Originally Posted by seamuskrat
After reading the brief, it seems on the front of it, that Apple did in fact break some employment rules.
Yes, or not.
There's certainly a lot of information missing here. A few things do sound suspicious here that don't help her case.
1) Why didn't the managers simply not hire her back? She was gone for 4 months. The position had been replaced. They were well within their legal right to not bring her back. Instead, they brought her back and placed her in the basement? What exactly was her position and duties when she returned? How much was she paid and how many hours did she work? It sounds like to me that they let her return and paid her for the only position available at the time which was some sort of inventory/stock position that she didn't care for, and that Apple was actually trying to do what was best for her.
2) Where the questions about her mental stability questions based on observations or confidential information that management should never have had access to? It seems rather likely that if this person needed to take 4 months off due to a nervous disorder that there may
have been issues with interacting with the customers that the management witnessed or received reports from. This could be the most destructive counter-point. All it would take would be a few reports from co-workers or customers and her claim becomes baseless.
3) How is she claiming Apple did wrong in knowing/guessing/speculating about her condition? In the article it claims she "was given disability leave through an independent company, and was reportedly assured by the third party that the details of her medical condition would not be released to Apple
". It it wasn't, isn't it likely that it was obvious, and if so, wouldn't what made it obvious also be something that made it such that she was unable to perform certain jobs that required interaction with customers or co-workers. It should be worth noting that you can discriminate against someone with a disability (or other protected class) if the issue is that they can not perform the duties of their job.
4) The move to Chicago on one hand may show that Apple was unwilling to place her into any position other than "mystery basement" position, but it's also pretty weird that she moved to Chicago before she had the job. Again, the details here are unknown so there's not much to go on.
There are a lot of unanswered questions, and unlike others here, I'm not going to call the plaintiff names or make accusations against her. I feel sorry for what she's gone through, even if the claims are baseless, but there needs to be far more to this than what was presented before I'd be willing to believe Apple did any wrong here.