If you develop cancer, heart disease, long COVID, or another serious medical condition, you would expect to meet with your personal physicians. What you might not expect is to endure a draining process to request leave through Work Connections (WC) precisely when you need support the most. 

We fully acknowledge that the majority of WC cases are resolved satisfactorily and that some employees have reported positive interactions with WC staff; this is, however, far from a sufficient or acceptable measure of success. Years of reports to faculty governance, a campus-wide poll, and testimonies by staff and faculty who have interacted with WC, many of them in the last two years, regardless of whether the process yielded a satisfactory outcome, paint a consistent picture of a flawed system where some people experience harassment and bullying. 

WC decisions can seem arbitrary and cruel. Against expert opinion from a person’s clinician, WC has reduced the duration of leaves following complex surgeries, potentially jeopardizing employees’ recovery. WC has questioned and denied temporary work accommodations during challenging pregnancies. Employees with long-term conditions and those whose conditions don’t follow a linear path of recovery have been accused of “not trying hard enough.”

The dozens of cases we’ve encountered where employees reported devastating interactions and outcomes point to systemic targeting of those, more often women, with conditions that are invisible, chronic, medically complex, or historically and socially stigmatized. As a result, some employees decided to abandon their claims to escape the deeply disruptive and traumatic process of applying for leave through WC. 

WC case managers are not licensed medical providers, yet they can impart unsolicited and even dangerous medical advice. They have illegitimately interfered in employees’ medical treatment plans. They have declared that some employees’ “conditions do not exist or aren’t real.” Consequently, WC has sent some employees suffering from debilitating physical conditions to psychological evaluations. Case managers have been described as rude, belittling, evasive, and stonewalling, adding to the exhaustion felt by employees already in a vulnerable state.

Even in cases of “straightforward” medical conditions, employees report patterns of disrespect. Many have shared concerns that, if they spoke up about these experiences or filed complaints, WC might retaliate by canceling their leaves, making the process more painful or disallowing them to return to work even when their health allowed. 

WC was established several decades ago in part to ensure medical privacy; and while WC might operate within U-M policy, there does not appear to be an appeal process or clearly-stated rules governing its operation, essentially shielding WC from accountability. Case managers routinely require interactions over the phone, thereby avoiding an objective paper trail. Some employees informed us that their medical information had been wrongfully shared with supervisors. Others felt forced to provide medical information irrelevant to their leave request.

Case managers have used unknown rules regarding independent medical evaluations, and when confronted did not respond, pointed to an irrelevant procedure, or delayed the response until it was too late for the employee to make the relevant arrangements. This generalized ambiguity ensures that employees interacting with WC are isolated and unable to advocate for themselves. 

The confusion surrounding the roles, procedures, and responsibilities of WC is not just internal within WC. Delineation of roles between the Disability Equity Office and WC isn’t clearly outlined and depends on who you ask. WC findings are submitted as only “recommendations,” and chairs and deans are empowered to make final decisions, but administrators appear widely uninformed, often accepting WC recommendations even when contrary to the assessment of the employee’s personal physician or work conditions. Employees are thereby left in situations in which no one appears responsible for the consequences of a system impacting their wellbeing.

In 2021, the Faculty Senate approved a motion calling for an overhaul of WC. Yet, U-M still has not made any substantive change. How many times must we point out the problems? How many lives must be impacted? How many brilliant colleagues must we lose before change is enacted? 

If we look at the problems associated with WC with a compassionate mindset, our path forward is obvious. We need to abandon the current private, professional medico-legal model of case review and interactions. We need a process based in medical care and human resources (as it used to be), not based in risk management and financial claims (as it is now). We need a process that upholds the diagnoses and recommendations of trained regularly practicing physicians. We need clearly documented, transparent, and complete procedures, including a fair appeal process. We need oversight and accountability mechanisms involving all stakeholders (including faculty and staff) with strong protections against retaliation. We need a process driven by the mission of common good. 

— Emmanuelle Marquis, Professor of Materials Science and Engineering

— Bruno J Giordani, Professor of Psychiatry and Neurology

— Faculty Perspective is provided by The University Record as a forum for U-M faculty representatives to comment on university issues. Opinions presented are those of the authors and do not reflect the views of the Record or the University of Michigan. Submissions are coordinated through the Faculty Senate Office.

Tags:

• Faculty Perspective