Now I have heard EVERYTHING

[James48843]

You won't believe this.

Or maybe you will.

Federal employee in Baltimore (Social Security) disciplined for.....

Employee Issued 5 Page Reprimand for Farting at Work


A Social Security Administration employee was formally reprimanded earlier this month for for excessive workplace flatulence, according to a Dec. 10 letter obtained by The Smoking Gun.

The 38-year-old, who worked out of a Baltimore office, was hit with a five-page letter detailing the dates and times of his noxious offenses. The letter informed the worker that his “uncontrollable flatulence” created an “intolerable” and “hostile” environment for coworkers -- many of which had lodged complaints.

also other strange reasons for warning and fireings..in this article...

The whole article is here:
Employee Issued 5-Page Formal Reprimand For Farting At Work

[Frixxxx]

Wow, and no doctor's note? Sounds to me like this guy should see a doctor. Actually, I had a coworker, who used to consistently have these issues. I recommended a diet supplement and guess what, he thanked me! Looks like 5 pages is the right amount of documented effort required to track an "issue" at work for a federal employee. AND he was asked not to do it in the office. Self-control....we all have surprises, but really? 5 pages of documentation, this was a real disturbance to the work environment.....Glad they talked to him repeatedly about it....Wow, I hate to be Leo on Monday....I'm sure there will be a few choice messages on his voice mail when he comes back from the holidays.

[Intrepid_Timer]

Wow, and no doctor's note? Sounds to me like this guy should see a doctor. Actually, I had a coworker, who used to consistently have these issues. I recommended a diet supplement and guess what, he thanked me! Looks like 5 pages is the right amount of documented effort required to track an "issue" at work for a federal employee. AND he was asked not to do it in the office. Self-control....we all have surprises, but really? 5 pages of documentation, this was a real disturbance to the work environment.....Glad they talked to him repeatedly about it....Wow, I hate to be Leo on Monday....I'm sure there will be a few choice messages on his voice mail when he comes back from the holidays.

So what was the diet supplement? My fiancee' might thank you also........................

[nnuut]

I think he should be proud! frogfart.gif

[Frixxxx]

So what was the diet supplement? My fiancee' might thank you also........................

Chamomile....it's easy to incorporate into a diet, and mint...not so easy, but fun to chew on the leaves and is an ingredient in the infamous Mojito!...But I am concerned that this guy may have a gastro-intestinal condition.

[Intrepid_Timer]

Chamomile....it's easy to incorporate into a diet, and mint...not so easy, but fun to chew on the leaves and is an ingredient in the infamous Mojito!...But I am concerned that this guy may have a gastro-intestinal condition.

Thanks! I'm allergic to ragweed, so I think I'll have to hold off on the Chamomile. It might make my insides blow up like a tick.................

[SkyPilot]

I was not aware that flatulation was a regulated or prohibited activity. I am guessing that without a documented standard and a measurement protocol in place, this employee has a pretty good chance of winning an action against this agency. Then comes the whole burden of proof;

-by what method does the agency prove the source of each instance,

-what is the acceptable threshold of the quantity and quality of the flatulence,

-are other staff restricted or otherwise regulated regarding their flatulence,

-and if so what is the reasonable accommodation for this issue?

-What is the community standard regarding public flatulence, and is this a cultural impact?

-What about other bodily exhilants such as

-burps,

-belches,

-sneezes, etc...

Must we also consider other physical emanations,

-such as body odor,

-interactive colognes and perfumes,

-etc... Whoo Boy!

And I am just getting started!

This employee has likely been the subject of slander and suffers from a hostile work environment, and must be compensated for the cruel and unprofessional conduct of his supervisor and coworkers!

[Frixxxx]

I was not aware that flatulation was a regulated or prohibited activity. I am guessing that without a documented standard and a measurement protocol in place, this employee has a pretty good chance of winning an action against this agency. Then comes the whole burden of proof;

-by what method does the agency prove the source of each instance,

-what is the acceptable threshold of the quantity and quality of the flatulence,

-are other staff restricted or otherwise regulated regarding their flatulence,

-and if so what is the reasonable accommodation for this issue?

-What is the community standard regarding public flatulence, and is this a cultural impact?

-What about other bodily exhilants such as

-burps,

-belches,

-sneezes, etc...

Must we also consider other physical emanations,

-such as body odor,

-interactive colognes and perfumes,

-etc... Whoo Boy!

And I am just getting started!

This employee has likely been the subject of slander and suffers from a hostile work environment, and must be compensated for the cruel and unprofessional conduct of his supervisor and coworkers!

I think you are missing the point....It clearly states in the reprimand that they have discussed his issue and he was working on a solution..As discussed. In the complaint the employee said he was going to do something about it but had not....Flatulence is the primary issue, the secondary is that this person is disrupting the work area and has not provided medical proof of a condition. His lack of concern about his other co-workers because of this is disconcerting.

I have asked employees to reduce perfume usage...It isn't hard. And the first year I was in the Air Force, I saw an airman escorted to his shower to execute body odor removal, but he got out because he wrote bad checks......If it is bothering someone, then it has to be addressed.

[SkyPilot]

The larger issue is the reprimand itself is probably illegal, as it is not based on any policy or other standard of administrative protocol. It is specificall based on the supervisor's "belief".

If the administration demands medical proof of a condition, it is likely they are compelled to make accommodation for the condition. Perfume usage is a choice and not a "medical" condition, and your request to that employee may itself have been subject to action if you have not required this of all staff under your supervision. And in civil service, you cannot jack march a civil servant to the "showers", as you might in the military. The whole discussion with the employee seems to be handled outside of OPM standards, and I assume at some point the employees Collective Bargaining Representative will be involved, if not legal representation. Note: The AFGE has already taken this issue up. The fact that this reprimand has now been released to the public may further damage this employee, and be cause for additional damages. If his issue is "lactose intolerance", it is a very difficult circumstance to control, as even whey enzyme in white bread can trigger the issue. What you may consider an inconvenience and maybe even hilarious, may be debilitating to the person affected. Never mind those who suffer from

Crohn's disease

Beyond that, if this is a medical condition and has been discussed around the office, this is also a possible EEO issue for the supervisor... see this link for further discussion. » Flatulence in the Workplace Human Resource Blog

As you noticed in the Smoking Gun article, the AFGE is already involved.

I think you are missing the point....It clearly states in the reprimand that they have discussed his issue and he was working on a solution..As discussed. In the complaint the employee said he was going to do something about it but had not....Flatulence is the primary issue, the secondary is that this person is disrupting the work area and has not provided medical proof of a condition. His lack of concern about his other co-workers because of this is disconcerting.

I have asked employees to reduce perfume usage...It isn't hard. And the first year I was in the Air Force, I saw an airman escorted to his shower to execute body odor removal, but he got out because he wrote bad checks......If it is bothering someone, then it has to be addressed.

[SkyPilot]

It seems that this individual may well be within acceptable tolerances, per the described documentation.

Most individuals produce nearly 1 pint (473 milliliters) of flatus (gas) daily. Passing gas 10 to 20 times per day is considered normal. Diets that consist of an abundance of carbohydrate-rich foods (such as beans) produce greater amounts of gas because a greater amount of undigested carbohydrates enter the large intestine. The mixture of different gases causes the characteristic odor associated with flatulence.

Read more: How much flatulence is produced daily?: Information from Answers.com

[Frixxxx]

The rights of the one (farter) are more important the the rights of the many (smellers)!!! A workplace that is hostile needs to be addressed...Apparently no one is getting that message. The worker should have replied in kind with what HE was going to do...He did, and didn't live up to that end of the bargain. HE NEVER TRIED TO DO ANYTHING ABOUT IT....That my friends is just rudeness.

[SkyPilot]

Actually, the rights of the individual are protected under EEO and OPM rules, laws and regulations. When addressing these issues, they must conform the the standards of Civil Treatment. Actually, flatulence does not constitute a "Hostile Workplace" as it does not discriminate upon a protected class. However, the individual with the flatulence may have a cause of action due to the way and nature this case has been handled. The "bargain" that was made seems to have been negotiated outside of proper and specific scope, and may in itself be a cause of action for the employee. Managers may not just construct their own idea of fairness, but rather must work within the boundaries of policy. This entire situation may be in violation of the Weingarten rule. Weingarten Rights - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Discrimination Based on Sexual Orientation, Status as a Parent, Marital Status and Political Affiliation Weingarten Rights | American Federation of Government Employees AFGE Local 704 I hope the employee invokes his representation.

The rights of the one (farter) are more important the the rights of the many (smellers)!!! A workplace that is hostile needs to be addressed...Apparently no one is getting that message. The worker should have replied in kind with what HE was going to do...He did, and didn't live up to that end of the bargain. HE NEVER TRIED TO DO ANYTHING ABOUT IT....That my friends is just rudeness.