|
|||
|
|
|
||||||
|
Dealing with 'Mystery' Illnesses
A civil trial will soon begin to determine whether a scientist, who allegedly was infected with a mystery virus, was illegally terminated by the pharmaceutical company that employed her. Regardless of the verdict, it's a warning to HR leaders that they need to be aware of the best ways to handle a worker who reports getting sick at work, regardless of whether symptoms are apparent.
Nearly three years after it was filed, the U.S. District Court in Hartford, Conn. will finally hear a civil lawsuit in March filed by a former molecular biologist for drug maker Pfizer, alleging the company violated state whistleblower laws, her right to free speech and exposed her to a dangerous workplace. According to the suit, originally filed in New London (Conn.) Superior Court, Becky McClain, a scientist and former member of the company's safety committee, had worked for the New York-based drug maker for nearly a decade before she was terminated in 2005. She had worked in the company's Groton, Conn., embryonic-stem-cells lab, when she became ill after repeatedly inhaling noxious fumes from a device in the lab, according to the suit. McClain contends that her supervisor also became ill, but conspired with the company to cover up the sickness and warned McClain that she would "lose her job if she made too big an issue out of lab safety," according to the suit. Citing ongoing health concerns, McClain asked for a transfer and filed five complaints with the Occupational Safety and Health Administration. The suit says she learned that a co-worker had been working with a "dangerous lentivirus material and embryonic stem cells on an open lab bench without biological containment." Bruce E. Newman, McClain's attorney, declined to discuss his client's current physical condition, citing privacy laws, but did say his client continues to struggle with ongoing health issues related to her employment at Pfizer, including chronic fatigue symptoms. He also says the facts surrounding her termination are disputed. "Pfizer took the position that she didn't come back to work," he says. "The reality is different than that, I think. At the time, she needed some assurances that she would be given a safe workplace and she wasn't given them." Liz Power, a Pfizer spokesperson, issued a statement that the company is confident it will be exonerated in court. "We have thoroughly investigated Ms. McClain's claims and our investigation concluded that her workplace was safe and that she was not infected by any virologic materials while she was employed by Pfizer," the statement reads. "In addition to our commitment to full compliance with environmental, health and safety laws and regulations," the statement continues, "we have company-wide policies, standards, and programs combined with site-level management systems and initiatives tailored to the particular safety issues and needs at each location." Newman says there is "very little law ... very little precedent" involving court cases such as this." "Frankly there's not a lot of regulation in the biotech field," he says. "Biological and molecular workers, people who are working with genetically engineered cells, have very few federal safeguards, unlike chemical exposure, which is printed on a safety sheet. ... Currently there are no biological safety requirements that would fall under OSHA or NIOSH. That's why this case is unique ... ." Michael Elkins, a labor and employment attorney who specializes in representing management, with Miami-based law firm Fowler White Burnett, says HR leaders must take every report of workplace sickness by employees seriously , no matter what. "You certainly don't want to brush them off," he says. "What HR needs to do is talk to the employee when they make a claim and give them the attention they deserve." Elkins advises organizations to use a third party to conduct investigations, so that bias can't be challenged, and to make sure the affected employee is made aware of all the results. "I think the problem for HR people in [biotech] companies is that you've got all kinds of safety issues, apart from regular safety issues" at more traditional workplaces, he says. "I think the trick is for everyone to be educated about what chemicals [and other materials] are being used," he says. Elkins suggests companies might want to consider creating a special department to handle cases such as McClain's. "I would have a dedicated HR team to handle safety issues exclusively," he says. "I would want them to be independent, much like Internal Affairs in a police department," he says. Ultimately, he says, "every industry has its crazies, and there's always someone trying to beat the system," he says, but it's important to do the right thing when it comes to investigating claims of allegedly sick workers. "Point them in the right direction and let them know you understand that there may be some problems there," he concludes. Newman says he hopes the case will help affect a change in the "federal regulatory policy as it pertains to private labs, whether she is victorious or not. We hope it generates more awareness on a federal level for biological safety." Because, he says, "without federal regulation, HR directors and vice presidents have to almost guess as to what is required to be safe in certain circumstances."
February 1, 2010 Copyright 2010© LRP Publications |
||||||
Print
Email
Write to the Editor
Reprints
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
|
© Copyright 2010 LRP Publications. All rights reserved.
|
||||