August 19, 2019

Archives for March 17, 2016

The Anti-Motivation Strategy (Part 8): Last Lessons From a Couple Personal Ethos Heroes

Employee-Motivation

 

Last week’s post introduced the concept of personal ethos — your core, essential self, the inner drive that defines you, that will be expressed simply because you are alive on this planet, here and now, doing what you do, for no other reason than that’s what you do. You don’t need motivation to do that. Besides, it’s what you do best, and love doing to boot.

Let’s end this series with a couple sports stories. Bear with me if that’s not your thing, but it’s a nice wrap up.

I once heard an interview in which Michael Jordan’s father said, “God decided to make a perfect basketball player, so he made Michael.” He wasn’t the only one who used that kind of language to describe his son. At the end of the 1986 season, Jordan came back from a broken ankle (too early, risking his career, the experts said) and played only 18 games, then burned the Boston Celtics for 63 points in a playoff game, causing Larry Bird to famously remark,

That was God disguised as Michael Jordan.”

It was a folksy thing to say. But what if he was right… I mean, really right? What if the sentence could be completed by someone observing your life and saying, “That was God disguised as [your name]”? Where would you find something that strong?

By looking at what you already do. What you’ve always done. What you’re going to do anyway, because that’s what you do, and you love doing it and you’re good at it.

When God decided to make a perfect _______, he made [your name].

I know, it sounds corny, but try it on. Go ahead — it won’t kill you. According to the concept of personal ethos, those bold statements are not a reach for a stress-fueled motivational challenge, they’re facts that come from the essence of who you are, at the level of your deepest, core self.

Tap that, and you can quit making trips to the dry, stressful motivation well. You won’t need it, You will do what you will do, irrepressibly and indomitably. You won’t be able to help it; you won’t want to. That’s what it means to operate from your personal ethos.

Larry-Bird

Sure, you’ll face the challenge of staying focused on individual and collective mission and goals, but you face that challenge already anyway. Only now you’ll face it with more honesty, authenticity, and laser focus. Which means you can expect more explosive results. You’ll become this:

Michael-Jordan

Now, isn’t that a whole lot better than the carrot and stick you’ve been waving around?

If you’re interested in more about personal ethos, I wrote two books about it. Both are available as FREE downloads. For more, click the book covers.

 

Running-for-my-Life

One reader said this: “Running For My Life is a unique and thought provoking read. On the surface it is a story about a man with primary progressive MS reshaping his life through a+ strict diet and extreme exercise regimen. However, if you take the time to explore the pages, you will find that it is really a story about Kevin and about yourself. This book invites you to take a look inwards at your own limitations, and then holds your hand as you figure out how to push past them together.”

 

EthosEthos is a stand-alone version of Book Three of Running For My Life. It is a Personal Ethos Credo — the things I believe about it, and how I practice it.

Colorado Court of Appeals: Ample Record Evidence Supported Finding that Job Function Not Essential

The Colorado Court of Appeals issued its opinion in Department of Human Services v. State Personnel Board on Thursday, March 10, 2016.

Essential Functions of a Job—Offset for Disability Benefits.

Brown served as an admissions psychiatric liaison at the Colorado Mental Health Institute at Pueblo (CMHIP). In June 2011, Brown began to experience health problems related to a work-related injury sustained at CMHIP. Her treating physician assigned work restrictions, which included not participating in physical intervention techniques (CTI and CPR). CTI and CPR were about 10% of her work duties, but were rarely used. In January 2012 she was assigned additional work restrictions.

Her modified duty ended on February 29, 2012 and she was denied her application for short-term disability benefits. She submitted to the Department of Human Services, Colorado Mental Health Institute (DHS) a request for reasonable accommodation under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), which included an exemption from CMHIP’s requirement that she be prepared to use CTI and CPR. This request was also denied. In June 2012 she was discharged.

Brown sought review of her administrative separation and the administrative law judge (ALJ) affirmed the decision, finding that it was not arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to rule or law. Brown appealed, and the State Personnel Board (Board) adopted the findings of fact but reversed the legal conclusion that DHS’s action was not arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to rule or law. The Board found that CTI and CPR were not essential functions of her position, and ordered her reinstated and awarded back pay and benefits. On remand, the ALJ awarded back pay and benefits from the date of separation to the date of the Board’s reversal, but also concluded that her Public Employees’ Retirement Association (PERA) disability retirement and unemployment benefits must be offset from back pay and benefits.

On appeal, the Board affirmed the award of back pay and benefits but reversed the offset to the award for Brown’s PERA and disability retirement benefits, finding that disability benefits under PERA are collateral and cannot be offset.

On appeal, DHS argued that the Board erred in reversing the ALJ’s legal conclusion that DHS’s employment decision was not arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to rule or law. The Court of Appeals found no error. There was no dispute that Brown was disabled under the ADA, so the only question was whether she could perform the essential functions of her job with or without a reasonable accommodation. The Court found there was no error in the Board’s determination based on the evidentiary record that CTI and CPR were not essential functions of her position.

DHS then argued that it was error for the Board to reverse the ALJ’s conclusion regarding the PERA offsets. The Court found no error.

CRS § 13-21-111.6 allows full recovery for an employee when she has received compensation from a collateral source “as a result of a contract entered into and paid for by or on behalf of such person.” In an issue of first impression, the Court found that PERA disability benefits constitute such a collateral source not required to be offset from a damage award.

The Board’s orders were affirmed.

Summary and full case available here, courtesy of The Colorado Lawyer.

Colorado Court of Appeals: Relinquishment-based Termination Not Allowed when Parent is Party to Dependency and Neglect Action

The Colorado Court of Appeals issued its opinion in People in Interest of E.M. on Thursday, March 10, 2016.

Children’s Code—Dependency and Neglect—Relinquishment and Adoption— Jurisdiction.

In a question of first impression, the Court of Appeals decided that a county department of social services may not move to involuntarily terminate parental rights in a relinquishment case under article 5 of the Children’s Code when the children are the subject of a pending dependency and neglect case under article 3.

The Alamosa County Department of Human Services (department) filed a petition alleging that three children were dependent or neglected because their mother was addicted to pain pills and their father was incarcerated. The court granted temporary custody of the children to the department and placed them with relatives.

Subsequently, both parents admitted the petition’s allegations and the court adjudicated the children dependent and neglected. The court adopted a treatment plan for mother and found that no appropriate treatment plan could be devised for father.

A year after the initiation of the case, the guardian at litem (GAL) moved to terminate the parental rights of both parents under article 3. Mother relinquished her parental rights at the hearing. The department then filed three separate relinquishment cases (one for each child) under article 5. The article 3 case remained open and pending. The court terminated father’s parental rights under the relinquishment statute. At the same time, the court also issued an order establishing a new permanency planning goal and setting a review hearing in the dependency and neglect case. Father appealed the three judgments terminating his parental rights.

Father argued that the Children’s Code does not permit the department to file its termination motion in an article 5 proceeding rather than proceeding in the article 3 case. The Court agreed, holding that the dependency and neglect court maintains continuing, exclusive jurisdiction over the status of a child who is alleged to be dependent and neglected until the child reaches majority or its jurisdiction is otherwise terminated.

The Court based its holding on three grounds. First, the separate and distinct purposes of article 3 and article 5 are not well served if they are intertwined. Second, the statutes make clear that the dependency and neglect court maintains continuing, exclusive jurisdiction over any child who has been adjudicated dependent and neglected. Third, under article 3, parental rights may be terminated only through the Parent-Child Legal Relationship Termination Act of 1987, not under article 5.

The judgments were dismissed in part and reversed in part, and the case was remanded with directions.

Summary and full case available here, courtesy of The Colorado Lawyer.

Colorado Court of Appeals: Announcement Sheet, 3/17/2016

On Thursday, March 17, 2016, the Colorado Court of Appeals issued no published opinion and 28 unpublished opinions.

Neither State Judicial nor the Colorado Bar Association provides case summaries for unpublished appellate opinions. The case announcement sheet is available here.

Tenth Circuit: Unpublished Opinions, 3/16/2016

On Wednesday, March 16, 2016, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals issued one published opinion and two unpublished opinions.

United States v. Orr

United States v. McCalister

Case summaries are not provided for unpublished opinions. However, published opinions are summarized and provided by Legal Connection.