Heavy Handedness Will Lead To Trouble

The federal government stepped in to help the mentally ill last week, clarifying the right to sue employers who don’t accommodate their symptoms.

This might be a big step forward - certainly, it was intended to be - for a nation that still attaches ignorant, tragic stigmas to mental illness. Modern medications and therapy have made many psychiatric disturbances eminently treatable. This is good news indeed, for one in 10 Americans suffers at one time or another from a mental illness - depression being the most common.

It is past time for workplaces and the culture at large to extend to the mentally ill the same compassion and assistance given to persons who are physically disabled or afflicted with physical illness. If we make compassion toward the mentally ill commonplace, millions will be more likely to obtain successful care and lead productive, self-reliant lives.

However, there have been times when the well-meaning extension of federal rules and rights has boomeranged, whacking the beneficiaries from behind. For example: endangered species rules give landowners an incentive to destroy habitat and kill rare critters before lawyers and regulators descend with inspections, lawsuits and confiscations. Affirmative action rules created cruel doubts about whether promotions were deserved and provoked new racial tensions over reverse discrimination. Now, a nasty backlash is under way.

The fact is, punitive lawsuits and regulations do not always inspire compliance. The remedy sometimes appears so burdensome it inspires avoidance and new forms of abuse.

If you’re a small business person with only a few employees, you have to concentrate on income-enhancing work - not on costly hassles with inspectors and lawsuits.

Alas, there is a risk of adverse fallout from the new federal guidelines concerning psychiatric disabilities in the workplace. Released by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the guidelines explain how the protections of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) apply to the mentally ill.

Symptoms of protected mental illness, the guidelines note, can include chronic lateness, poor judgment, disheveled dress, rudeness and poor concentration. If an employer wishes to discipline such an employee, will he now have to hire psychiatrists and lawyers to defend himself?

Suppose an employee feels “stressed” and requests time off or feels groggy in the morning and asks to work later hours. According to the guidelines, these may qualify as requests for mandatory “accommodation” under federal law. If employers refuse? See you in court.

Employers may be required, the guidelines say, to hire a temporary “coach” to help a mentally ill worker adapt to job requirements. Never mind the cost.

Employers might, the guidelines say, be permitted not to hire someone with a history of violence - provided the employer can prove the violence will recur. How?

The ADA requires employers to make “reasonable accommodation” for disabled employees. That word “reasonable” is going to get a workout. Without common sense on all sides, employers could wind up with an incentive to avoid, by whatever subterfuge they can find, doing what they should do to help people with mental illness lead successful lives.

, DataTimes The following fields overflowed: CREDIT = John Webster/For the editorial board