My fiance was terminated from her job

[TimC]

As a HR professional.

 

Man you might just be able to retire after this settlement!!!!

 

Yep.

 

Sox, could you expand the lawsuit so every high level Federal employee is terminated? I mean Congress, the Pres, people running for the President, anyone in any type of supervisory role or making any decisions on how to spend our money, etc, etc, etc. Get rid of 'em all.

 

I think you got yourself a slam dunk. Don't go lightly on 'em.

[Cunning Runt]

I'm in the minority clearly.

 

She's pregnant, couldn't fulfill the job requirements, is hired on a year to year basis in a role known as a casual.

 

I'm not on your side on this one.

[FWmaker]

Sox, sweet justice would be if YOU were promoted to the supervisor role.

[Sox]

I'm in the minority clearly.

 

She's pregnant, couldn't fulfill the job requirements, is hired on a year to year basis in a role known as a casual.

 

I'm not on your side on this one.

 

Despite the fact that...

 

A:It's against the law

B:There are different positions that have less stressful requirements that she can fulfill

C:They have in the past accommodated both regular and casual employees who were pregnant with less stressful positions

 

Bear in mind,what happened is not official policy.I believe it to be the foolish decision of a manager who hasn't been in the position all that long.She made the call,not the U.S.P.S.HR is probably not even aware of the actual circumstances of the termination,but that's where they're lucky.

 

I am here to enlighten them.

[Sox]

Sox, sweet justice would be if YOU were promoted to the supervisor role.

 

I've been offered chances to carry the book (translation part-time supervisor that may be promoted later).I've said no each time.I don't like many of them and have no desire to be one of them.

[jaxfactor]

I've been offered chances to carry the book (translation part-time supervisor that may be promoted later).I've said no each time.I don't like many of them and have no desire to be one of them.

 

Me too Sox. The position is called 204B. I like to call it Bozo in Training. As a certain Huddler would say, " No F'kn Way!"

[darin3]

Thought of calling the local newspaper?

[Cunning Runt]

Despite the fact that...

 

A:It's against the law

B:There are different positions that have less stressful requirements that she can fulfill

C:They have in the past accommodated both regular and casual employees who were pregnant with less stressful positions

 

Bear in mind,what happened is not official policy.I believe it to be the foolish decision of a manager who hasn't been in the position all that long.She made the call,not the U.S.P.S.HR is probably not even aware of the actual circumstances of the termination,but that's where they're lucky.

 

I am here to enlighten them.

 

By immediately suing.

 

You looking to get the job back or cash in?

 

Just curious.

[Puddy]

By immediately suing.

 

You looking to get the job back or cash in?

 

Just curious.

This must be a fishing expedition.

 

 

Should he wait a week, two?

 

Cash in how? When she wins the case they'll owe her back pay. It's hardly cashing in.

[Perchoutofwater]

I don't mean to go against a huddle brother, and more than likely under the law I'm wrong, but why should the employer have to re-assign her? I can understand giving light duty to a worker that was injured on the job, but the employer didn't get the worker pregnant. I can also understand giving the employee unpaid leave during pregnancy if they are a full-time salaried employee, but from the sound of this situation, her term of employment would be over before the restrictions would be lifted.

 

Why is it viewed discrimination if an employee is no longer able to perform the task they were hired to do when the employer had nothing to do with creating the hardship?

[AtomicCEO]

[Savage Beatings]

but the employer didn't get the worker pregnant

 

Perhaps blood tests are in order.

[McBoog]

I'm in the minority clearly.

 

She's pregnant, couldn't fulfill the job requirements, is hired on a year to year basis in a role known as a casual.

 

I'm not on your side on this one.

 

CRunt has a good point here... unfortunately

 

Let me start this off by saying I am on your side Sox and I think this is bullsh!t.

 

Now let me also say that despite the outcry from our Huddler brethren, you need to take a BIG STEP BACKWARDS and be very careful about pouring any money into the pocket of a lawyer. Dealing with the FEDS is a very different world than dealing with State agencies and the private sector. Trying to find any attorney that knows what they are doing w/regard to these cases is difficult at best. Mostly because there is NOT a lot of money to be made in damages. Unless you get a lawyer willing to take this on as a contingency basis, be very careful.

 

First of all, she is a “casual” or “Non-career” employee. The rules regarding employees in this status are VERY different than those of career employees. No benis and none of the protections that are afforded career and career-conditional employees are provided. Non-career/casual employees are not even allowed to take these matters to the Merit Systems Protection Board. The Postal Service is even more pr!ckish about how they handle their employees, hence the term “goin’ postal”. A big part of their argument will be that you both had a choice to become pregnant or not and should have weighed the possibilities before making that choice (once again, I do not agree with this position).

 

Noncareer and limited appointees: Removal is at the discretion of the agency head. The law does not specify procedural requirements for noncareer, most limited term appointees, limited emergency appointees, and reemployed annuitants. Thus, such appointees may be removed under established agency procedures. Appointees under these circumstances do not have appeal rights to MSPB. Some executives on limited term appointments have placement rights.

 

Your wife is in reality, a contracted and temporary employee. Most of these positions can be filled and fired for no reason at all. These actions are generally “at the discretion of the agency”. Though they may have in the past made accommodations for pregnant employees, are you sure that these were for casuals?

 

The reality is that as a casual, and the restrictions that have been placed upon her by her doc, she is unable to fulfill the requirements of her position. The agency is not obligated to trade assignments and make someone else do her job so she can do a less strenuous job. Morally? Yes they should. Legally? I am not so sure!

 

This is really not as “slam dunk” as it may appear, and I think you need to do some very detailed research and let some of the emotion die down before investing in a law suit. Suing the Federal Government is a whole different game and deals with this stuff on a tort basis.

 

Punitive damages are not at all likely and about the most you could hope for is recovering her lost earnings, which would only cover the rest of her contract since there is no guarantee that they would have brought her back (they are not obligated to do so). When you cut out legal fees from any settlement, the hassle may not be worth it, and you may even end up owing money.

 

I was trained to be an EEO fact finder for my agency, and every year we have to do a formal review of the policies regarding these matters. A case like this would never get to me since the person is not protected and is making no claim of harassment.

 

§ 359.901 Coverage. top(a) This subpart covers the removal from the SES of—(1) A noncareer appointee;(2) A limited emergency or a limited term appointee; and(3) A reemployed annuitant holding any type of appointment under the SES.(b ) Coverage does not include, however, a limited emergency or a limited term appointee who is being removed for disciplinary reasons and who is covered by 5 CFR 752.601©(2).§ 359.902 Conditions of removal. top(a) Authority. The agency may remove an appointee subject to this subpart at any time.(b ) Notice. The agency shall notify the appointee in writing before the effective date of the removal.© Placement rights. An appointee covered by this subpart is not entitled to the placement rights provided for career appointees under subpart G of this part.(d) Appeals. Actions taken under this subpart are not appealable to the Merit Systems Protection Board under 5 U.S.C. 7701.

 

Hope this helped!

[MrTed46]

I wish for the best and hope you do get something.

 

But, I personally dont feel the employer HAS to find a non-career worker a job because circumstances change. She is not able to perform at the level that meets her bare minimum (this is my assumption) and is a non-career worker. I do understand they did this in the past but that does not mean they have to. Perhaps in the past there were positions and flexibility available that are not so today. I am not a lawyer by any means but this is just my opinion.

 

I do however feel they handled the entire situation VERY poorly. This should have been handled with care and given up to HR and maybe make an attempt (wether real or not) to try to help.

 

Hope everything works outs for you.

[SEC=UGA]

Sox, I blame all of this on you for knocking her up. Think if you hadn't knocked her up, none of this would have happened.

[McBoog]

...I do however feel they handled the entire situation VERY poorly. This should have been handled with care and given up to HR and maybe make an attempt (wether real or not) to try to help...

 

This is unfortnately how most of these HR isses are handled. I see daily the swindle that so many G workers try to pull on OWCP claims, and this taints the case workers to think that everyone is scamming the system.

 

As a Federal worker without protection, like Sox' wife, they are left too vulnerable to knee jerk reactions from people who are just jerks.

 

Too many people in all facets of the job experience, public and private, keep forgetting that it is actually MORE empowering to say "yes" to someone as opposed to feeling the power of denying another person by saying "No". Pertty minded morans are unable to comprehend this!

[Cunning Runt]

This must be a fishing expedition.

 

 

Should he wait a week, two?

 

Cash in how? When she wins the case they'll owe her back pay. It's hardly cashing in.

 

Not really a fishing expedition as much as it is an opinion. It would seem to me that if the designation is a "casual" worker on a year to year basis with no benefits, and the job specifically calls for the lifting of 50lb bags which is understandably a no-no for pregnancy, then it doesn't seem as cut and dry as it may appear. But if I'm wrong - and I may well be, if someone is looking to cash-in, ie - punitive damages - then that irritates me some. If we're talking back pay or just getting her job back, that's one thing and I'm perfectly good with that. It just seemed the tone was otherwise.

[Azazello1313]

it's pretty ironic....gov't employees who are "contract" or "casual" or even in what they call term positions, they don't have a lot of protection. but once you're "permanent", in most cases you literally have to almost kill someone before you lose your job completely. it's a pretty silly way of doing business. but I guess they're not "doing business" are they, they're doing bureaucracy -- which explains a lot.

[McBoog]

it's pretty ironic....gov't employees who are "contract" or "casual" or even in what they call term positions, they don't have a lot of protection. but once you're "permanent", in most cases you literally have to almost kill someone before you lose your job completely. it's a pretty silly way of doing business. but I guess they're not "doing business" are they, they're doing bureaucracy -- which explains a lot.

 

DING DING DING

 

I can name ten people right now that should have been fired a long time ago. But the way the G handles it is to promote them away from the problems they created only to add to the mess we already have to negotiate.

[Squeegiebo]

As a Federal worker without protection, like Sox' wife, they are left too vulnerable to knee jerk reactions from people who are just jerks.

 

Federal workers are still protected by the civil rights act. In any at-will employment scenario, any employee can be fired for any reason or no reason, so long as it does not violate the law.

 

If Sox's fiance was terminated on the basis of her race, would you still say she had no case here?

[Perchoutofwater]

Federal workers are still protected by the civil rights act. In any at-will employment scenario, any employee can be fired for any reason or no reason, so long as it does not violate the law.

 

If Sox's fiance was terminated on the basis of her race, would you still say she had no case here?

 

Big difference here. One does not choose ones race. She chose to spread her legs, or at least we assume so since Sox isn't in jail. She choose to put herself in a position that made her unable to perform the duties she was hired to do.

[detlef]

My dad worked for the USPS. From what I understand, it is not a government organization. It is an organization that was established by the government but is not actually affiliated with them any longer?

 

Assuming this is true, that might take some wind out of the arguments that pertain to the Federal Government not being held to the same standards of other businesses.

[KICK A$$ BLASTER]

Big difference here. One does not choose ones race. She chose to spread her legs, or at least we assume so since Sox isn't in jail. She choose to put herself in a position that made her unable to perform the duties she was hired to do.

 

 

 

This should get interesting...Or get this thread locked...

[AtomicCEO]

Big difference here. One does not choose ones race. She chose to spread her legs, or at least we assume so since Sox isn't in jail. She choose to put herself in a position that made her unable to perform the duties she was hired to do.

 

You are approaching Blitz levels of ass.

[MrTed46]

I was actually thinking about this throughout the day.

 

If I had a business that required heavy lifting and an employee of mine got pregnant and is not able to perform her job why wouldnt I be able to fire her? I am not firing her because she did get pregnant but I am firing her because she was not able to perform her daily duties. Why should I have to find her a place in my business to work if I hired her for a particulat task?

 

I am just playing the devils advocate here and I am not so cold hearted and I would try 10000% to help her out...but I do not think I should be obligated to do so.

 

What if a male employee sprains his ankle (off site not during job..lets say playing bball on his time) and is not able to work, am I obligated to find him a place to work in my company so his ankle can heal?

 

Again, I dont think its because she is pregnant...it is because she cant perform her duties.