Did you ever hit “send to all” by mistake? That happened at U.K. insurance company Aviva when all of its over 1,300 employees around Europe were fired by an e-mail from HR, when it was intended for only one person.

Staff found the e-mail believable because the company had communicated that because of the European debt crisis and poor economy, it may be forced to lay off employees.

The e-mail told employees they were being terminated because they had failed to properly secure the company’s confidential information. It also told them to return company property and their security passes and to leave, reportsthe Toronto Star. That part of the e-mail was standard language sent at termination.

It took HR about 20 minutes to realize what happened and send out an apology. A company spokesman told the media that the errant e-mail was sent due to a “clerical error.”

Or, as Roseanne Roseannadanna would say, “Never mind.”

Source: http://news.techeye.net

Do you have a strange but true story about work? Tell us your tale!

Here’s a story about a 47-year-old mother of two who was fired shortly after donating an organ for her boss.

The donor, Stevens, has filed a complaint with the New York State Human Rights Commission, claiming that she was set up by her boss, Brucia, who was in need of a kidney transplant. In the end, the employee says she felt like she was a “Plan B” in case another organ donor fell through.

Background. Stevens and Brucia first worked together at the dealership in 2009. Then, Stevens moved to Florida for a brief period of time. However, that wasn’t the last time these two would meet.

During a visit to New York, Stevens saw Brucia. In an interview with ABCNews.com, Stevens said that Brucia mentioned her need for a kidney transplant. At one point Stevens offered to be a donor, but Brucia said she had found a possible donor. Stevens offered to be a donor if there were any problems.

After a few months, Stevens moved back to New York and Brucia rehired her. That’s where the story gets tricky.

The complaint. Shortly after being rehired, Stevens told the New York Post she was called into her boss’s office, whereupon Brucia told her “My donor was denied. Were you serious when you said that?” To which Stevens replied, “Sure, yeah.”

Stevens reasoned that “She was my boss, I respected her. It’s just who I am. I didn’t want her to die.”

As it turns out, Stevens wasn’t a match. However, Stevens agreed to donate a kidney to someone else in the transplant group, thereby bumping her boss up the waiting list, which worked. Both underwent surgery.

Following the procedure, Stevens had serious pain, discomfort in her legs, and digestive problems. She claims that despite her pain, she felt pressured to go back to work before she was ready.

She returned, and after three days in the office, went home sick. Her boss—who was still out on leave from the transplant—allegedly called to question Stevens about why she wasn’t at work.

“I told her I didn’t feel good,” the employee told the Post. Her boss allegedly responded, “You can’t come and go as you please. People are going to think you’re getting special treatment.”

Once the employee returned to work, she claims mistreatment ensued, including being yelled at in front of other employees.

Then, Stevens was demoted to a dealership 50 miles from her home. After consulting a psychiatrist, her lawyers wrote a letter to the company, and she was promptly given a pink slip, according to the complaint.

Despite being fired, the former employee appears to be standing by her decision to donate, “I have no regrets [that] I donated a kidney because it saved the life of a man in Missouri.”

In a statement, Stevens’ attorney said he plans to file a discrimination lawsuit against the employer.

Sources: www.nypost.com, http://abcnews.go.com

Do you have any stories about firings gone awry? Submit your story!

Yes, you do have to show up for work—attendance is an essential function of a job, especially one you can’t do via computer. That’s what a judge recently affirmed in a case that he said tested the limits of an employer’s need to accommodate.

A neonatal nurse sought an accommodation from her hospital employer allowing her to take unlimited absences, rather than the limited number of unplanned absences allowed in its attendance policy, which allows absences for bereavement, court appearances, and other unusual circumstances.

The nurse, who had never worked full-time, had been warned about exceeding the number of unplanned absences allowed for full-time employees (purportedly due to a nasty divorce) and was told her attendance needed improvement. Her supervisory nurse told her that because neonatal nurses have special skills, her unplanned absences compromise patient care.

Then the nurse was diagnosed with fibromyalgia, which caused her severe fatigue. An attendance plan was agreed to for accommodating her condition; she would only work two shifts per week and not on consecutive days.

Unfortunately, the nurse had two more negative attendance reports in the next 2 years. The nurse’s manager, HR, and a leave specialist met with the nurse who all agreed to a “highly flexible” arrangement where she could move her scheduled days to later in the week as needed. She didn’t even need to find a sub as the other nurses did.

Well, the nurse continued to be absent—for the trial of her ex-spouse, “counseling,” and other reasons unrelated to her illness. When her part-time position was eliminated, she was told that she must either work full-time or take a job in another department. She didn’t agree, and she was fired. She sued for wrongful termination under the Americans with Disabilities Act.

The hospital said at trial that her absences had caused hardship for her co-workers and that actual contact with patients was an essential part of her job, which she obviously was not fulfilling.

A circuit court judge found while some jobs do not necessitate appearance at the workplace, “the common-sense notion that on-site regular attendance is an essential job function could hardly be more illustrative than in the context of a neonatal nurse. … An employer need not provide accommodations that compromise performance quality—to require a hospital to do so could, quite literally, be fatal.”

Source: www.ca9.uscourts.gov

What’s the weirdest thing you seen in the office? Tell us your story!