Her supervisor Haleema realizes the changing attitude and decides to intervene.
According to Muhammad (2012), Qureshi starts taking longer lunch breaks meaning she was late to come back to the office for 15-20 minutes. Haleema noticed that after the lunch break, Qureshi was less productive, and spent some time dosing on the desk. She became too unproductive and sensitive to her colleagues who had to repeat her poor work. Later, Qureshi developed a habit of calling in sick with stomach flu. At one time, her daughter calls to say Qureshi is sick in bed. One afternoon, Haleema realized that Qureshi's breath smelt of strong mint and suspected she was drunk. Having given Qureshi many warnings, Haleema felt she needed to act because her attitude and performance affected everyone around her. Muhammad (2012) notes that Qureshi even asked for a departmental transfer arguing that she needed a less busy office. Haleema felt she needed to fire Qureshi because she never opened up her problems, and she seemed to deteriorate in her performance. However, they had to contact Employee Assistant Program (EAP) before firing her.
Haleema would land into legal problems for firing Qureshi without consulting EAP. Richard et al. (2009) argue that the EAP requires some alcohol or drug testing was done on any employee before terminating her from office. An alcoholic worker faces protection from Acts protecting people with disabilities and medical problems. Haleema should help Qureshi in seeking professional help before firing her. The law does not encourage alcohol abuse at a workplace. However, it encourages the employer to help the victim obtain treatment. Therefore, the Qureshi may sue Haleema first for not doing the alcohol test, and secondly for not intervening for a professional help. Although it may be expensive, the employer should seek legal help before taking action against Qureshi.