Sox

My fiance was terminated from her job

Recommended Posts

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.

 

I don't disagree with unpaid leave, though honestly it is a pain in the ass from an small business owners perspective if you are talking about skilled employees. When my administrative assistant got pregnant a few years ago, the temp that replaced her finally got up to doing about 80% of what my assistant was doing when my assistant came back from leave. I don't like it, but I can understand it, and still from a business perspective I'm better off, giving the employee leave and having them come back.

 

My problem is with having to make up a light duty job for someone who gets pregnant but doesn't take leave. It is one thing if there is a position that you are trying to fill that is open, though more than likely the light duty position would be at a lower wage scale, but to make one up to me is just B.S. When I asked Sox if they had a position that they were trying to fill at light duty at the same wage scale he didn't answer. I'm sure in the past there may have been and if there was the employer probably tried to accommodate the pregnant women, but if there isn't a position that needs to be filled then they are just making up a job.

 

I'm coming from this from a small business perspective. If I have a need, I'm going to be actively trying to hire someone. If I don't have a need, then I can't afford to be making up a job for someone who chooses to get pregnant. Large corporations or in this case the government can probably afford to do so a lot better than a small business, but still in the end it is the consumer or tax payer that will be paying for someones employment if a position is made up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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?

 

They would just fire them. Just like here....I am reasonably sure the supervisor didn't say she was fired because she is pregnant.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
:wacko:

 

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

(no offense Chavez)

Depends on whether he was fired for his latin roots, his dating a black person, or his gayness.

 

It's all about there being an unlawful motive for the adverse employment decision. That's why these cases are so hard to win - employers can almost always make up some legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for any decision they make; without a smoking gun, it's very hard to prove that membership in a protected class was the real motivation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm coming from this from a small business perspective.

 

These laws don't apply to small businesses. Only those with 15 or more employees.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
They would just fire them. Just like here....I am reasonably sure the supervisor didn't say she was fired because she is pregnant.

 

"I'm pregnant"

"You're fired"

 

Is this a riddle?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Actually it says you either need to give her an easier job or give her leave.

that was the "in so many words part" but i was refering to "making up a new job" more so...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
"I'm pregnant"

"You're fired"

 

Is this a riddle?

 

Presented with doctors orders dictating restrictions....then fired...not because of pregnancy....but for restrictions. And this is a casual position...almost a temp employee type situation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

 

That is the way I understand it. You can give them unpaid leave. Here is my question, and you being a scum sucking snake in the grass should be able to answer it much better in how it pertains to the law than those of us with common sense. :wacko: If in the past they have given light duty to the guy with the hernia, because there was work than needed to be done that was light duty, do they have to give light duty to the pregnant chick if there isn't work that is needed to be done. Or in the case that Sox has, they let the pregnant chicks do light duty when they had light duty work that needed to be done, but now apparently there aren't any light duty tasks, or there are so many people performing light duty tasks, that the really isn't a need for another person?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
These laws don't apply to small businesses. Only those with 15 or more employees.

:passestorchtotheattorney:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
that was the "in so many words part" but i was refering to "making up a new job" more so...

 

There is no job...you are a casual and must be able to do what is asked of you on a given day......kinda like a manpower situation....you either do the job or they ask for another person....think of casuals as the postal version of a temp employment agency.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That is the way I understand it. You can give them unpaid leave. Here is my question, and you being a scum sucking snake in the grass should be able to answer it much better in how it pertains to the law than those of us with common sense. :wacko: If in the past they have given light duty to the guy with the hernia, because there was work than needed to be done that was light duty, do they have to give light duty to the pregnant chick if there isn't work that is needed to be done. Or in the case that Sox has, they let the pregnant chicks do light duty when they had light duty work that needed to be done, but now apparently there aren't any light duty tasks, or there are so many people performing light duty tasks, that the really isn't a need for another person?

you pretty much have to jump thru hoops to make "reasonable" accomodations for people with disabilities....imo, they would have to find something for her to do there....lets say that she is a cashier and needs to be off her feet...a reasonable accomodation would be to give her a stool she can sit on while she rings people up....no lets say she works for jiffy lube type place and she hurt her back and cannot bend over at all....asking the employer to install a lift so that she can walk under the car to do her job would NOT be a reasonable accomodation.

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.

 

They don't need a lawyer to go through the EEOC process.

 

If they file a lawsuit, I would assume that it would be on a contingency basis. I think they realize that all they're likely to recover if successful would be lost wages and/or reinstatement.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
There is no job...you are a casual and must be able to do what is asked of you on a given day......kinda like a manpower situation....you either do the job or they ask for another person....think of casuals as the postal version of a temp employment agency.

 

This doesn't sound to me what the situation is like: what you are describing sounds more like the guys hanging out in front of Home Depot waiting for some daily employment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
There is no job...you are a casual and must be able to do what is asked of you on a given day......kinda like a manpower situation....you either do the job or they ask for another person....think of casuals as the postal version of a temp employment agency.

guess what...if in the eyes of the law she is eligible for FMLA or the like then there is a job.

 

the post office can call it whatever they want but if they fall under the umbrella of these laws then they need to make REASONABLE ACCOMODATIONS....

 

the part that is extremely stupid to me is that at the very begining the manager made the call without even talking to HR...that is not only stupid but irresponsible to the company(Post Office) imo....HR has its purposes and they would much rather get a call that they arent needed for then to not get one that they were needed for.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
you pretty much have to jump thru hoops to make "reasonable" accomodations for people with disabilities....imo, they would have to find something for her to do there....lets say that she is a cashier and needs to be off her feet...a reasonable accomodation would be to give her a stool she can sit on while she rings people up....no lets say she works for jiffy lube type place and she hurt her back and cannot bend over at all....asking the employer to install a lift so that she can walk under the car to do her job would NOT be a reasonable accomodation.

 

Did they hurt their back at work....or at home? Because after the FMLA, they don't have to accomodate crap...per the Jiffy Lube example.

 

Casuals are not employees of the postal service...so therefore, there is not job description....there is nothing there to protect.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
guess what...if in the eyes of the law she is eligible for FMLA or the like then there is a job.

 

the post office can call it whatever they want but if they fall under the umbrella of these laws then they need to make REASONABLE ACCOMODATIONS....

 

the part that is extremely stupid to me is that at the very begining the manager made the call without even talking to HR...that is not only stupid but irresponsible to the company(Post Office) imo....HR has its purposes and they would much rather get a call that they arent needed for then to not get one that they were needed for.

 

I agree, the supervisor was an idiot....but in the end...unfortunately....casuals get treated like temp employees. They are not employees. There is no job....or description to accomodate. You either can do the job or you cannot....unfortunately for casuals it is that simple.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

 

 

Fair enough.

 

She would simply be swapping jobs with another casual,same pay scale.I didn't evade squat.I was pissed off at your comment.

 

Now do me a favor and read the EEOC link I posted.Agree or disagree,she is in fact protected under federal law.The manager that violated it should be,imho,fired.

 

Casuals aren't hired for a "specific job".They are hired to fill in as needed.Right now we are short handed in every unit.We weren't looking for a handout,we just wanted her moved to a unit where casuals making the same pay already work.They (she) wouldn't do it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Did they hurt their back at work....or at home? Because after the FMLA, they don't have to accomodate crap...per the Jiffy Lube example.

 

Casuals are not employees of the postal service...so therefore, there is not job description....there is nothing there to protect.

i was using the jiffy lube part to show what a reasonable accomodation wouldnt be...wanted it to be over the top because you have to exhaust your efforts.....

 

who did she get a pay check from?

who fired her?

did she work over 1250 hours in the past 12 month for the "post office"?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Fair enough.

 

She would simply be swapping jobs with another casual,same pay scale.I didn't evade squat.I was pissed off at your comment.

 

Now do me a favor and read the EEOC link I posted.Agree or disagree,she is in fact protected under federal law.The manager that violated it should be,imho,fired.

 

Casuals aren't hired for a "specific job".They are hired to fill in as needed.Right now we are short handed in every unit.We weren't looking for a handout,we just wanted her moved to a unit where casuals making the same pay already work.They (she) wouldn't do it.

 

I want you to win....cause I don't like the way this went down, but you are going to have to prove that there is help needed in every unit and that the postmaster has the budget to hire the needed help in every unit. You don't have the information to make the requisite argument....the supervisor should have never fired your wife...that was an idiotic move....but casuals get let get let go all the time. They do not need to move her to a different unit because there is no job description for a casual....unfortunately....you are barking up a losing tree IMHO....and I hope I am wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I agree, the supervisor was an idiot....but in the end...unfortunately....casuals get treated like temp employees. They are not employees. There is no job....or description to accomodate. You either can do the job or you cannot....unfortunately for casuals it is that simple.

 

 

Please...read the EEOC link and quote the part where it states employers are exempt if the employees are casuals or temps.

 

http://www.eeoc.gov/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Please...read the EEOC link and quote the part where it states employers are exempt if the employees are casuals or temps.

 

http://www.eeoc.gov/

he can't

 

 

edit: temps are basically addressed in the amount of time worked...you work more then the 1250 hours(i think thats it) in 12 months then you qualify...no matter how the employer categorizes your employment

Edited by keggerz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I want you to win....cause I don't like the way this went down, but you are going to have to prove that there is help needed in every unit and that the postmaster has the budget to hire the needed help in every unit.

 

No we do not.

 

A pregnant employee must be treated just like anybody else who has been temporarily disabled.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

 

They are not a government, but are under a government mandate and the retirement is civil service and federal...benefits come from federal system. The 401K is thrift savings plan...which is government run....so, yes, it is not the federal government....but operates under a federal mandate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
he can't

 

 

edit: temps are basically addressed in the amount of time worked...you work more then the 1250 hours(i think thats it) in 12 months then you qualify...no matter how the employer categorizes your employment

 

 

Yep.She is eligible with FMLA as well.She has more than enough hours to qualify.

 

We are filing that also.

Edited by Sox

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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?She wasn't given that chance! 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?Not the issue. Say the employee doesn't have these skills? see prior Is the employer "firing" them by not offering them a job that they're not qualified for? Past Practice!

 

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.

 

I'm done here, unless someone crawls up my but. I think the main points are:

1) A super fired her w/o consulting HR. (Powers that she probably over stepped)

2) People in the past were GIVEN a lighter duty!

3) EEOC, in a knee jerk reaction said (paraphrased) "Cake walk!"

4) Pregnancy has to be treated like any other ailment/disability/etc.

5) If they had waited, she could have been "not re-hired". They chose not to do that. Big mistake that I'm sure HR would not have done.

6) The Law will sort it out.

7) Unions aren't necessary. Aqua.............????

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.