[joe_mamba]

>They couldn't find anything for her to do? Hard to believe,

If a person's now disabled, what can a company give them to do profitably, that isn't already optimized, automated or offshored?

There's plenty of civil servants whose jobs are just moving one paper from one room to the next, just to keep more useless people employed that nobody would hire in the private sector. But this doesn't really exist as much in the private sector.

[Dylan16807]

I don't think they offshored the entire office, but if they did they'd probably be able to fire her at that point.

If I found the right article, the disability is epilepsy and paralysis on one side.

Which mean she can do pretty much any office job fine. She already was doing office work, so the disability should not have changed things all that much. I'm sure she typed slower, but that can be worked around and mitigated.

[joe_mamba]

>Which mean she can do pretty much any office job fine.

Honestly, I doubt it. If you show up to an interview of "any office job" with "epilepsy and paralysis on one side" nobody will hire you simply because you won't be as productive as those without such disabilities.

Also, "epilepsy and paralysis on one side" is the legal medical diagnosis, but in practice the impact can be much greater, especially with age, which is why ageism is a thing even among people who are legally in full health because in practice your body isn't the same like when you were 19-25.

[Dylan16807]

But given that they already hired her, if she's going at 30-90% speed depending on task then it should be very easy to keep giving her tasks. And she can practice things like one-handed typing to improve the average.

She doesn't need the equivalent of "moving paper from one room to the next". She lost some number of dollars per hour worth of productivity, but it sounds like she was still capable of being reasonably productive.