms that allowed him to be in the presence birds without having a severe reaction and had no reason to believe that his phobia would ever lead to an injury. Only a particular set of circumstances (e.g. unobserved bird of a particular type/size surprises him and flies within inches of his face and makes a squawking sound) could trigger such a strong reaction, and it had never occurred before.
    Uncharitable Interpretation: Jack knew that he was at risk of injuring coworkers, and intentionally kept his phobia hidden. He did not take any steps to avoid situations where he might injury someone.
    Evidence of Charitable Interpretation: Safe to assume that Jack did not have any major incidents at this particular job, or the OP would have known. Jack must have had some sort of coping mechanism and/or the trigger was very narrow or he would not have been able to leave his house without incident.

    Action: Jack did not render assistance afterward
    Charitable Interpretation: Jack’s phobia was still in full swing. He felt terrible about what had happened, but could not move any closer due to the proximity of the bird. It was all he could do to not run inside, but managed to stay put until the ambulance arrived. The whole while he was saying how sorry he was for what had happened.
    Uncharitable interpretation: Jack could have moved closer to help Liz, but chose not to because he didn’t care that she was injured. He then lied to the OP by blaming his phobia for his lack of assistance.
    Evidence: Jack specifically claimed that his phobia prevented him from moving closer. Also, most people have empathy for others and aren’t giant dicks.

    Action: Jack did not contact Liz for multiple days
    *Technically we don’t know that this is true
    Charitable Interpretation(s): Jack was forbidden by HR/Lawyers from talking to Liz; Jack wanted to contact Liz, but didn’t have any contact info; Jack did not want to bother Liz, as he assumed she’d not want to talk to him so soon after the accident.
    Uncharitable Interpretation: Jack didn’t care that he hurt another person and moved on with his life.
    Evidence: Barring contact between individuals in cases with legal ramifications is fairly common. Also, most people aren’t giant dicks.

    Action: Jack apologized with HR present
    Charitable Interpretation: Jack wanted to apologize immediately, but was barred from contacting her without HR’s say-so and without them present.
    Uncharitable Interpretation: Jack didn’t care that he hurt Liz, but was forced to apologize by HR.
    Evidence: Most people aren’t giant dicks.

    1. Observer*

      I think you are wrong on 3 and 4. We don’t know for sure, but there is a lot of discussion of what Jake said to HR and the boss and there is NO mention of him asking his boss or HR about contacting, apologizing to, or in any way making restitution to Liz. That’s a huge piece of evidence that he did not see this as his responsibility

      1. Scion*

        There are only 2 sentences that talk about Jack’s actions between the incident and the HR apology call:

        Jack told me, my boss and HR he has a phobia of birds and later produced a letter from his therapist stating he has been in therapy and treatment for ornithophobia and anxiety for over two years. He explained it was why he tried to run from the bird and said he didn’t help Liz after she got hit because the bird landed on the ground close to her.

        I would not classify those two sentences as “a lot of discussion.”

        I guess, in the absence of information to the contrary, I generally give people the benefit of the doubt. In fact, I’m pretty sure that part of this site’s guidelines is to assume good faith on the part of others.

        1. emma2*

          Well, the OP did give Jack the benefit of the doubt. But I don’t blame Liz for not…I wouldn’t if I were her.

        2. Observer*

          And, the letter also says that he apologized to her with HR in the room and that he allowed HR to divulge his mental health history. That’s a fair bit of information. It would be pretty weird for the OP to leave out the fact that Jake actually tried to make amends / talked to HR about what he could do / talked to HR about apologizing to Liz.

      2. j-nonymous*

        But the original letter wasn’t “What do I do about Jack, who caused all this pain and suffering and is acting like a dick to a valued employee?” The letter was, “How do I get a valued employee to come back to work but refuses to unless I fire this person who caused a terrible accident (but whom the company has determined should not be fired for it).”

        Context matters. What the LW is asking for advice on matters.

    2. j-nonymous*

      This was a refreshing comment to read on this matter. I’m dismayed by the glee so many commenters take in wanting to see people punished (not to mention the I’m not a lawyer but I play one on the internet tone a lot of people take).

  158. Chaordic One*

    A couple of days ago we had a letter from someone who was fired because she accidentally made travel arrangements that sent someone to Naples, Italy instead of Naples, Florida.

    Now we read about someone who (accidentally) seriously injures another employee and he gets to keep his job. Things do seem strange in the working world.

    1. emma2*

      I was actually wondering that if ‘Liz’ was his manager rather than his co-worker, Jack would have gotten fired. The OP seems like she is more concerned with Liz coming back to continue her work business-as-usual than her actual injury.

      1. emma2*

        Also, the Naples mix-up cost the company thousands of dollars, whereas it’s not really the company that directly suffered from Jack’s actions (although the end consequence they are dealing with now is that their injured employee resigned and they have an empty seat..Gosh what a mess.)

  159. Noah*

    “Understandably Liz is angry.”

    I disagree with “understandably.” Once the phobia was explained, Liz should be able to temper her anger. This is unfortunate for Liz, but if she’s really so unreasonable as to not accept his phobia, I’d say good riddance.

    1. Observer*

      Really? Have you ever been hit by a car? Have you ever been shoved to the ground by someone? Have you ever had one of your arms really badly broken? Do you have any idea of how severe the the surgery and wounds must have been to require a 4 day hospital stay? And in the middle of dealing with all of that, Liz is a piece of garbage because she didn’t magically forgive and forget?

      Wow!

      1. Kathleen Adams*

        Where does Noah say or imply that she’s a “piece of garbage”? He says she’s unreasonable, and while that’s not a compliment, it’s hardly the same as calling her a piece of garbage.

        The level of discourse in this thread has become increasingly – and depressingly – unreasonable, IMO. And I’m definitely not just talking about Observer here.

        Neither of our protagonists in this story is a piece of garbage. Neither is a bad guy. There *is* no bad guy. I realize it would be more satisfying if there were, but there isn’t.

        1. Temperance*

          I think a lot of us are really angered by the pervasive idea, perpetrated by Noah and others here, that Jack is completely blameless for this and therefore Liz is a total ass for being even a little upset that she has been injured so severely. Mentally ill people are still culpable for their actions, and I hate the idea, pushed by Noah here, that they are not accountable and must not be held accountable.

          It makes me sick to see so many people excusing this, and the harm to Liz.

    3. MashaKasha*

      Like many commenters stated above, the company was withholding this information from Liz until the last minute possible. Like many commenters also stated above, it is fairly certain that Liz has some form of PTSD as a result of being shoved into a moving car and getting severely injured for what seemed to be no reason, and the subsequent events that also made no sense to her, as she was not given the crucial piece of information. It’s just as unreasonable to expect Liz to do a 180 on a moment’s notice as it would be unreasonable to expect Jack to stop having his condition.

      I agree with Observer, four days is a lot. My son broke his elbow in daycare once and had to have emergency surgery and physical therapy and lost use of his fingers on that arm temporarily for six months. He was also in a lot of pain for several weeks from the injury and the nerve damage. The medical bills came up to $30,000. (the daycare’s accident on premises insurance paid everything that my insurance didn’t.) And he only required one day hospital stay. I cannot begin to imagine how bad it had to be to require four.

    4. Temperance*

      Wow. Absolutely not. She is grievously injured – possibly disabled – and because he has a phobia, it’s just fine? No. No. No.

      It’s unreasonable of you, and of Jack and others, to expect her to just be fine with this because he couldn’t help himself or whatever. No.

  160. Katie*

    It’s a tough call. There was a similar situation at my office a few years back:

    My grandboss’s administrative assistant (Daisy) was not quite herself for a few weeks, then had a psychotic break and threatened to kill him. The police were called, Daisy was hospitalized and received the treatment she needed to become stable/healthy. Six weeks later, she was ready to return to work.

    Grandboss refused to be in the same building as Daisy and suggested that management laterally transfer her to another department. Management said no.

    I get that Daisy was ill and death threats were a manifestation of her illness. I also get why Grandboss wasn’t comfortable around her.

    Grandboss retired rather than return to wrk wth Daisy.

    1. MashaKasha*

      Oh no, this is tough. I absolutely feel for Daisy, but I would not return either if I were the grandboss. I sympathize with her plight, but this is not a chance I would be willing to take. I kind of prefer staying alive and I’m sure my family would prefer that for me too.

    2. Kathleen Adams*

      But that isn’t really all that similar, is it? Besides the (I’m sorry to have to put it this way) obvious point that a phobic reaction isn’t anything like a psychotic break, the big difference is that Daisy actually threatened to kill somebody, whereas Jack didn’t threaten anybody. He just kind of flailed about in a panic and as a result, someone got hurt by pure accident. I do understand why Liz is reluctant to work with Jack – aside from everything else, he is not going to bring back happy memories – but to compare a panic reaction to a death threat is not justifiable, IMO.

      1. DArcy*

        Can we please not make up “facts” about the situation that aren’t supported by the actual facts provided? The OP explicitly states that Jack pushed Liz out of his way, not that he was “just flailing in panic”, and that’s already at least subconsciously slanted in Jack’s favor considering that the OP is clearly taking sides.

  161. Stephanie (HR Manager)*

    I’d like to expand a little on the HR perspective. The fact that the employee has a documented illness has a little bit less to do with whether or not you would fire him. The ADA does not protect employees from situations where their illness would cause harm to another person. A doctors note that indicates an accommodation of “Must be allowed to fling other personnel to the ground” would be considered an undue hardship, and an employer would not have to accommodate.

    Now, the fact that he has it is a mitigating factor in considering the situation, and combined with his apology and agreement that the like can’t happen again, I would not terminate. But the defining reason is that this was not a purposeful assault, just a mistake. It would have to be very clear that any further injury to other personnel would lead to termination.

    While Daisy’s reaction was understandable, she needs to do the right thing for herself, which may not be in alignment with the right thing for the business.

  162. KM*

    If Jack saw a guy with a hockey mask and a chainsaw jump out at him and accidentally pushed someone when he was startled and lurched away, I don’t think anyone would blame him for it — I think the fact that it’s harder to empathize with his fear of birds is making people judge him more harshly.

    It’s rude that he didn’t try to apologize or explain on his own after what happened and, if a coworker suddenly pushed me in front of a car with no explanation, I’d be pretty angry about it, too, but I agree that, knowing what the OP knows, it doesn’t make sense to fire him.

    I am actually curious from an HR perspective what the best thing to do is in this weird, rare situation where someone has an invisible disability or health condition that makes them accidentally hurt someone. If they don’t want to tell the person why it happened, what do you even do?

    1. DArcy*

      That scenario is very different because in that case the threat is real and visible to everyone, which means you don’t have poor Liz stewing in the hospital for days with no idea why Jack (as far as she knows) suddenly went nuts and assaulted her. Remember, they didn’t give Liz any explanation whatsoever why Jack wasn’t being punished until after she’d quit and they were trying to get her to come back. So as far as she knows, her coworker just went psycho on her and HR’s response was, “We’ve looked into it and your coworker is not at fault for what happened. So, when will you be back?”

      I’m not sure it’s reasonable to say the company has to just live with the horrible optics if the person doesn’t want to tell anyone about their condition and insists that HR should just tell everyone to shut up and live with it.

Comments are closed.