My fiance was terminated from her job

[keggerz]

ok...that is fine...but wrong in this case. There is a clear severing of the relationship with one year contracts. Therefore...and I can be wrong but think not....she has not worked for 12 months for this period of her employment. This would be interesting to know for sure.

seriously, read it without any bias or previous experiences....it really does spell it out in a cut and dry manner.

 

 

(a) An ``eligible employee'' is an employee of a covered employer

who:

(1) Has been employed by the employer for at least 12 months, and

according to Sox, CHECK...note it just states 12 months

and gives no time frame for the 12 months

 

(2) Has been employed for at least 1,250 hours of service during the

12-month period immediately preceding the commencement of the leave, and

that equals 24.04 hours per week on average...assuming from what Sox says that

this is another CHECK

(3) Is employed at a worksite where 50 or more employees are

employed by the employer within 75 miles of that worksite. (See

Sec. 825.105(a) regarding employees who work outside the U.S.)

(cool.gif The 12 months an employee must have been employed by the

employer need not be consecutive months. If an employee is maintained on

the payroll for any part of a week, including any periods of paid or

unpaid leave (sick, vacation) during which other benefits or

compensation are provided by the employer (e.g., workers' compensation,

group health plan benefits, etc.), the week counts as a week of

employment. For purposes of determining whether intermittent/occasional/

casual employment qualifies as ``at least 12 months,'' 52 weeks is

deemed to be equal to 12 months.

 

 

Seems extremely cut and dry as long as their is 12 months(52 weeks) of service and that the 1250 hours

is worked within that 12 month "Period"

Edited July 16, 2008 by keggerz

[Sox]

ok...that is fine...but wrong in this case. There is a clear severing of the relationship with one year contracts. Therefore...and I can be wrong but think not....she has not worked for 12 months for this period of her employment. This would be interesting to know for sure.

 

I'm pretty sure it's total time worked.The one week off would have no impact,as it wouldn't put a dent in her total hours.I see nothing with the FMLA act that refers to separation of contracts.

 

Either way,we'll find out,as we pick up the FMLA paperwork from her OBGYN tomorrow.

 

Edit to add:She averages about 38 hours a week.

Edited July 16, 2008 by Sox

[keggerz]

I'm pretty sure it's total time worked.The one week off would have no impact,as it wouldn't put a dent in her total hours.I see nothing with the FMLA act that refers to separation of contracts.

 

Either way,we'll find out,as we pick up the FMLA paperwork from her OBGYN tomorrow.

 

Edit to add:She averages about 38 hours a week.

from what i read in the USPS policies the FMLA request will be denied....however, that, imo, doesn't make it legal...someone said it before and I think you said you would but GET AN ATTORNEY

[TheShiznit]

I'm pretty sure it's total time worked.The one week off would have no impact,as it wouldn't put a dent in her total hours.I see nothing with the FMLA act that refers to separation of contracts.

 

Either way,we'll find out,as we pick up the FMLA paperwork from her OBGYN tomorrow.

 

Edit to add:She averages about 38 hours a week.

 

That one week off is real important....she is NOT an employee for that week off...and therefore a new clock has to start on her 12 months....which she hasn't completed yet.....you have to hit both bullets...not just one. Keggerz, I hope this answers your query.....she was off....not working...unemployed for one week...and then brought back on under a new one year contract....she has not satisfied the 12 month requirement....there is a reason why the postal service does this....so they can fire casuals whenever they please if they need someone else.

[Squeegiebo]

ok...that is fine...but wrong in this case. There is a clear severing of the relationship with one year contracts. Therefore...and I can be wrong but think not....she has not worked for 12 months for this period of her employment. This would be interesting to know for sure.

They could have hired her under new contracts each month or every day. All that matters is that she worked a total of 1250 hours within the last calendar year. And it doesn't matter if her job title is permanent employee, casual employee, or "Person We Hired Who is Not Protected By Federal Statutes." The law defines who is covered, not the employer.

[keggerz]

That one week off is real important....she is NOT an employee for that week off...and therefore a new clock has to start on her 12 months....which she hasn't completed yet.....you have to hit both bullets...not just one. Keggerz, I hope this answers your query.....she was off....not working...unemployed for one week...and then brought back on under a new one year contract....she has not satisfied the 12 month requirement....there is a reason why the postal service does this....so they can fire casuals whenever they please if they need someone else.

your reading comprehension is severely lacking with regards to this:

 

seriously why cant you get it?

 

the 12 months does NOT have to be consecutive but during the PRECEDING 12 months she must have worked 1250 hours

[TheShiznit]

They could have hired her under new contracts each month or every day. All that matters is that she worked a total of 1250 hours within the last calendar year. And it doesn't matter if her job title is permanent employee, casual employee, or "Person We Hired Who is Not Protected By Federal Statutes." The law defines who is covered, not the employer.

 

oh boy. If there is a clear seperation of service....I.E. not being kept on the books as an employee say for one week. Then you are DEAD wrong. She starts as if she never worked a day there in her life. That is the purpose of the clear seperation. Read the FMLA law....it is pretty clear.

[keggerz]

They could have hired her under new contracts each month or every day. All that matters is that she worked a total of 1250 hours within the last calendar year. And it doesn't matter if her job title is permanent employee, casual employee, or "Person We Hired Who is Not Protected By Federal Statutes." The law defines who is covered, not the employer.

 

oh boy. If there is a clear seperation of service....I.E. not being kept on the books as an employee say for one week. Then you are DEAD wrong. She starts as if she never worked a day there in her life. That is the purpose of the clear seperation. Read the FMLA law....it is pretty clear.

[Squeegiebo]

oh boy. If there is a clear seperation of service....I.E. not being kept on the books as an employee say for one week. Then you are DEAD wrong. She starts as if she never worked a day there in her life. That is the purpose of the clear seperation. Read the FMLA law....it is pretty clear.

 

Yeah - it is pretty clear that you are wrong.

[TheShiznit]

your reading comprehension is severely lacking with regards to this:

 

seriously why cant you get it?

 

the 12 months does NOT have to be consecutive but during the PRECEDING 12 months she must have worked 1250 hours

 

 

No...mine is not lacking....and thanks for throwing the insults....if you want to go there...I am sure I will win.

 

However, you are assuming there is not a clear seperation of service....there was one here...and therefore she does not qualify. That is how I read it. If you have a clear seperation of service you retain no benefit from prior employment...vacation calculation...anything. That is the purpose of the one week seperation. So, maybe my reading comprehension is just fine.

[keggerz]

oh boy. If there is a clear seperation of service....I.E. not being kept on the books as an employee say for one week. Then you are DEAD wrong. She starts as if she never worked a day there in her life. That is the purpose of the clear seperation. Read the FMLA law....it is pretty clear.

(a) An ``eligible employee'' is an employee of a covered employer

who:

(1) Has been employed by the employer for at least 12 months, NOTHING IN HERE ABOUT CONSECUTIVE MONTHS OR EVEN TERMINATION and

(2) Has been employed for at least 1,250 hours of service during the

12-month period immediately preceding the commencement of the leave, NOTHING IN HERE ABOUT AFTER BEING BROUGHT BACK FROM A TERMINATED CONTRACT and

(3) Is employed at a worksite where 50 or more employees are

employed by the employer within 75 miles of that worksite. (See

Sec. 825.105(a) regarding employees who work outside the U.S.)

(cool.gif The 12 months an employee must have been employed by the

employer need not be consecutive months. If an employee is maintained on

the payroll for any part of a week, including any periods of paid or

unpaid leave (sick, vacation) during which other benefits or

compensation are provided by the employer (e.g., workers' compensation,

group health plan benefits, etc.), the week counts as a week of

employment. For purposes of determining whether intermittent/occasional/

casual employment qualifies as ``at least 12 months,'' 52 weeks is

deemed to be equal to 12 months.

[TheShiznit]

Yeah - it is pretty clear that you are wrong.

 

LOL

[Sox]

oh boy. If there is a clear seperation of service....I.E. not being kept on the books as an employee say for one week. Then you are DEAD wrong. She starts as if she never worked a day there in her life. That is the purpose of the clear seperation. Read the FMLA law....it is pretty clear.

 

 

Interesting.She only receives one W-2 for her taxes.

[MrTed46]

Interesting.She only receives one W-2 for her taxes.

 

 

I dont think that matters in any of this.

[keggerz]

No...mine is not lacking....and thanks for throwing the insults....if you want to go there...I am sure I will win.

 

However, you are assuming there is not a clear seperation of service....there was one here...and therefore she does not qualify. That is how I read it. If you have a clear seperation of service you retain no benefit from prior employment...vacation calculation...anything. That is the purpose of the one week seperation. So, maybe my reading comprehension is just fine.

1st I dont see any insults....i just stated that your reading comprehension with regards to this is lacking

 

2nd READ THE LAW...it says NOTHING about SEPERATION...actually it does address seperation by mentioning that

the 12 months does NOT have to be consecutive.

 

3rd see the bolded because you are reading it incorrectly.

 

4th WHITE BOARD IT

Edited July 16, 2008 by keggerz

[keggerz]

I dont think that matters in any of this.

no but i believe that CONTRACT employees get 1099's because they are "self employed"

[Sox]

I dont think that matters in any of this.

 

Possibly.But I think it shows the separation isn't so clear.

 

Either way,I can't find anything in the FMLA act about separation.It only talks about total hours worked.

[TheShiznit]

Q: How is the 12-month period calculated under FMLA?

 

Employers may select one of four options for determining the 12-month period:

 

the calendar year;

any fixed 12-month "leave year" such as a fiscal year, a year required by state law, or a year starting on the employee’s "anniversary" date;

the 12-month period measured forward from the date any employee’s first FMLA leave begins; or

a "rolling" 12-month period measured backward from the date an employee uses FMLA leave.

 

Since Sox's wife had a clear seperation of service, my bet is that the USPS will use the second one as the 12 month qualification.

[Squeegiebo]

Either way,I can't find anything in the FMLA act about separation.It only talks about total hours worked.

 

Exactly.

[keggerz]

Possibly.But I think it shows the separation isn't so clear.

 

Either way,I can't find anything in the FMLA act about separation.It only talks about total hours worked.

that is how they addressed seperation....they only care about 2 main things with regards to this:

 

1. 12 months of service with that employer(no mention of time frame or pauses between employment)

2. Working 1250 hours min during the preceding 12 months(52 weeks)

[keggerz]

Since Sox's wife had a clear seperation of service, my bet is that the USPS will use the second one as the 12 month qualification.

:shakeshead:

 

:squeegie: the employer doesnt determine the eligibility the law does :squeegie:

[TheShiznit]

1st I dont see any insults....i just stated that your reading comprehension with regards to this is lacking

 

2nd READ THE LAW...it says NOTHING about SEPERATION...actually it does address seperation by mentioning that

the 12 months does NOT have to be consecutive. Yep, you are correct, the 12 months need not be consecutive....people are off on disability leave or other leave that the employer can choose not to assess FMLA status too...workers comp leave...whatever. During that leave they accumulate no hours....but it counts.

3rd see the bolded because you are reading it incorrectly.

 

4th WHITE BOARD IT

[TheShiznit]

:shakeshead:

 

:squeegie: the employer doesnt determine the eligibility the law does :squeegie:

 

Um...that was right off the FMLA website frequently asked question section...would you care to make that statement again?

[Pope Flick]

Since Sox's wife had a clear seperation of service, my bet is that the USPS will use the second one as the 12 month qualification.

 

 

I've done some temping, and unless at the end of that week off she was given a new contract to sign, what it typically means is that they've extended your original one.

[TheShiznit]

I've done some temping, and unless at the end of that week off she was given a new contract to sign, what it typically means is that they've extended your original one.

 

My dad says they are given a new contract to sign....my guess is that if sox looks...his wife has a new employee ID number for this contract versus the last as well. Now, if she has the same employee ID number...then I would question the seperation.