2002

I am writing on behalf of A.Z., MSW who received a letter dated [2002] informing him that “unsatisfactory performance demonstrated during [his] probation” had resulted in EMPLOYER recommending his termination.

As a professional skills coach, I have spent about 50 hours with A.Z. on the telephone or in person, during the past two months, working on issues that we both had been lead to believe were the key to his continuation as a vocational rehabilitation counselor. When I was contacted to assist A.Z., I believed that EMPLOYER would give him an opportunity to demonstrate improvement. In fact, A.Z. has received feedback on being more relaxed and at ease at work. He got through a tough transition in IT in late October without any demanding behaviors.

I feel that I was merely a foil, brought in to make it appear that EMPLOYER was sincere in its interest to accommodate a person with multiple disabilities. The timeline of this makes it hard to view the evidence in any other way.

I want to make it clear from the outset that I believe that it is not in A.Z.’s best interest to be a permanent employee in this office of EMPLOYER. The circumstances that have lead to this moment are a combination of A.Z.’s issues, as well as attitudes, expectations, and assumptions of EMPLOYEES and some of its employees.

Although I am not able to proffer a formal diagnosis, after a great deal of research, I have concluded A.Z. has a residual pervasive developmental disorder consistent with many of the criteria spelled out in DSM IV, diagnostic code 299.80. He is currently seeking formal diagnosis that will clarify and augment his earlier diagnosis of Sensory Integration Dysfunction.

The lack of a formal diagnosis of a disability when one is hired does not repudiate the presence of a disability. In fact, at several junctures, A.Z.’s supervisor and others used the word “autistic” to describe mannerisms observed (never in front of consumers) when A.Z. was under stress. After one week of daily conversations with A.Z., I began looking for explanations for why A.Z. behaved as he does. I find it hard to swallow that in the midst of professionals, A.Z. was still treated as blind, but neurotypical, therefore judged blind, but unskilled at being blind (and a being a person.)

Could it be: in an EMPLOYER dedicated to serving Ohioans with disabilities, that one of their own would be treated in such a cavalier manner?

Questions raised by his peers about some of A.Z.’s social skills could all be answered by examining information on Asperger Syndrome. Did anyone think to pursue this further?

A.Z. is perceived as socially inept, but he is nonetheless a vocational counselor meeting performance expectations in three key areas. He doesn’t do small talk well, and he sometimes makes comments that others perceive as blunt, rude, or irrelevant in group meetings.

I assure you that I have never met anyone whose desire to be and act normal was greater than A.Z. He does not set out to annoy or irritate anyone. He is able to learn and change. Unfortunately, he was not given any chance to prove that post-coaching.

When A.Z. went over the timeline of incidents that he believed had forever branded him demanding and abrupt, I was struck by how many problems were created because EMPLOYER was not equipped to handle IT issues in a speedy and thorough fashion. A.Z. takes full responsibility for his demanding behaviors, but I am compelled to point out that these things would not have happened if he received adequate instruction and support when it was needed due to his visual impairment.

I also want to address concerns expressed to me about A.Z.’s ability to handle the job of social worker. I think that A.Z. does have the skills to be a social worker. I think it would be helpful for him to work as a partner with other counselors. It would reduce his overall stress and he could provide insight and information based on his extensive knowledge of services and possibilities. He has been able to succeed as a caseworker, both as a partner in cases and on his own cases. I do not see his issues as being insurmountable if he stays an active social worker.

I took A.Z.’s latest evaluation and the comments and created an interesting statement from the actual language on the form:

In light of the potential of serious discrimination issues, I think A.Z. should be permitted to continue in his job until he finds new employment, or until his official probation, whichever comes first. This would be preferable to any type of protracted appeal.

I have included with this email both of my reports written about A.Z. The first was after observation; the second written after six weeks of intensive contact. I would like all to be considered part of A.Z.’s case when it is presented.

[1] difficulty processing ambiguous information; often being socially ill at ease which makes rapport difficult; asking irrelevant questions at meetings; sometimes being demanding under stress; having two of his consumers ask for a different counselor; as well as having difficulty maintaining caseload duties as caseload increases - NOTE: A.Z. has, in fact, been formally diagnosed with Aspergers!

[2] uses more IT and WPS time and support than any other RRO counselor