Woman fired after donating kidney to her boss

[Northstar]

There has to be more to this. This story is just so...odd. For what reason, exactly, are they suing? While the article makes the boss sound ungrateful and mean it did not clearly delineate what law(s) she broke. Can someone fill me in?

Here's what her lawyer said, quoted from the original news story posted:

"Stevens' attorney, civil rights lawyer Lenard Leeds, said he planned to file a discrimination lawsuit against AAG, and would likely seek millions of dollars in compensation.
'Our ultimate goal is to bring this before federal court,' Leeds said. 'We're alleging they discriminated against her for her disability and they retaliated against her when she complained about the harassment.'"

So the fact that the kidney was donated for the boss's benefit is actually irrelevant to the basis for the lawsuit. But I think it's probably a major motivation as to why they're suing. Hey, I'd sure be asking for my kidney back, or at least telling the hospitals that I wanted the credit for the kidney donation to move somebody else up the donation list.

 

[dzorn]

Here's what her lawyer said, quoted from the original news story posted:

"Stevens' attorney, civil rights lawyer Lenard Leeds, said he planned to file a discrimination lawsuit against AAG, and would likely seek millions of dollars in compensation.
'Our ultimate goal is to bring this before federal court,' Leeds said. 'We're alleging they discriminated against her for her disability and they retaliated against her when she complained about the harassment.'"

So the fact that the kidney was donated for the boss's benefit is actually irrelevant to the basis for the lawsuit. But I think it's probably a major motivation as to why they're suing. Hey, I'd sure be asking for my kidney back, or at least telling the hospitals that I wanted the credit for the kidney donation to move somebody else up the donation list.

I believe the boss has already recieved a kidney because she was moved up on the list.

Denise in MI

 

[crashbb]

The article mentions a disability but doesn't say what the disability is. Was it the kidney surgery or was it stress?

While on the surface it sounds bad, I would need to see all the details before declaring the company wrong.

I think that she is claiming that the disabilty was caused by the surgery:

Stevens underwent surgery on Aug. 10, 2011. She said doctors hit a nerve in her leg, causing her discomfort and digestive problems.

Though, how the doctors hit a nevre in her leg while taking out her kidney is unclear to me. As is how hitting a nerve in a leg would lead to digestive problems.

 

[abdmom]

Though, how the doctors hit a nevre in her leg while taking out her kidney is unclear to me. As is how hitting a nerve in a leg would lead to digestive problems.

The kidneys lie next to your back, where the nerves come off the spinal cord. It would be relatively easy to nick a nerve that supplies the intestines and/or the leg.

 

[akhenaten]

There is NO such thing as donating so someone can move up on a list!!

What happened was that the employee offered her kidney for her boss... and since they did not match ...they went into a paired or chain exchange...

The National Kidney registry (in this case) then matches both the patient and their donor with people who they match and they become part of a chain of donations. It is all done with voluntary living donors... there is no list to move up.

Lists for transplant involve deceased donors and are a separate thing altogether... managed by an organization called UNOS.

As to the specifics of this case I need to have more information... but the mis-information in her lawyers account have me questioning the story in total!

 

[crashbb]

The kidneys lie next to your back, where the nerves come off the spinal cord. It would be relatively easy to nick a nerve that supplies the intestines and/or the leg.

I do know where the kidneys are; however, it doesn't say a nerve that supplies the intestines and/or legs it says a nerve IN the leg.

 

[curious3069]

I'll play the other side of this coin...you have to wonder if the employee expected special treatment because of her donation and everything sort of spiraled out of control. For all we know she was a really crappy employee...

 

[akhenaten]

I do know where the kidneys are; however, it doesn't say a nerve that supplies the intestines and/or legs it says a nerve IN the leg.

Exactly... there are many things wrong in the lawyers statements.

 

[goofy!]

The article mentions a disability but doesn't say what the disability is. Was it the kidney surgery or was it stress?

While on the surface it sounds bad, I would need to see all the details before declaring the company wrong.

My thoughts exactly.

We are only hearing one side of the story right now. I will wait to make a judgement till more info, especially on the company's side, is forthcoming.

For all we know, the kidney donor was a lousy employee and worse after the donation, thinking she was entitled to just about anything because she donated a kidney.

 

[undertheradar]

This was on our SoCal news today and the story doesn't add up. While the donation was nice, it has nothing to do with employment. The lawsuit looks as if she is seeking payment for the kidney donation and the dollar amount is insane.

 

[wdwmom0f3]

I just dont understand this. I thought that you had to have a test FRIST to see if there is a match. Once she found out that she was not a match, she had a chance to get out of it right? Since she was not a match and she decided to donate it anyway, that's all on her.

I dont know about the rest. The whole thing is just bizarre to be honest.

 

[Heidict]

Exactly... there are many things wrong in the lawyers statements.

It sounded like the article had some inaccuracies not the lawyers statement. Who knows where the writer got their info from. Just another example of the top notch journalism that is prevalent these days.

I'll play the other side of this coin...you have to wonder if the employee expected special treatment because of her donation and everything sort of spiraled out of control. For all we know she was a really crappy employee...

But if this was the case, then wouldn't she have been fired before? It says that she started a few months after her September 2010 visit, so, around December or January. The boss then asked her if she would still be willing to donate the kidney in January of 2011 with the surgery taking place in August of 2011. The employee is saying that the abuse and treatment didn't start until she returned to her job after the surgery.

So, was she always a bad employee whom the boss only kept around till she gave up her kidney?

Was she a good employee who wasn't so good after the surgery and thus the boss started in on her and eventually transferred and demoted her?

Was a she a good employee before and after and the boss is just a witch and is upset that the kidney didn't match?

I know people on here have said that the boss had the transplant already, but it doesn't state that in the article. Is this a fact or just on an assumption based on knowledge of these procedures or just an all around guess?

 

[kaytieeldr]

I'll play the other side of this coin...you have to wonder if the employee expected special treatment because of her donation and everything sort of spiraled out of control. For all we know she was a really crappy employee...

I used to work for Psycho Boss. It wasn't until four or five consecutive new hires in a month lasted only a day or two each - with only the last one telling HR why she wasn't coming back - that the woman was 'convinced' to retire.

Expecting to be treated with courtesy and respect, and to be able to leave one's desk, and to not be screamed at, isn't even close to expecting special treatment.

 

[kaytieeldr]

Things are different now. As described on the previous page, there are now donor pairs and chains.
Person A needs a kidney. They have a friend or relative willing to donate, but they're not a match.
Person B needs a kidney and also has a friend or relative willing to donate - but again, no match.
Now, A's relative may be a match for B, and B's friend for A - and voila! A donor pair.

Ms Stevens was tested, and found not to match Psycho Boss. By donating a kidney to someone she did match, she enabled PB to participate in a donor chain.

 

[nmmom95]

There is NO such thing as donating so someone can move up on a list!!

What happened was that the employee offered her kidney for her boss... and since they did not match ...they went into a paired or chain exchange...

The National Kidney registry (in this case) then matches both the patient and their donor with people who they match and they become part of a chain of donations. It is all done with voluntary living donors... there is no list to move up.

Lists for transplant involve deceased donors and are a separate thing altogether... managed by an organization called UNOS.

As to the specifics of this case I need to have more information... but the mis-information in her lawyers account have me questioning the story in total!

I took it (probably incorrectly) as the employee being a "bridge" donor. However, I agree that some of the details don't make sense. I know that my surgeon said that they may have to take a vein from my leg to connect the kidney, but I was a recipient. That part confused me.

 

[rigs32]

Just because the article misstates something doesn't mean the donor or her attorney lied. I'm a prosecutor. The local media has certain people assigned to cover criminal cases. It always shocks me how little they understand the system and what is actually happening in court even though it is their job to report on it. I'm guessing the author of the article is to blame for inconsistencies like the statements about moving up the list.

 

[curious3069]

I used to work for Psycho Boss. It wasn't until four or five consecutive new hires in a month lasted only a day or two each - with only the last one telling HR why she wasn't coming back - that the woman was 'convinced' to retire.

Expecting to be treated with courtesy and respect, and to be able to leave one's desk, and to not be screamed at, isn't even close to expecting special treatment.

See, that's first hand info and actually adds info to the story. I always tend to be skeptical with one sided stories, especially ones with an emotional component like this one so thanks for adding something helpful!!!

Hope that didn't come off as insincere, it sort of reads that way...I'm genuinely glad you shared!!!

 

[kaytieeldr]

Just to clarify: I didn't work for this Psycho Boss, and I'm sorry I gave that impression. Two (three) jobs ago, I worked for a woman who was emotionally abusive to her employees and not above calling names or having someone in tears.

So while I never worked for AAG, I can absolutely see how a supervisor can be abusive and make someone's workday miserable to unbearable.