The employer shouldn't have fired him that easily. They should have given him a chance to do his work with less hours or accomodated him in some way to ensure he could do his job. Maybe demote him to a position he could handle.
While I disagree with how this employer let go of the employee. I mean if the work isn't going to be done, then you have to hire someone else. Now did they have to fire him? No they shouldn't have he was a good employee. But should he have retained his specific job, if incapable of performing his duties then no he shouldn't have.
Its complicated, and I feel sorry for this guy. I was in a similiar position. I got a very bad anti-biotic resistant toe infection. I was working a security job and had to take sick leave, after three weeks they contacted me, they were like "You've done your allotted 3 weeks sick leave and must return to work". I told them I had to be in the hospital four hours a day and their is no way I could return to work yet. So they informed me that I was being laid off.
Now I had a doctors note I contacted the labour board about being terminated. They said that my employer could not terminate me for being sick. I asked if I could get my job back and the labour board told me, if you bring this to court you can get severance pay. I decided not to go to court and fill out tons of paper work for like 250$.
Fact is employers see only one thing, money and no matter what happens in your life if your not able to give them the money they want they will toss you aside. At least most will. Its sad but its true!
-JC7
"In God We Trust - In Games We Play " - Joel Reimer
