My fiance was terminated from her job

[Grits and Shins]

Show me where your quote excludes temporary workers. Just bold it.

 

Point me to all the law suits won by temporary and contract workers granting them all the same corporate priviledges as their employee counter parts. It would be a crippling blow to American corporations if they were required to give the same benefits to anybody they paid.

 

Based on your line of thinking every single employee should also be getting the same stock options and bonuses as the CEOs.

[AtomicCEO]

Point me to all the law suits won by temporary and contract workers granting them all the same corporate priviledges as their employee counter parts.

 

I don't need to. The law is clearly written. You're the one who has to prove an exception, and you can't.

[Double Agent]

I may have missed this and I don't feel like reading 10 pages...but does she receive a 1099 or W-2?

[Grits and Shins]

I don't need to. The law is clearly written. You're the one who has to prove an exception, and you can't.

 

Cop out. There are none. Your interpretation of the law is clearly flawed and has a socialist flair to it.

[AtomicCEO]

Cop out. There are none. Your interpretation of the law is clearly flawed and has a socialist flair to it.

 

ORLY?

[Sox]

I didn't read all the replies but the jist of them seemed to be that your wife was getting screwed over.

 

I don't know all the particulars of being a "casual" but you did state she has no benefits. If this is equivalent to being a temporary or contract employee that the company has every right to terminate your wife when she can no longer perform her job ... however poopyty it may be.

 

This is not a case of the company terminating her to avoid all the pregnancy benefits because your wife doesn't get any of those. In the world of contract / temporary work your job is NEVER secure and you can be released for almost any reason ... nature of the beast.

 

 

Wrong,in too many ways to state.

 

We have not asked for a single benefit.My insurance will cover her.She was both willing and wanted to work.The manager terminated her because of her restrictions,which limits her to lifting no more than 25 pounds.Not unreasonable for a pregnant woman that is 4'9" and weighs a whopping 95 pounds.

 

First-The "company" did not terminate her.It was the decision of a manager that never even bothered to consult HR first.

Second-They have in the past accommodated both career and casual women who had restrictions due to pregnancy,a fact the manager would have discovered had she bothered to check with HR.Alas,she was too busy telling me that she could do whatever she wanted to to check.

 

Last,try reading this link.

 

http://www.eeoc.gov/types/pregnancy.html

 

Permit me to quote part of it.

 

"If an employee is temporarily unable to perform her job due to pregnancy, the employer must treat her the same as any other temporarily disabled employee. For example, if the employer allows temporarily disabled employees to modify tasks, perform alternative assignments or take disability leave or leave without pay, the employer also must allow an employee who is temporarily disabled due to pregnancy to do the same."

 

They have given alternative less stressful tasks to both disabled and pregnant employees,career and casual in the past.

 

You are right that in the world of contract/temporary work you can be released for almost any reason.Guess what?Pregnancy ain't one of em'.

Edited July 16, 2008 by Sox

[jaxfactor]

Disappointed in what?

 

I filed this because I'm angry and pissed off.Not because I saw a goose lay a golden egg.It's against the law,and I took it personally.Whatever happens happens.

 

The bottom line is this:we did nothing wrong,and they violated federal law.Talk about what if's and hypothetical situations all you want,but they broke the law,and for no good reason.I will always protect and defend me and mine.

 

This could all have easily been avoided,and it wouldn't have cost them one cent to follow the law.

 

 

So what Sox is trying to say, basically is that they're(he and soxette) not looking to make money here. The way this whole situtation went about was WRONG. Some stuporvisor took it upon herself to lay out her ultimatum, after having read the Dr.'s note about Soxette's pregnancy. This is very common in Postal management. The Supv. acted before consulting with higher ups and that just wasn't the right thing to do. Now I believe Sox's union will jump all over this, not for the sake of getting any compensation, but to insure that it never happens again. Plus they'll probably bring that supervisor up on charges which could mean that person losing their job. Management is constantly tiptoeing around union contracts. Unions are there to make sure this does not happen. Now I do have two things I'd like to caution you about Sox.

 

1) If Soxette was on the register after taking the test, this could and may certainly put a damper on her ever getting hired full time. Does she want to become a ful time employee eventually?

 

2) If indeed that supervisor does lose her job, be careful. This is what usually triggers someone "going Postal".

 

I have had to bite my tongue and hold my fist back quite a few times in my 21 years with the PO. Many times supervisors willingly and purposefully try to force you into a job threatening mistake. Just be careful is all I'm saying.

 

One last thing. STICK IT UP THEIR ASSES!!!

[Sox]

Did she ever complete more than 180 days in a row and has she ever taken, or asked to take the test? If not, why not? If so, did she pass? Was she denied the opportunity? All of this will play into your claim! In your original post, you claim she has done this for two years and that is how you met. This implies two years of non-disrupted time on the job, but that contradicts everything I could find on casual employment with the USPS (see above). Has she ever made an effort to become a full-time employee? Does (or did) she want to be?

 

And this link:

 

Employment requirements

 

She can't do the job. She is not permanent or a "career" employee and is NOT protected by a bunch of the stuff you are all arguing about. I read the post on this topic at the link provided by schiznit on page 7 of this thread, and even the advisors response was similar to my position.

 

It sucks, but she is not protected the way private industry and carreer fed employees are. You sign up for this job knowing what the requirements are. The employer has no obligation to reassign a person from an easy job to her harder one, that would be cause for action as well, favoritism based on her condition. If it was a guy that gets reassigned, then he would have, though flimsy, a better EEO complaint (based on sex) than your wife does.

 

IF she wants to become career, my advise is to let this lay, (I don't think you have a case) and hope that the bosses will support her bid to ge a permanent position when she is ready to return. If you hve burned those bridges, as I said earlier, what are your damages? The rest of her contract? Good luck with that one, especially since the Fed Empoyees Employment Lawyers (google it) I talked with today (none work on a contingency and none would take your case since she is a "casual") all say that IF you went forward, the chances of you getting more than your fees is slim. I tried to hook you up in some way and talked with some folks I know at work, but unless you can get DOCUMENTED evidence that she has been treated differently than other casual employees (depositions cost money), you don't have a good shot at much success.

 

Mind you, this whole thing would be different if she were in career status. I hate to be the bearer of bad news. Good luck!

 

BTW

 

It may help us a little better if you posted her job series and job description along with agency practices. All of that stuff is layed out in her contract and initial paperwork.

 

THIS IS NOT A PRIVATE SECTOR ISSUE PEOPLE!!!! BACK OFF OF EACH OTHER PLEASE!!!!!

 

 

Yes she has completed the 180 days,and was brought back.yes she was recommended by her immediate supervisor that she be allowed to take the test,which she did pass.She was NOT however allowed to check the mailhandler box(none of the casuals taking the test were allowed to)which is the only position that there will be any hiring in during the foreseeable future.

 

And as far as not getting certain rights because she isn't a career employee,you are correct.But you are wrong if you think that gives them an exemption for her pregnancy.That is a right covered under EEOC federal law,and does not discern between "career" and "casual" employees.

 

Edit to add this-I can and already have gotten documented evidence that she has been treated differently than other casual employees with regards to pregnancy.Again,this was not a decision of the USPS.It was the sole decision of a manager.I guarantee if she had bothered to check with HR,they would have told her to move her to a different position.

Edited July 16, 2008 by Sox

[Sox]

Here is the reply I got from VET, someone who is familiar with the postal inner workings:

 

Vet 102

07-15-2008 02:30 AM ET (US)

 

Also get a lawyer

 

Edit

Delete

Vet 101

07-15-2008 02:30 AM ET (US)

 

Don have her file an immediate FMLA and file it with the agency. Now the burden of proof is on management when in fact she was hired under the rehab act of 73.

 

 

Got her FMLA papers from the doctor today.She has worked enough hours both years to qualify.We are going to file it as well.

[darin3]

scroll... scroll... scroll... my, it is so funny how i can skip so many thick-headed huddlers' posts and not miss a darn thing.... it is borderline sad and unbelievable that there is such a wide cross-section of dumbasses here at the huddle....wow.... not surprisingly, though, these dumbasses reside south of the mason-dixon line... guess there has some been some inbreeding here in the good ole u s of a............ yee haw.........

[darin3]

OK, so you still haven't answered the question. Tone or no tone. The point is simply this. It's pretty easy to act high and mighty about how society should accommodate the choice for people to have children when society as a whole volunteers a very small segment of it to bear the brunt of that standard.

 

That's really all I'm saying. If society as a whole doesn't want to "penalize" someone for having a kid, why not let society as a whole pay for it?

 

blah blah blah idiot.....

 

 

seriously...... i started out on these boards as a hardcore democrat, then flopped to the other side............... now i think you all are crazy as chit.... f u all

[Pope Flick]

scroll... scroll... scroll... my, it is so funny how i can skip so many thick-headed huddlers' posts and not miss a darn thing.... it is borderline sad and unbelievable that there is such a wide cross-section of dumbasses here at the huddle....wow.... not surprisingly, though, these dumbasses reside south of the mason-dixon line... guess there has some been some inbreeding here in the good ole u s of a............ yee haw.........

 

 

blah blah blah idiot.....

 

 

seriously...... i started out on these boards as a hardcore democrat, then flopped to the other side............... now i think you all are crazy as chit.... f u all

 

Darin----> <------Darin

 

Edited July 16, 2008 by Pope Flick

[montster]

scroll... scroll... scroll... my, it is so funny how i can skip so many thick-headed huddlers' posts and not miss a darn thing.... it is borderline sad and unbelievable that there is such a wide cross-section of dumbasses here at the huddle....wow.... not surprisingly, though, these dumbasses reside south of the mason-dixon line... guess there has some been some inbreeding here in the good ole u s of a............ yee haw.........

 

 

blah blah blah idiot.....

 

 

seriously...... i started out on these boards as a hardcore democrat, then flopped to the other side............... now i think you all are crazy as chit.... f u all

 

darin forgot to add this at the end of his posts: "My drunk ass sent this via my BlackBerry."

[Azazello1313]

darin forgot to add this at the end of his posts: "My drunk ass sent this via my BlackBerry."

 

exactly what I was going to post. I guess darin figured out how to turn that message off one of the times he was sober.

[McBoog]

Yes she has completed the 180 days,and was brought back.yes she was recommended by her immediate supervisor that she be allowed to take the test,which she did pass.She was NOT however allowed to check the mailhandler box(none of the casuals taking the test were allowed to)which is the only position that there will be any hiring in during the foreseeable future.

 

And as far as not getting certain rights because she isn't a career employee,you are correct.But you are wrong if you think that gives them an exemption for her pregnancy.That is a right covered under EEOC federal law,and does not discern between "career" and "casual" employees.

 

Edit to add this-I can and already have gotten documented evidence that she has been treated differently than other casual employees with regards to pregnancy.Again,this was not a decision of the USPS.It was the sole decision of a manager.I guarantee if she had bothered to check with HR,they would have told her to move her to a different position.

 

Cool. Now we are getting somewhere. I'll review my "handbooks" and see if I can get anywhere. EEOC is not as clear as you may think, and I don't recall pregnancy as being one of the categories (though I know it is covered in seperate law). There were some more questions though.

 

Did she every apply for a career position? Why not (if not)?

When does her current contract expire?

Are the witnesses willing to testify against the USPS on the record?

 

If I can find a way to steer you in a winning situation, I will!

[detlef]

blah blah blah idiot.....

 

 

seriously...... i started out on these boards as a hardcore democrat, then flopped to the other side............... now i think you all are crazy as chit.... f u all

Wow, I've never realized people could be so proud of the fact that they want someone else to pay for their ideals. Congrats on being a freeloading bitch darin.

 

Obviously you missed the numerous times I mentioned that I'm no more in favor of everyone chipping in to pay for pregnancies than anyone else is. I'm just saying that, as an employer, I don't want to be the one left holding the bag because you think somebody should help couples pay for their choice to have kids.

Edited July 16, 2008 by detlef

[Grits and Shins]

"If an employee is temporarily unable to perform her job due to pregnancy, the employer must treat her the same as any other temporarily disabled employee. For example, if the employer allows temporarily disabled employees to modify tasks, perform alternative assignments or take disability leave or leave without pay, the employer also must allow an employee who is temporarily disabled due to pregnancy to do the same."

 

They have given alternative less stressful tasks to both disabled and pregnant employees,career and casual in the past.

 

You are right that in the world of contract/temporary work you can be released for almost any reason.Guess what?Pregnancy ain't one of em'.

 

She is not an employee ... none of that applies.

[Puddy]

seriously...... i started out on these boards as a hardcore democrat, then flopped to the other side...............

So you switched party affiliations during the great 8-year run of G.W.B.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Puddy]

seriously...... i started out on these boards as a hardcore democrat, then flip-flopped to the other side...............

 

Fixed.

[detlef]

So you switched party affiliations during the great 8-year run of G.W.B.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Well, then there's that. I guess it's safe to say that nobody's going to ever accuse Darin of being a bandwagon fan.

[Squeegiebo]

She is not an employee ... none of that applies.

 

Go look at the definition of "employee" for purposes of the PDA.

[Sox]

She is not an employee ... none of that applies.

 

 

Really?

 

Strange.On her paycheck she has a federal employee number,as do I.

[keggerz]

this doesnt look good:

 

http://www.usps.com/cpim/ftp/manuals/elm/h...01.html#NL508_6

 

511.3 Eligibility

511.31 Covered

 

Covered by the leave program are:

 

a. Full-time career employees.

 

b. Part-time regular career employees.

 

c. Part-time flexible career employees.

 

d. To the extent provided in the USPS National Rural Letter Carriers' Association ( NRLCA) National Agreement, temporary employees assigned to rural carrier duties.

 

Note: Transitional employees are not covered by the leave program, but do earn leave as specified in their union's national agreement.

511.32 Not Covered

Not covered by the leave program are:

 

a. Postmaster relief/leave replacements, noncareer officers in charge, and other temporary employees except as described in 511.31d.

b. Casual employees.

 

c. Individuals who work on a fee or contract basis, such as job cleaners.

 

 

THEN THERE IS THIS, which is sorta grey but still seems to go against the casual employee

515.3 Eligibility

For an absence to be covered by the FMLA, the employee must have been employed by the Postal Service for an accumulated total of 12 months and must have worked a minimum of 1,250 hours during the 12-month period before the date leave begins.

515.4 Leave Requirements

515.41 Conditions

 

Eligible employees must be allowed an total of up to 12 workweeks of leave within a Postal Service leave year for one or more of the following:

 

a. Because of the birth of a son or daughter of the employee and in order to care for such son or daughter. Entitlement to be absent for this condition expires 1 year after the birth.

 

b. Because of the placement of a son or daughter with the employee for adoption or foster care. Entitlement to be absent for this condition expires 1 year after the placement.

 

c. In order to care for the spouse, son, daughter, or parent of the employee if the spouse, son, daughter, or parent has a serious health condition.

 

d. Because of a serious health condition that makes the employee unable to perform the functions of the employee's position.

515.42 Leave Type

 

Absences that qualify as FMLA leave may be charged as annual leave, sick leave, continuation of pay, or leave without pay, or a combination of these. Leave is charged consistent with current leave policies and applicable collective bargaining agreements.

515.43 Authorized Hours

 

Eligible employees are entitled to 12 workweeks per leave year of FMLA-protected absences. This amount is twelve times the hours normally, or regularly, scheduled in the employee's workweek. Occasional or sporadic overtime hours are excluded. Thus:

 

a. Full-time employees who normally work 40 hours per week are entitled to up to 480 hours of FMLA-covered absences within a leave year.

 

b. Part-time employees who have regular weekly schedules are entitled to 12 times the number of hours normally scheduled in their workweek. For example, a part-time employee with a normal schedule of 30 hours a week is entitled to 360 hours (12 weeks times 30 hours).

 

c. Part-time employees who do not have normal weekly schedules are entitled to the total number of hours worked in the previous 12 weeks, not including occasional or sporadic overtime hours.

 

Absences in addition to the 12 workweeks of FMLA leave may be granted in accordance with other leave policies or collective bargaining agreements (see 511, 512, 513, 514).

Edited July 16, 2008 by keggerz

[Grits and Shins]

Really?

 

Strange.On her paycheck she has a federal employee number,as do I.

 

Numbers are assigned to workers so that they can be paid ... because she has a number does not make her an employee. The fact that she does not qualify for ANY benefits of ANY kind is an indicator that she is NOT an employee.

[Sox]

Cool. Now we are getting somewhere. I'll review my "handbooks" and see if I can get anywhere. EEOC is not as clear as you may think, and I don't recall pregnancy as being one of the categories (though I know it is covered in seperate law). There were some more questions though.

 

Did she every apply for a career position? Why not (if not)?

When does her current contract expire?

Are the witnesses willing to testify against the USPS on the record?

 

If I can find a way to steer you in a winning situation, I will!

 

No-you don't apply,they call you based upon your score.

At the end of the summer,which I already mentioned in this thread much earlier,but I never expected this to get this long.

Yes.I already have a statement from a former casual that was both hired when pregnant,and given accommodations for her pregnancy.