Rosanne Barr has publicly acknowledged her mental illness, which includes multiple personality disorder. This should have been no secret to Disney when they hired her for the current television show since Disney subsidiary, ABC, ran this story several years ago about Rosanne’s mental illness:
**Roseanne Says Having 7 Personalities Is Tough **
**Loudmouthed comedian Roseanne has had a lot of different personas: waitress, stand-up comic, talk show host, and actress. But that’s not what she means when she says she’s dealing with multiple personalities. ** Roseanne, who first told the world that she has multiple personality disorder in 1994, says it’s not easy dealing with switching between “Somebody” and "Nobody."
Bill Maher recently noted Rosanne’s mental condition an important factor in the her firing:
“My friend Roseanne admitted that she had been admitted to a mental institution,” Maher said on Friday’s show. “She has said she has multiple personalities and, unfortunately, one of them is quite a racist.”
Discrimination based on mental illness is illegal under federal employment law:
Is my employer allowed to fire me because I have a mental health condition?
No. It is illegal for an employer to discriminate against you simply because you have a mental health condition. This includes firing you, rejecting you for a job or promotion, or forcing you to take leave. . . You may have a legal right to a reasonable accommodation that would help you do your job. Depression, PTSD, & Other Mental Health Conditions in the Workplace: Your Legal Rights
Is Disney violating federal employment law by failing to make required accommodations for someone with mental illness?
“A reasonable accommodation is some type of change in the way things are normally done at work. Just a few examples of possible accommodations include altered break and work schedules (e.g., scheduling work around therapy appointments), quiet office space or devices that create a quiet work environment, changes in supervisory methods (e.g., written instructions from a supervisor who usually does not provide them), specific shift assignments, and permission to work from home.”
“Reasonable accommodation” probably does not include allowing the employee to tweet hateful things on social media without consequence.
Not interested in the article, but I saw “zero tolerance” and felt the need to comment on how such an approach is the worst possible way to maintain civility. Ever.
Imagine being physically bullied as a new kid in school every day for two months before you finally turn around and punch one of the kids who’s been running up behind you pushing you to the ground while the kids in the hallway laugh.
People have been slapping you, pushing you, knocking your books out of your hands, etc…
You’ve finally had enough, and with one pivot, that bully is now on the ground crying while everyone laughs at him.
Sorry to burst your shining moment, but there’s Zero Tolerance for fighting in this school. You’re suspended, because you have no right to defend yourself.
This is the start of where violence gets waaaaaaay out of hand, if you know what I mean…
IMO…the penalty exceeded the crime. Her show and all the now unemployed people paid a higher price in damages than for the damage done by the tweet Roseanne made. She had a moment of dumb ass and everybody associated with the show is paying an eternal price for it.
It is possible that Disney could be liable for civil penalties, especially if there a pattern of discrimination.
Of course, applying zero tolerance to Disney’s behavior would be to run them out of business even if only one executive is responsible. That is what has happened to the Roseanne show.
Reasonable accommodation does not include a get out of jail free card for breaches of standards of behavior that adversely affect a company’s brand or reputation.
Astonishing to see the entitlement mentality many on the right apply employment.
No chance. She has decades of documented socially questionable activity. Reasonable accomodation does not include allowing an employee to publicize potentially harmful twitter posts. The only way she’ll get money out of this is if there is a breach of contract by ABC, or they pay her to go away.
It’s fun to see the “mental illness” angle being used to justify her actions and demonify her employer.
A good lawyer could convince a judge and jury otherwise.
And all they need to do is gather up and present the racist, homophobic, misogynistic, and xenophobic public statements that non-mentally-ill people make and get away with.
(Though not relevant in the notional court case, those statements - the ones that have no serious consequences - will have come from Libs.)
It is possible that ANY company can be liable for civil penalties, especially if there is a pattern of discrimination. You haven’t proven discrimination in this case.
Being able to go on hateful Twitter rants is not an accommodation any reasonable judge would deem Disney to be in violation of committing.
What happened is that Disney/ABC gave Roseanne a chance, despite knowing her volatile past and history of controversy. She violated their trust, and now her show has been cancelled.
A “good lawyer” can convince a judge and a jury of damned near anything. Doesn’t mean they broke the law in this case.
You and OP are arguing just to argue. Trump supporters are doing a lot of that lately. I guess you have to kill some time given it’s sort of hard to defend ANYTHING regarding Trump right now.
