Sox Posted July 12, 2008 Share Posted July 12, 2008 Let me first state that I work for the federal government,and I'm a career employee.My fiance does as well,but she is a "casual".Casuals are hired on a year by year basis and do not receive any benefits and make substantially less than career employees.This is how we met two years ago. Last Monday we had our(her)first pre-natal visit.She is a very small woman,4'9" and weighs 93 pounds. Before her exam,the doctor asked her what she did for work,and then describe what she did.When she told him,he asked her,"These tubs you lift,how much do they weigh?"When she told him typically 40-50 pounds,he told her no way,you weighed in at 93,and I do not want you lifting more than 25 pounds.He then wrote her a note restricting her to lifting no more than 25 pounds. The note states this:To whom it may concern: The above named patient is currently under our care for pregnancy.Her estimated due date is 03/06/09.Due to complications of pregnancy,she can work with the following restrictions.J******* is not to lift more than 25 pounds during the course of pregnancy. Tuesday she reports for work.She's been there as a casual for almost two years now,and is regarded as a hard worker.One of my co-workers described her as "a little buzz saw".She has not missed a single day of work.When her supervisor saw her note,she immediately called for the area manager.The area manager called me over,and it went like this. Her:She'll have to resign.We don't give light duty to casuals. Me:Why can't you put her in newspapers or 030?You have casuals there. Her:She's a casual,and we don't offer light duty to casuals.She'll have to resign. Me:Like Hell.That lets you off the hook,and she'll have no rights or be eligible for unemployment. Her:She can resign,or be terminated. Me:You are aware that it is against the law to fire a pregnant employee because they're pregnant? Her:We're not terminating her because she's pregnant.We're terminating her because she can't fulfill the obligations of her job. Me:Are you sure you want to open this can of worms? Her:We don't give out light duty assignments to casuals,so you two need to decide. I talk to her,and we decide to make them terminate her.They even gave her a nice recommendation. We have already contacted EEOC and they are sending her a packet,and we are filing a discrimination suit.What really angers me is in the past,they HAVE given light duty assignments to pregnant casuals,although this particular manager may not be aware of it.The guy handling the EEO looked at her note and laughed and said "This one will be easy.It could take up to a year however." I expect a storm in there when they get wind of the suit.But I really don't care at this point.I'm not even sure of what to expect if (and we should) win it. OK,done venting. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
untateve Posted July 12, 2008 Share Posted July 12, 2008 I'll be rooting for you guys on this one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bachi Boy Posted July 12, 2008 Share Posted July 12, 2008 That's complete crap. It takes a 'special' kind of person to terminate a pregnant women for reasons you stated. Good luck with the suit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skylive5 Posted July 12, 2008 Share Posted July 12, 2008 The guy handling the EEO looked at her note and laughed and said "This one will be easy. The EEO guy knows a slam dunk when he sees one. You should win this easy. It takes all kinds to make up a supervisory work force...slugs have to be included from time to time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Holy Roller Posted July 12, 2008 Share Posted July 12, 2008 If she had a "Woman Working" sign it would have saved a lot of grief. JK. Good luck with this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big John Posted July 12, 2008 Share Posted July 12, 2008 (edited) The EEO guy knows a slam dunk when he sees one. You should win this easy. Looks like it, Looks like he wanted to take an easy way out regardless of the circumstances. slugs have to be included from time to time. A rip on your son's league? Edited July 12, 2008 by Big John Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Footballjoe Posted July 12, 2008 Share Posted July 12, 2008 The Supervisor made the call? He did not turn it over to HR Dept? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Puddy Posted July 12, 2008 Share Posted July 12, 2008 The Supervisor made the call? He did not turn it over to HR Dept? That would be interesting if that's the case. HR would definitely know how to handle it better than the area manager. LMAO if he didn't contact them first. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
muck Posted July 12, 2008 Share Posted July 12, 2008 Something tells me that a supervisor may also be losing her job... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sox Posted July 12, 2008 Author Share Posted July 12, 2008 The Supervisor made the call? He did not turn it over to HR Dept? Yup.Did it right then and there.The manager did,I mean.She made the call,not the supervisor.They never even let her clock in.Took her up front after our conversation,filled out her termination papers,took her ID and time card and escorted her out.I sent her over to my parents who took her out to dinner,to take her mind off of it while I was figuring out what to do. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sox Posted July 12, 2008 Author Share Posted July 12, 2008 That would be interesting if that's the case. HR would definitely know how to handle it better than the area manager. LMAO if he didn't contact them first. She didn't contact them.She made the decision right then and there.The guy who will be handling our case said legal will go beserk when they get the case. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted July 12, 2008 Share Posted July 12, 2008 pretty weak. what exactly, if anything, does her position description say as far as physical requirements or whatever? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheShiznit Posted July 12, 2008 Share Posted July 12, 2008 She didn't contact them.She made the decision right then and there.The guy who will be handling our case said legal will go beserk when they get the case. Is this a post office issue? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Puddy Posted July 12, 2008 Share Posted July 12, 2008 That would be interesting if that's the case. HR would definitely know how to handle it better than the area manager. LMAO if he didn't contact them first. She didn't contact them.She made the decision right then and there.The guy who will be handling our case said legal will go beserk when they get the case. I just realized how sexist my post is. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheShiznit Posted July 12, 2008 Share Posted July 12, 2008 pretty weak. what exactly, if anything, does her position description say as far as physical requirements or whatever? Does it matter? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted July 12, 2008 Share Posted July 12, 2008 Does it matter? I would certainly think so. if they're terminating her because she can't meet the job requirements, don't you think it's relevant to ask what the official job requirements are? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sox Posted July 12, 2008 Author Share Posted July 12, 2008 pretty weak. what exactly, if anything, does her position description say as far as physical requirements or whatever? It doesn't say anything,but the unit she is in routinely has to pick up tubs of mail that typically weigh about 50 pounds.The manager (inmho) decided if she couldn't work in her unit,then get rid of her.There are units that need casuals that have work she could have performed,and they have in the past sent pregnant casuals to these units to work. I believe the manager thought that since she was a casual,she could do whatever she liked.I'm not sure(despite my attempts to inform her) that she realized that pregnant women are one of the protected classes by EEOC. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sox Posted July 12, 2008 Author Share Posted July 12, 2008 I would certainly think so. if they're terminating her because she can't meet the job requirements, don't you think it's relevant to ask what the official job requirements are? They have in the past accommodated pregnant women,including casuals,with assignments that do not require heavy lifting.She just didn't feel like moving her. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Savage Beatings Posted July 12, 2008 Share Posted July 12, 2008 I would expect to see a brand new Manager in that role sometime within the next year after the lawsuit hits. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peepinmofo Posted July 12, 2008 Share Posted July 12, 2008 I wouldnt worry about this. This is as easy as they come. Despite the fact she couldnt fulfill her job duty, the reason for that is pregnancy. No company can ever fire a woman for being pregnant. That is discrimination any way you look at it. Good luck to you both... you wont need it, but it seems like the thing to say now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SheikYerbuti Posted July 12, 2008 Share Posted July 12, 2008 If I were you, I would have gone postal. HAHAHAHA. . .GET IT?? Postal. . .he. . .meh. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Squeegiebo Posted July 12, 2008 Share Posted July 12, 2008 No company can ever fire a woman for being pregnant. We're not talking about a company here, we're talking about the federal government. And, it's been a long time since I worked in this area of the law, but I don't think your statement is true. Don't the laws against pregnancy discrimination only apply to companies that have a certain minimum number of employees? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sox Posted July 12, 2008 Author Share Posted July 12, 2008 Don't the laws against pregnancy discrimination only apply to companies that have a certain minimum number of employees? I believe so,but with over 700,000 employees,we certainly meet the minimum. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sox Posted July 12, 2008 Author Share Posted July 12, 2008 One thing:we CAN get by despite this. It's just not in me to let them get away with it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Squeegiebo Posted July 12, 2008 Share Posted July 12, 2008 To answer my own question... The Pregnancy Discrimination Act is an amendment to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Discrimination on the basis of pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions constitutes unlawful sex discrimination under Title VII, which covers employers with 15 or more employees, including state and local governments. Title VII also applies to employment agencies and to labor organizations, as well as to the federal government. Women who are pregnant or affected by related conditions must be treated in the same manner as other applicants or employees with similar abilities or limitations. Link. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.