HOME 
Page 2
In 1999, another gentleman in a wheel chair was hired. This
exacerbated the problem as now we were forced to compete for this
one and only facility. It should be noted that this individual
had to come down two floors via an elevator to use this stall.
Additionally, it should be noted that this stall was not large
enough to accommodate this individual in his electric wheelchair
thereby not affording him the decency of relieving himself in
private. Often times we would both be in line for this stall
waiting for someone who could have utilized one of the other two
stalls. In some of these instances, I was forced to catherize
myself at one of the urinals. One can only imagine how I felt
sitting there exposed while I inserted a urinary catheter for
elimination. Surely this is a regimen that mandates privacy but
one that I was forced to concede due to the conditions that
prevailed.
It should be noted at this juncture that the Americans With
Disabilities Act does not require the provision of any auxiliary
aid or service that would result in an undue burden or
fundamentally alter the nature of the goods or services provided
by an employer. That said, it should be noted that Metropolitan
Life is ranked 47th on the Fortune 500 and that to incur the cost
of rectifying this situation is clearly within the financial
means of this institution. That said and combined with the fact
that the ADA was enacted in 1992 both served to make my requests
reasonable and protected by law. After conveying this information
to the building manager once again no proactive response was
initiated.
To compound these unanswered issues, in 1999 I was assigned
production support of a computer batch trail that began its run
at midnight Monday through Friday. For the next two years I
supported this run. During this time, the run failed at least 25
times necessitating that I awake, subsequent to a phone call, and
drive into work to remedy the situation. During the winter, I had
to negotiate several inches of snow and one time got so hung up
that I feared I might not make it either back to my vehicle or
into the building. While I am determined to live my life as
closely as possible to that of a fully ambulatory individual and
to persist against all adversities, in hindsight, I find this
assignment to be hideous and callous and to have been conferred
with a great deal of insensitivity. I now muse in astonishment
over all the times I had to dress my still paralyzed body and
contend with the spasticity that heightens during my sleep to
successfully support this for two long years. I wonder if my
superiors know just how much effort was expended during this time
with nary a complaint from me.
In 2001, a situation occurred that finally brought my pleas to
the notice of upper management. Generally, the security guards
were accommodating when it came to assisting me in opening the
heavy doors at the entrance to the building. In January of this
year, there were three consecutive days in which the same
security guard failed to assist me despite my gesture for help.
On the third day, a fellow female associate and I approached the
entrance together. She was encumbered by a number of items in her
arms and subsequently I opened the door for both her and myself.
In consideration of the security guard's position as a liaison to
the community, I decided he had a responsibility to provide some
assistance. Not to mention that it was a woman who was in need in
this situation. Once inside, I opened the security guard door and
asked why it was he couldn't get off his tail to provide
assistance to the women not to mention myself. I reminded him of
my failed attempts to garnish his help on the previous days and
asked what his reasoning was for ignoring my pleas. I did not
swear at him and cumulatively my inquiry only served at best to
insult his manhood. Still, I was found guilty of verbal abuse and
written up over the incident. When my review took place in March
of that year for my previous year's efforts, I was given a poor
review based solely on this episode. Note that this occurred in
2001 and my review was for my contribution in 2000. To add insult
to injury, I was only given $500 for my yearly bonus, which was
usually $2500. In an appeal to human resources, I was informed
that my review for the work I had accomplished in the previous
year did not constitute a sub par rating. The HR Generalist, Rose
Johnston, exclaimed, "You should see what a true poor review
looks like. This doesn't come close to any of those that received
the same rating as you. Her hands being tied in the matter, I was
forced to accept the review.