Malicious Compliance

19559 readers

7 users here now

People conforming to the letter, but not the spirit, of a request. For now, this includes text posts, images, videos and links. Please ensure that the “malicious compliance” aspect is apparent - if you’re making a text post, be sure to explain this part; if it’s an image/video/link, use the “Body” field to elaborate.

======

We ENCOURAGE posts about events that happened to you, or someone you know.
We ACCEPT (for now) reposts of good malicious compliance stories (from other platforms) which did not happen to you or someone you knew. Please use a [REPOST] tag in such situations.
We DO NOT ALLOW fiction, or posts that break site-wide rules.

======

Also check out the following communities:

!fakehistoryporn@lemmy.world !unethicallifeprotips@lemmy.world

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

988

Work from home (lemmy.world)

submitted 4 months ago by The_Picard_Maneuver@lemmy.world to c/maliciouscompliance@lemmy.world

200 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] dohpaz42@lemmy.world 7 points 4 months ago (2 children)

According to the EEOC, it’s a disability:

A vision impairment does not need to “prevent, or significantly or severely restrict,” an individual’s ability to see in order to be a disability, as long as the individual’s vision is substantially limited when compared to the vision of most people in the general population.

And it sounds like her employer is doing the right thing. But if ever she feels she is not being treated fairly, she should talk to a lawyer to be sure. Don’t just let it slide because she has one good eye. Hell it might be good to talk to a lawyer anyway, so she knows what to look out for in the future if things happen to change.

[–] MonkRome@lemmy.world 3 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Thank you, I think she believes she is not protected. I'll look into this.

[–] jqubed@lemmy.world 1 points 4 months ago

It might not qualify her for disability insurance, as in she no longer needs to work any jobs, but should absolutely entitle her to disability protections, as in job requirements should be modified to permit her to continue to work. If her employer is not making accommodations to permit her to continue to work then she might have a legal case.

[–] EinfachUnersetzlich@lemm.ee 1 points 4 months ago (2 children)

How do you know the EEOC applies where she is?

[–] dohpaz42@lemmy.world 5 points 4 months ago

You’re right. I made an assumption about where she lives. I shouldn’t have, but I did. The advice about talking to a lawyer to know her rights, though, is universal regardless of where she lives. So I still stand by my statements.

[–] rockSlayer@lemmy.world 1 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Because the ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act) is enforced by the EEOC.

[–] SoleInvictus@lemmy.blahaj.zone 3 points 4 months ago (1 children)

I think what they're getting at is not every person on the Internet lives in the United States.

[–] rockSlayer@lemmy.world 4 points 4 months ago

That's generally a fair criticism, but the context from the rest of this particular thread is clearly US based