Sox

My fiance was terminated from her job

Recommended Posts

You are approaching Blitz levels of ass.

 

Hey, I feel for Sox and his woman, but what did I say above that isn't true? Why should an employer be forced to try to make a job easier for someone, when someone chooses to handicap themselves? If an individual is hired to perform certain tasks, and puts themselves in a situation where it makes it impossible for them to do the tasks that they were hired for, then why is it the employers responsibility to make up a job for them to do? If she were a full time regular employee, I can see giving her job back when she is able to perform the task she was originally hired for, but in this case, Sox's woman was not a full time employee, and the term of her employment was scheduled to end in a few weeks or a few months anyway?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

 

While I wouldn't go as far as saying "I'm not on your side", I don't think your case is a cut-n-dried as you beleive.

 

1. She is essentailly a contract employee, not bound by traditional law. For instance, as a hotel owner, I can hire and fire any contract employee I wish if I beleive they cannot perform the job duties. I beleive it is termed "At Will" employment, meaning they can leave for any reason, and i can fire them for any reason.

 

2. The government (or any employer of contract or casual labor), while having done so in the past, is not REQUIRED to find her a suitable position at the same pay rate. While you note they have made accomodations for other workers in teh past, I am sure the government will present evidence that they have many, many more instances where they have let people go that couldn't perform the basic duties of the job.

 

The issue of whether a pregnant women can be discriminated against has already been determined...as long as she is a full-time employee. Your wife was not.

 

I'd be very careful about spending significant monies on an attorney if you are seriously thinking about taking them to trial....unless, of course, the EEOC handles this for you. Just don't expect the lottery payout some have been predicting you'll get....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'd be very careful about spending significant monies on an attorney if you are seriously thinking about taking them to trial....unless, of course, the EEOC handles this for you. Just don't expect the lottery payout some have been predicting you'll get....

 

I guess that would be my thought as well. if you can get them to give her a job back and put her on light duty, you might want to think about taking it. don't get too wrapped up in the vengeance angle here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some misunderstandings here ...

 

Pregnancy and Maternity Leave

 

An employer may not single out pregnancy related conditions for special procedures to determine an employee's ability to work. However, an employer may use any procedure used to screen other employees' ability to work. For example, if an employer requires its employees to submit a doctor's statement concerning their inability to work before granting leave or paying sick benefits, the employer may require employees affected by pregnancy related conditions to submit such statements. 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, by providing modified tasks, alternative assignments, disability leave or leave without pay. Pregnant employees must be permitted to work as long as they are able to perform their jobs. If an employee has been absent from work as a result of a pregnancy related condition and recovers, her employer may not require her to remain on leave until the baby's birth. An employer may not have a rule which prohibits an employee from returning to work for a predetermined length of time after childbirth.Employers must hold open a job for a pregnancy related absence the same length of time jobs are held open for employees on sick or disability leave.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Some misunderstandings here ...

 

Pregnancy and Maternity Leave

 

An employer may not single out pregnancy related conditions for special procedures to determine an employee's ability to work. However, an employer may use any procedure used to screen other employees' ability to work. For example, if an employer requires its employees to submit a doctor's statement concerning their inability to work before granting leave or paying sick benefits, the employer may require employees affected by pregnancy related conditions to submit such statements. 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, by providing modified tasks, alternative assignments, disability leave or leave without pay. Pregnant employees must be permitted to work as long as they are able to perform their jobs. If an employee has been absent from work as a result of a pregnancy related condition and recovers, her employer may not require her to remain on leave until the baby's birth. An employer may not have a rule which prohibits an employee from returning to work for a predetermined length of time after childbirth.Employers must hold open a job for a pregnancy related absence the same length of time jobs are held open for employees on sick or disability leave.

 

Ok, but does the employer have to make up a job for a pregnant woman who is unable to perform the task for which she was hired? And in this case, given that the term of her contract will expire prior to her being able to come back to work. So in this case she is being given leave without pay, and given that her contract will expire before she can come back to work, why keep her on?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Some misunderstandings here ...

 

Pregnancy and Maternity Leave

 

An employer may not single out pregnancy related conditions for special procedures to determine an employee's ability to work. However, an employer may use any procedure used to screen other employees' ability to work. For example, if an employer requires its employees to submit a doctor's statement concerning their inability to work before granting leave or paying sick benefits, the employer may require employees affected by pregnancy related conditions to submit such statements. 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, by providing modified tasks, alternative assignments, disability leave or leave without pay. Pregnant employees must be permitted to work as long as they are able to perform their jobs. If an employee has been absent from work as a result of a pregnancy related condition and recovers, her employer may not require her to remain on leave until the baby's birth. An employer may not have a rule which prohibits an employee from returning to work for a predetermined length of time after childbirth.Employers must hold open a job for a pregnancy related absence the same length of time jobs are held open for employees on sick or disability leave.

 

And, may I add it only applies to employers with more then 14 full time employees. Its hardly a burden to require such employers to treat pregnant employees the same as the disabled ...

 

By the way, in most ways not involving pay an employer with less than 15 full time employees can still behave very badly, if that is what you want them to be able to do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ok, but does the employer have to make up a job for a pregnant woman who is unable to perform the task for which she was hired? And in this case, given that the term of her contract will expire prior to her being able to come back to work. So in this case she is being given leave without pay, and given that her contract will expire before she can come back to work, why keep her on?

 

You have to give her a reasonable accommodation. If she cant do the job with the accommodation, you dont have to keep her. Leave may be an accommodation, but is only required if it is extended to other employees based upon other types of injury/illness.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The points being raised are certainly valid. If the government wants to subsidize maternity leave, then so be it. If certain companies want to elect to be particularly cool in terms of helping out pregnant employees, then that's admirable as well. Like other benefits, it will help them lure and retain quality employees. None the less, I'm not sure the government should be allowed to force an employer to create a position for someone who's unable to perform the job they were hired for.

 

Many businesses, for instance, only have so many positions that don't require physical effort that may or may not be able to be done by a pregnant person. What happens if a bunch of women all get pregnant at once? Should the employer be on the hook to subsidize that choice?

 

It certainly appears, on the surface, to be a rather cold hearted stance and perhaps in this situation their could be shown precedent for other pregnant employees being transferred. However, to say that an employer is obliged to find a position for a pregnant employee seems to be a bit extreme.

 

Where do you draw the line? What if you ran a meat packing house and one of your butchers became hindu and therefor had religious issues with butchering cattle? Would you be required to find them another job that did not require butchering cows or face charges for wrongful termination because of religion? You hired them to cut up cows. Now, because of their religion, they're unable to do so. Why's that your problem? BTW, that would be hindu, right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

I hope everything works out Sox but as a business owner I find myself following this train of thought.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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?

 

 

Hey, I feel for Sox and his woman, but what did I say above that isn't true? Why should an employer be forced to try to make a job easier for someone, when someone chooses to handicap themselves? If an individual is hired to perform certain tasks, and puts themselves in a situation where it makes it impossible for them to do the tasks that they were hired for, then why is it the employers responsibility to make up a job for them to do? If she were a full time regular employee, I can see giving her job back when she is able to perform the task she was originally hired for, but in this case, Sox's woman was not a full time employee, and the term of her employment was scheduled to end in a few weeks or a few months anyway?

 

I guess becasue there are specific laws in place to prevent it. :wacko:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The sexism in this thread is remarkable - especially from the conservative, "pro-family values" groupthink.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The sexism in this thread is remarkable - especially from the conservative, "pro-family values" groupthink.

 

and by "groupthink" you mean one person (perch) :D:wacko:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I guess becasue there are specific laws in place to prevent it. :wacko:

 

I'm not 100% sure that there is a law to prevent it, and if there is then it is a F'd up law. In a sense I can understand leave without pay, but forcing a business owner to make up a job for someone because they chose to handicap themselves is B.S. It's not like she has a temporary injury that was caused at work, and you are letting them work light duty as opposed to collecting workers comp. This is what is f'd up with society now. The government taxes the hell out of businesses, tells business who they can and can't fire, and regulates the hell out of them, and society thinks their employer owes them something more than a fair wage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The sexism in this thread is remarkable - especially from the conservative, "pro-family values" groupthink.

 

What is sexist about saying that she chose to get pregnant? Obviously she did. As a result of that she is no longer able to perform the task she was hired to perform. That isn't sexist, it is fact. Did the employer ask her to get pregnant? No, society expects the employer to continue to pay her, even though she can't perform the task she was hired to do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The sexism in this thread is remarkable - especially from the conservative, "pro-family values" groupthink.

Well, the "pro-family" agenda element did occur to me as well. However, if that is important enough to society as a whole, than I don't see why society as a whole shouldn't pony up for it.

 

When did employers become de-facto parents of their employees?

 

That's the thing. If there was a new program attached to a new tax that subsidized employers inventing jobs for employees who couldn't perform the job they were hired for because they were pregnant, tons would be up in arms. "Why should my taxes go to pay for someone else to have a kid?"

 

Of course, nobody seems to mind pawning off that problem on business owners because we're all so rich it doesn't matter. :wacko:

Edited by detlef

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Get preggo, lose your job find a new one. There are laws in place to prevent that, and there's nothing f'ed up about them AT ALL.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pregnancy is a temporary situation and should be treated as such. Firing an employee is permanent. I have a hard time believing that there is NO OTHER SOLUTION other than to fire the employee. Our laws are in place to protect the workers from just this type of exploitation---and that is what it is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just out of curiosity, what if a 20 employee business had 20 of the exact same job, each one requiring lifting 50 lbs. No other job existed in this company. And I'm talking real, non-casual jobs. Pregnancy occurs. What would the employer be required to do?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Get preggo, lose your job find a new one. There are laws in place to prevent that, and there's nothing f'ed up about them AT ALL.

 

Only that you are making other people pay for your decision. Look, I understand leave without pay at least to a certain extent, but making a new position for someone because they decide to get pregnant is just stupid IMO.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

 

Classy use of "spreading her legs".

 

Perhaps you should check out the EEOC discrimination by type:facts and guidance before making your statement.

 

http://www.eeoc.gov/

 

She was also WILLING to work.There are casuals in the lighter duty units.They could have just moved her,but chose not to in direct violation of FEDERAL LAW.They have also accommodated PREGNANT CASUALS in the past.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Pregnancy is a temporary situation and should be treated as such. Firing an employee is permanent. I have a hard time believing that there is NO OTHER SOLUTION other than to fire the employee. Our laws are in place to protect the workers from just this type of exploitation---and that is what it is.

 

Just how is she being exploited. She can not do the job she was hired to do. Getting pregnant is a temporary thing, but so was her job. She was not a regular employee. And what is the employer supposed to do with the person that has to take up the slack of the woman that gets pregnant when she comes back to work? Now they have too many employees.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Get preggo, lose your job find a new one. There are laws in place to prevent that, and there's nothing f'ed up about them AT ALL.

So, in your opinion, it doesn't matter what the job is? I mean, if a woman has a position that doesn't require heavy lifting or even if heavy lifting is a small enough part of the job that it can be avoided at some small inconvenience to the employer, I'm all about allowing them to work as long as they feel fit to do so and then being required to hire them back after some reasonable leave.

 

Outside of that, you're doing more than protecting the employee, you're basically saying that their choice to have a child should be subsidized by their employer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Only that you are making other people pay for your decision. Look, I understand leave without pay at least to a certain extent, but making a new position for someone because they decide to get pregnant is just stupid IMO.

 

 

They aren't making a new position.There ARE ALREADY positions she could fill.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So, in your opinion, it doesn't matter what the job is? I mean, if a woman has a position that doesn't require heavy lifting or even if heavy lifting is a small enough part of the job that it can be avoided at some small inconvenience to the employer, I'm all about allowing them to work as long as they feel fit to do so and then being required to hire them back after some reasonable leave.

 

Outside of that, you're doing more than protecting the employee, you're basically saying that their choice to have a child should be subsidized by their employer.

 

 

In my opinion, someone should not be forced out of their job because they get pregnant. Paid leave perhaps is a separate issue, but he job should certainly be kept for her while on absence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
They aren't making a new position.There ARE ALREADY positions she could fill.

 

If they already have a position which she could fill, why isn't it filled. Maybe because it doesn't need to be filled? Are they hiring at a light duty position, and if so, is it at the same pay scale?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.