My fiance was terminated from her job

[Perchoutofwater]

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.

 

What if the term of her contract is up between when she has to go on leave and when she has the baby, which sounds like what is happening here? Is the employer forced to hold a job past he contract date and give her 3 more months and then it is ok to let her go because her contract lapsed?

[Sox]

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?

 

Whatever.

 

I no longer have any respect for you,so responding would be pointless.

 

Have a nice day.

[detlef]

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.

When you say "willing to work" do you mean she was willing to ignore her doctor's orders and continue doing her normal job and risk injury to herself or unborn child? Or do you mean she was willing to take another, less physically demanding position? If there's precedent at your job as well as a need at positions that are less demanding, then perhaps you have a case.

 

What perch and I are arguing, however, is the requirement that some seem quick to drop on the employer to invent positions that they may not need filled to keep a pregnant woman employed. That amounts to welfare payed for by private businesses.

 

Once again, if a business has the money and desire to create such a job, one could argue that it would be a fine business decision. Things like this put you on the list of best places to work and can drive great employees to you. My wife works for a company that has amazing benefits. Hell, even men are given paid leave to stay at home with their wife and newborns when there's a new baby in the family. I'll tell you what, though. I'm pretty glad that's not the law. That kind of thing could drive a small place like mine right out of business.

[Skilly]

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.

 

Non-permanent employees are exploited--to an extent--by employers who know they can work them as much as possible for lower pay and no benefits. But that doesn't give the employer the right to discriminate. And as the case may be in Sox's situation, there were already other light-duty positions available. Why terminate a loyal and trained employee? From a business standpoint, that makes no sense.

[detlef]

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.

I have no issue with this. I suppose this is where perch and I don't agree. Hiring a temp to fill in for someone is not a huge hardship for the employer so certainly not too much to ask. However, as perch mentioned, this is sort of a gray area because it seems as if the employee's contract was going to expire anyway.

 

Thus, they seem to be electing not to renew. Sox? Am I correct that, once her contract expired, they could elect to not renew it for any reason they chose? If that's the case, it severely impacts the situation.

[rocknrobn26]

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

 

I'm w/ hear ya sox. Det/Perch/boog......this is the point IMHO. Past practice is a biggie. I have a feeling self employed & business owners feel they have the right to fire for any reason. Sox and soxette did everything right. If they have no recourse, they will be told so. If they have a recourse, it will be based on law. Don't like the law change it. Again hoping all works out for you.

Do I sound like a union person?

Capricious firings are bad! This was capricious IMHO, but the legal system will work it out regardless.

[Azazello1313]

Pregnancy is a temporary situation and should be treated as such. Firing an employee is permanent.

 

but she is essentially a temporary employee, which makes this a trickier issue. it is incredibly lame that the PO didn't accomodate her condition with light duty, at least for the remainder of her 1 year term. moving 1 or 2 people around is such a mild inconvenience, any halfway decent person would be more than happy to accomdate it for one of their co-workers. but the other side of it is that she agreed to work for them in what was essentially a disposable position, that she knew could end at any time for any reason.

[detlef]

Non-permanent employees are exploited--to an extent--by employers who know they can work them as much as possible for lower pay and no benefits. But that doesn't give the employer the right to discriminate. And as the case may be in Sox's situation, there were already other light-duty positions available. Why terminate a loyal and trained employee? From a business standpoint, that makes no sense.

It, in fact, may be a stupid decision. According to Sox, she was a good employee. If that was the case, they'd be well served to find a way to keep her on board.

 

I believe, however, the topic has evolved to the extent that people seem to be expecting any employer to find a job for any pregnant employee they might have, regardless of how feasible that may be. That is where some of us are taking issue.

[keggerz]

i haven't had the time to read all the responses here but did anyone post info with regards to

the Family and Medical Leave Act(FMLA) yet?

 

(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

(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

(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.)

( 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]

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.

 

Unfortunately...I think this is in their prerogative. I think the EEOC doesn't understand how casual employment works in the postal service. They can be fired for anything. There is no contract...nothing. I disagree with this, but my dad is a postmaster and said the supervisor shouldn't have done it like this....but the firing would stick.

 

ETA that I thought the PO hired casuals on 90 renewals....did this policy change?

Edited July 14, 2008 by TheShiznit

[jaxfactor]

My wife works for a company that has amazing benefits. Hell, even men are given paid leave to stay at home with their wife and newborns when there's a new baby in the family. I'll tell you what, though.

 

The Postal Service does this as well, IF you are a career employee. It is a very tricky situation due to the fact that Soxette is a casual employee. Heve you talked to a union rep, Sox? I would go this route first and foremost. If the union thinks you have a case, they'll probably even hook you up with a good lawyer.

[TheShiznit]

The Postal Service does this as well, IF you are a career employee. It is a very tricky situation due to the fact that Soxette is a casual employee. Heve you talked to a union rep, Sox? I would go this route first and foremost. If the union thinks you have a case, they'll probably even hook you up with a good lawyer.

 

But she isn't in the union....she isn't a Fer?

[Perchoutofwater]

Whatever.

 

I no longer have any respect for you,so responding would be pointless.

 

Have a nice day.

 

I'm sorry that you have lost respect for me, and I do feel for the position you are in. I just don't think that employers should be forced to make up jobs for a woman if she decides to get pregnant. Leave is one thing, but making up a job for someone who willingly puts them self in a position where they can no longer do the job they were hired to do, is something else entirely. Unfortunately your fiance wasn't a regular employee, so her leave amounts to being fired. The spreading her legs comment was a little rude, and for that I apologize. I didn't want to say she made the choice to get pregnant because I don't know that she made that choice, but she and you did make the choice to possibly get pregnant. I wish you would answer my previous question that you evaded earlier. Is there an opening at light duty with the same pay scale that they are advertising for employment? If not then what you are asking is that they make up a job for her. Detlef and I seem to be of the same mind on this, though he seems to express himself much better or at least less offensively than I do.

[AtomicCEO]

Unfortunately...I think this is in their prerogative. I think the EEOC doesn't understand how casual employment works in the postal service. They can be fired for anything. There is no contract...nothing.

 

Can they fire a white woman for dating a black man?

Can they fire a guy because they found out he's gay?

Can they fire someone because they think latinos are lazy?

[detlef]

I'm w/ hear ya sox. Det/Perch/boog......this is the point IMHO. Past practice is a biggie. I have a feeling self employed & business owners feel they have the right to fire for any reason. Sox and soxette did everything right. If they have no recourse, they will be told so. If they have a recourse, it will be based on law. Don't like the law change it. Again hoping all works out for you.

Do I sound like a union person?

Capricious firings are bad! This was capricious IMHO, but the legal system will work it out regardless.

Well, considering that things like this don't actually get solved at the Huddle, we're pretty much just arguing for the sake of it. So, what if the employee is simply not qualified for any positions that are light enough labor for a pregnant woman to handle? Say you do have office positions but all of them require computer skills or perhaps the person must speak English well enough to work the phone? Say the employee doesn't have these skills? Is the employer "firing" them by not offering them a job that they're not qualified for?

 

And to be honest, I have no problem with rules regarding how I must go about firing people. I do not advocate the exploitation of workers and feel the government should protect them. However, it just so happens that I feel that having a child is something that people need to take seriously and understand is their choice. I, for instance, have chosen not to have them. I am prepared to trade in the benefits of having kids to avoid the costs and responsibilities associated with them. As such, I also don't feel that I should be specifically burdened with creating a position within my company that I likely don't need or it would already be filled to allow someone else to do so.

[keggerz]

I'm sorry that you have lost respect for me, and I do feel for the position you are in. I just don't think that employers should be forced to make up jobs for a woman if she decides to get pregnant. Leave is one thing, but making up a job for someone who willingly puts them self in a position where they can no longer do the job they were hired to do, is something else entirely. Unfortunately your fiance wasn't a regular employee, so her leave amounts to being fired. The spreading her legs comment was a little rude, and for that I apologize. I didn't want to say she made the choice to get pregnant because I don't know that she made that choice, but she and you did make the choice to possibly get pregnant. I wish you would answer my previous question that you evaded earlier. Is there an opening at light duty with the same pay scale that they are advertising for employment? If not then what you are asking is that they make up a job for her. Detlef and I seem to be of the same mind on this, though he seems to express himself much better or at least less offensively than I do.

no the law requires it (in so many words).

[Azazello1313]

Can they fire a white woman for dating a black man?

Can they fire a guy because they found out he's gay?

Can they fire someone because they think latinos are lazy?

 

does being black/gay/latino inherently prevent someone from being able to perform their job? wait, maybe you shouldn't answer that or this thread could get even uglier.

[keggerz]

http://www.eeoc.gov/facts/fs-preg.html

 

Facts About Pregnancy Discrimination

 

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. Women affected by pregnancy or related conditions must be treated in the same manner as other applicants or employees with similar abilities or limitations.

 

Hiring

An employer cannot refuse to hire a woman because of her pregnancy related condition as long as she is able to perform the major functions of her job. An employer cannot refuse to hire her because of its prejudices against pregnant workers or the prejudices of co-workers, clients or customers.

 

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.

 

Health Insurance

Any health insurance provided by an employer must cover expenses for pregnancy related conditions on the same basis as costs for other medical conditions. Health insurance for expenses arising from abortion is not required, except where the life of the mother is endangered.

 

Pregnancy related expenses should be reimbursed exactly as those incurred for other medical conditions, whether payment is on a fixed basis or a percentage of reasonable and customary charge basis.

 

The amounts payable by the insurance provider can be limited only to the same extent as costs for other conditions. No additional, increased or larger deductible can be imposed.

 

Employers must provide the same level of health benefits for spouses of male employees as they do for spouses of female employees.

 

Fringe Benefits

Pregnancy related benefits cannot be limited to married employees. In an all-female workforce or job classification, benefits must be provided for pregnancy related conditions if benefits are provided for other medical conditions.

 

If an employer provides any benefits to workers on leave, the employer must provide the same benefits for those on leave for pregnancy related conditions.

 

Employees with pregnancy related disabilities must be treated the same as other temporarily disabled employees for accrual and crediting of seniority, vacation calculation, pay increases and temporary disability benefits.

 

See also: How To File A Charge of Employment Discrimination

 

 

Filing a Charge

 

Federal Employees: Please see our fact sheet on Federal Sector Equal Employment Opportunity Complaint Processing.

 

If you believe you have been discriminated against by an employer, labor union or employment agency when applying for a job or while on the job because of your race, color, sex, religion, national origin, age, or disability, or believe that you have been discriminated against because of opposing a prohibited practice or participating in an equal employment opportunity matter, you may file a charge of discrimination with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC).

 

Charges may be filed in person, by mail or by telephone by contacting the nearest EEOC office. If there is not an EEOC office in the immediate area, call toll free 800-669-4000 or 800-669-6820 (TDD) for more information. To avoid delay, call or write beforehand if you need special assistance, such as an interpreter, to file a charge.

 

There are strict time frames in which charges of employment discrimination must be filed. To preserve the ability of EEOC to act on your behalf and to protect your right to file a private lawsuit, should you ultimately need to, adhere to the following guidelines when filing a charge.

 

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act (Title VII) charges must be filed with EEOC within 180 days of the alleged discriminatory act. However, in states or localities where there is an antidiscrimination law and an agency authorized to grant or seek relief, a charge must be presented to that state or local agency. Furthermore, in such jurisdictions, you may file charges with EEOC within 300 days of the discriminatory act, or 30 days after receiving notice that the state or local agency has terminated its processing of the charge, whichever is earlier. It is best to contact EEOC promptly when discrimination is suspected. When charges or complaints are filed beyond these time frames, you may not be able to obtain any remedy.

 

Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) - The time requirements for filing a charge are the same as those for Title VII charges.

 

Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) - The time requirements for filing a charge are the same as those for Title VII and the ADA.

 

Equal Pay Act (EPA) - Individuals are not required to file an EPA charge with EEOC before filing a private lawsuit. However, charges may be filed with EEOC and some cases of wage discrimination also may be violations of Title VII. If an EPA charge is filed with EEOC, the procedure for filing is the same as for charges brought under Title VII. However, the time limits for filing in court are different under the EPA, thus, it is advisable to file a charge as soon as you become aware the EPA may have been violated.

 

For more detailed information, please contact the EEOC office nearest to you

Edited July 14, 2008 by keggerz

[detlef]

Can they fire a white woman for dating a black man?

Can they fire a guy because they found out he's gay?

Can they fire someone because they think latinos are lazy?

At will employmentSounds like the three rather extreme situations you mention could be contested. However, there's also no way to link any of these to a proven inability to do the job hired for. In this case, it is not the employer who is saying she is no longer able to do the job hired for, it is the employees doctor. The employer is simply not offering a transfer to another position. I would imagine that if it could be proven that 1) such a position existed, and 2) that the employee was qualified for that position, there could be a case.

[AtomicCEO]

does being black/gay/latino inherently prevent someone from being able to perform their job? wait, maybe you shouldn't answer that or this thread could get even uglier.

 

Shiz said "I think the EEOC doesn't understand how casual employment works in the postal service. They can be fired for anything. There is no contract...nothing."

 

That is the point I was addressing.

[Squeegiebo]

Can they fire a white woman for dating a black man?

Can they fire a guy because they found out he's gay?

Can they fire someone because they think latinos are lazy?

As far as Federal law is concerned:

 

No

Yes

No

[detlef]

no the law requires it (in so many words).

Actually it says you either need to give her an easier job or give her leave.

[AtomicCEO]

At will employmentSounds like the three rather extreme situations you mention could be contested. However, there's also no way to link any of these to a proven inability to do the job hired for. In this case, it is not the employer who is saying she is no longer able to do the job hired for, it is the employees doctor. The employer is simply not offering a transfer to another position. I would imagine that if it could be proven that 1) such a position existed, and 2) that the employee was qualified for that position, there could be a case.

 

"Several exceptions to the doctrine exist, especially if unlawful discrimination is involved regarding the termination of an employee."

 

Including... "Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (relating to discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin)"

 

In 1978, the U.S. Congress passed the Pregnancy Discrimination Act (P.L. 95-555), an amendment to the sex discrimination section of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

 

Looks like pregnancy discrimination IS covered by at-will employment.

[Squeegiebo]

Have people missed that they only have to treat a pregnant woman the same that they would treat anyone else with similar limitations/disabilities?

 

If dudes who have hernias (let's just say the injury was not sustained at work) are offered light duty positions until the lifting restriction is lifted, they have to do the same for pregnant chicks. If they do not offer anyone light duty positions, they don't have to do so for pregnant chicks.

[AtomicCEO]

As far as Federal law is concerned:

 

No

Yes

No

 

 

What if he was a gay latino dating a black man?

(no offense Chavez)