"Seeing his brain come out onto my face . . . that image never goes away," she said last week.
Her experience led to seven years of flashbacks, prescription drugs, such as Prozac, and problems on her job with the Hamilton County Building Department, she said. She developed a fear of being followed, and when a supervisor started visiting job sites to check up on her, she became so upset she was hospitalized.
She eventually quit and filed a lawsuit under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), claiming the county did not make accommodations to help her continue working with her disability: post-traumatic stress disorder.
Ms. Heis is one of three former employees to win federal lawsuits against the county for violating the ADA in the past three years. They are collecting more than $1 million in damages.
"It is a very nebulous area," said Mike Koziol, senior insurance services counsel for the National Association of Independent Insurers, a trade organization whose members insure employers and work with them to minimize ADA exposures.
"The documentation and proof is difficult. It is akin to a soft-tissue back problem -- how do you know what is or isn't true?"
The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 -- which took effect in 1992 -- was widely praised as a civil rights milestone for the 43 million disabled people in this country. Its aim was to protect those with physical and mental impairments from being discriminated against.
But skeptics feared the broadly defined act -- disabilities now range from back problems to cancer to HIV to attention-deficit disorder -- would be paradise for attorneys. The critics predicted frivolous lawsuits, burdensome regulations for employers and large awards against naive or uncooperative employers.
Some such cases have gained notoriety. But, according to a study by the American Bar Association's Commission on Mental and Physical Disability Law, employers have won 92 percent of the more than 1,200 court decisions between 1992 and 1997, and 86 percent of the administrative resolutions by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. The ABA said the study puts to rest the misconceptions from a few high-profile cases resulting in employee victories.
"It is virtually impossible to win a case if it is illegitimate," said John Parry, author of the study. "You have to prove you have a qualified disability and prove that you are otherwise qualified to do essential work."
Mr. Parry said it is even more difficult to win a case involving mental disability because of prejudices against such illnesses as depression and stress. Jurors may believe them temporary or faked.
The number of charges filed with the EEOC by employees who claim mental-impairment discrimination by their employers has risen since 1992.
In fiscal year 1992, 91 complaints, 10.8 percent of all filed, concerned emotional or psychiatric problems. In fiscal year 1997, that rose to 2,789, or 15.3 percent.
In the history of the ADA, only complaints over back ailments, 16,496, outnumber complaints over mental problems, 12,736.
As the number of complaints grows, so do questions from employers. What is a mental impairment? What if it affects the employee's ability to do the job? What are "reasonable accommodations" that the ADA requires for a mentally impaired employee?
"It is a very gray area in the law," Mr. Koziol said.
Countered Mr. Parry: "Obviously, it has to be a gray area because we're talking about a case-by-case situation."
Peggy Mastroianni, associate legal counsel for the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, said her agency issued guidelines in 1997 trying to explain the nuances of mental illnesses and the ADA. She said employers are most worried about "reasonable accommodations."
"If an employee needs to sleep late because he is drowsy from taking medication and it is possible for an employee to do his job from 10 to 6:30 instead of 9 to 5:30 -- that is a reasonable accommodation," she said.
"But, if an accommodation causes an employer an undue hardship, he doesn't have to do it. That includes not lowering job standards, not lowering performance standards and not putting up with misconduct."
Hamilton County administrators have faced such questions at least three times in the '90s, and -- according to juries -- failed to do the right thing.
The county's Building Department in the early 1990s was in the midst of a cleanup. Media reports had disclosed that many inspectors were slacking off -- golfing, running errands, et cetera -- on county time.
New building commissioner Tonia Edwards was charged with righting the department. She received a complaint about Ms. Heis, 47, and had a supervisor check on her.
Because she had witnessed the shooting at the stereo store, Ms. Heis feared for her life. Her doctor told the county she was suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder, and that she should be made to "feel safe." She said the checkups by the supervisor scared her and once caused her to go to the hospital.
Ms. Heis, of Westwood, was eventually disciplined for not properly filling out paperwork. She missed her hearing, and said she was told by her attorney to either resign or be fired. She resigned and sued.
The county argued that it was never informed what an appropriate accommodation for Ms. Heis' condition would have been.
A jury awarded Ms. Heis $42,000.
Tom Stephenson worked in the Building Department at the same time as Ms. Heis. He said he suffered depression most of his life, and spent three weeks in a hospital after a bitter divorce in 1987. His disease never affected his work performance, he said, until Ms. Edwards took over.
"I felt like I was targeted right away," he said.
He said the stress of dealing with his new supervisors made his depression worse. His doctor eventually asked for special accommodations: that Mr. Stephenson be allowed to show up late because medicine made him drowsy and he often overslept, and that he be allowed to make the time up later in the day.
The county decided not to penalize Mr. Stephenson for his tardiness, but would not allow him to make up the time. His bosses considered that a reasonable accommodation.
But after threats to supervisors and improper paperwork, according to the county, he was fired.
Mr. Stephenson failed to get the firing overturned by the state Personnel Board of Review or Hamilton County Common Pleas Court. So he filed an ADA lawsuit.
Mr. Stephenson alleged discrimination, and presented evidence that supervisor David Tensi regularly made catcalls and bird noises at him, flicked paper clips and other items at him, and flexed his buttocks in front of Mr. Stephenson's face. He also said that a paper with the definition of disability and a picture of the Stephenson family was left on his desk.
Mr. Tensi called the behavior office high-jinks. The county argued that Mr. Stephenson was a problem employee -- several people in the office gave sworn statements to this -- and that his firing had nothing to do with his disability.
But a jury awarded Mr. Stephenson more than $300,000, plus back wages and attorney's fees. The jury also found that Mr. Tensi had intentionally inflicted emotional stress.
The third county case involved a human services department employee in the welfare fraud unit. Diagnosed with three mental diseases because of childhood and adult trauma, Bonni J. Valeska said she became hooked on prescription drugs.
She started obtaining the drugs illegally from two doctors and, in 1993, was arrested on a charge of deception to obtain a dangerous drug.
Ms. Valeska -- who one supervisor said ran the best welfare fraud unit in the state -- entered treatment in lieu of conviction. When she returned to work, she said, she was treated differently.
She and other employees testified that her manager, Larry Wheat, daily berated her in his office.
"He said, "I don't like you anymore. I don't want you back. Nobody wants you back, but I have to take you back,' " Ms. Valeska testified during her trial.
Ms. Valeska said the stress at work caused her mental condition to deteriorate. She said she vomited daily and lost weight. Eventually, she quit and filed the ADA suit.
Mr. Wheat denied the accusations, and the county argued that Ms. Valeska's mental condition made her perceive she was a target for abuse. Attorneys also claimed that her doctor had never been specific about what should have been done to help.
A jury decided the county did not do enough, and awarded Ms. Valeska more than $700,000.
These cases illustrate the dilemmas employers and employees are facing in today's work environment. When there is conflict -- much as with the ADA itself -- answers are not always clearcut.
County Administrator David Krings said his managers attend classes that deal with the proper way to treat people, and that ADA rules are part of them. But after three losses, he will re-examine what the county is doing.
"Everybody across the country is taking a look at the way they do business," he said.
"You want to take the folks who have legitimate problems and help them. But it is not always easy to tell what you should do.
"For some people, coming to work and being required to produce creates stress. We believe we are a reasonable and compassionate employer, but we think it reasonable that our employees be honest and productive."
Attorneys Teresa L. Cunningham and Raul Tellez, who won both the Heis and Stephenson cases, say that the ADA has replaced strong unions in protecting workers.
Mr. Tellez said juries, which increasingly contain members who have personal experience with mental illness, can tell the difference between a disgruntled employee and one with a mental impairment.
"We're not talking about personality conflicts and that they just don't get along with their boss," he said.
Ms. Cunningham anticipates lawsuits on behalf of those with mental illnesses to multiply.
"This has to do with prejudices society has had regarding people with emotional and mental problems," she said. "These cases have shed light on the problem. Before, employers could fire employees and they would go away. Not anymore."
![[]](/editions/1998/08/06/heis_400x360.jpg)
![[]](/editions/1998/08/06/stephenson_271x400.jpg)