Jump to content
[[Template core/front/custom/_customHeader is throwing an error. This theme may be out of date. Run the support tool in the AdminCP to restore the default theme.]]

My fiance was terminated from her job


Sox
 Share

Recommended Posts

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

 

So, lets say my wife is employed by a temp agency....and she works full time at various employers....and she gets lots of work....then she gets pregnant...and they don't send he to anymore jobs....they can be sued!!! Unless they specifically say they aren't giving her work simply because she is pregnant....then nothing you can do...really...it sucks...but it is what it is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 405
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

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

 

I have between 25 and 40 employees at any given time, and I consider our business as a small business, as would most people who looked at our business. I know the government doesn't see it that way but, really we are a small business. We have a full time salaried office staff of 10, we have 10 salaried superintendents, and anywhere from 5 to 20 hourly workers at any given time. We generally like to have between 8 and 10 projects at any one time. Yet we are viewed the same as Bechtel who's revenue is 163 times ours and employs 1,000 times as many people as we do.

Edited by Perchoutofwater
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.............????

 

That's pretty much it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

 

We are filing that also.

 

Sox, she is not eligible for FMLA because she is not incapable of working by the federal definition. So, your FMLA request would be denied. Up and until a doctor says she CANNOT work...FMLA leave will be denied. I hope you win a bundle here.....I am just saying my dad has seen a ton of this and is 95% certain you will be pissing up a tree.....that sucks.....but he has been a postmaster for 20 years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As heated as this topic has become, I'd just like to point out that I'm glad we here at the Huddle have this kind of participation on a subject like this, and a forum in which to discuss it. You know that when you bring something to the table here, you are going to get ALL sides and angles covered.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As heated as this topic has become, I'd just like to point out that I'm glad we here at the Huddle have this kind of participation on a subject like this, and a forum in which to discuss it. You know that when you bring something to the table here, you are going to get ALL sides and angles covered.

 

And even if we disagree...hope we are wrong and sox will win a bundle!!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have between 25 and 40 employees at any given time, and I consider our business as a small business, as would most people who looked at our business. I know the government doesn't see it that way but, really we are a small business. We have a full time salaried office staff of 10, we have 10 salaried superintendents, and anywhere from 5 to 20 hourly workers at any given time. We generally like to have between 8 and 10 projects at any one time, and in a good year our back log will be about $75,000,000 to $100,000,000 which results in revenue of $50,000,000 to $75,000,000. Yet in the governments eyes we are same as Bechtel who has revenue in excess of 13,400,000,000 and over 50,000 employees. So Bechtel is more than 130 times as large as us, and has 1,000 times as many employees yet is in the same industry and is pretty much under the same rules.

 

 

Cry me an f'ing river.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have between 25 and 40 employees at any given time, and I consider our business as a small business, as would most people who looked at our business. I know the government doesn't see it that way but, really we are a small business. We have a full time salaried office staff of 10, we have 10 salaried superintendents, and anywhere from 5 to 20 hourly workers at any given time. We generally like to have between 8 and 10 projects at any one time, and in a good year our back log will be about $75,000,000 to $100,000,000 which results in revenue of $50,000,000 to $75,000,000. Yet in the governments eyes we are same as Bechtel who has revenue in excess of 13,400,000,000 and over 50,000 employees. So Bechtel is more than 130 times as large as us, and has 1,000 times as many employees yet is in the same industry and is pretty much under the same rules.

 

Potentially 2 bosses for every worker. :wacko:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Cry me an f'ing river.

 

 

He sure whines a lot about the problems of being rich. I really want to send him a Hallmark card or something.

 

Those numbers are revenue, not profit, which is the reason I went back and edited them out of the post. As I assumed some of you have jumped to conclusions We have to do $40,000,000 a year just to pay overhead. There have been a couple of years where that didn't happen, and we have never laid anyone off. I doubt I make much more than Ursa, but my butt is on the line, or at least my money should one of my employees decide to be a knucklehead.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, lets say my wife is employed by a temp agency....and she works full time at various employers....and she gets lots of work....then she gets pregnant...and they don't send he to anymore jobs....they can be sued!!! Unless they specifically say they aren't giving her work simply because she is pregnant....then nothing you can do...really...it sucks...but it is what it is.

 

As I quoted before:

 

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, which covers employers with 15 or more employees, including state and local governments. Title VII also applies to employment agencies and to labor organizations, as well as to the federal government. Women who are pregnant or affected by related conditions must be treated in the same manner as other applicants or employees with similar abilities or limitations.

 

If your wife in this scenario is working for the temp agency (hence her employer is the employment agency), she has worked the requisite number of hours for that employer within the last year, she tells her employer that she is pregnant, and her employer tells her "oh - then you'll have to resign or we are firing you," then yes, she can sue the employment agency unde the PDA/Title VII.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As heated as this topic has become, I'd just like to point out that I'm glad we here at the Huddle have this kind of participation on a subject like this, and a forum in which to discuss it. You know that when you bring something to the table here, you are going to get ALL sides and angles covered.

 

Very true, Skilly! And hopefully there will be no bruised egos because of it.

 

 

Cry me an f'ing river.

 

Nod! No sympathy, sorry perch!

 

 

Potentially 2 bosses for every worker. :wacko:

 

Point, set, match!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As I quoted before:

 

 

 

If your wife in this scenario is working for the temp agency (hence her employer is the employment agency), she has worked the requisite number of hours for that employer within the last year, she tells her employer that she is pregnant, and her employer tells her "oh - then you'll have to resign or we are firing you," then yes, she can sue the employment agency unde the PDA/Title VII.

 

 

See, I don't see how that can work. Temp agencies basically just send people out to jobs. If they can't do the work, then the temp agency is expected to continue to send her out, and have her sent back because she can't do the work? All this does is give the temp agency a bad name.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sox, she is not eligible for FMLA because she is not incapable of working by the federal definition. So, your FMLA request would be denied.

 

Wrong.

 

An employee is ``unable to perform the functions of the position'' where the health care provider finds that the employee is unable to work at all or is unable to perform any one of the essential functions of the employee's position within the meaning of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)

 

Link.

 

So, if lifting more than 25 pounds is an essential function of her position, she's entitled to FMLA leave.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

See, I don't see how that can work. Temp agencies basically just send people out to jobs. If they can't do the work, then the temp agency is expected to continue to send her out, and have her sent back because she can't do the work? All this does is give the temp agency a bad name.

 

Remember, they have to treat her the same as any other employee with a similar limitation. If the temp agency doesn't send anyone out who has similar restrictions, then they don't have to send her out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As I quoted before:

 

 

 

If your wife in this scenario is working for the temp agency (hence her employer is the employment agency), she has worked the requisite number of hours for that employer within the last year, she tells her employer that she is pregnant, and her employer tells her "oh - then you'll have to resign or we are firing you," then yes, she can sue the employment agency unde the PDA/Title VII.

 

OK, but if they fire her or no longer offer he work, and mention nothing of the pregnancy...then how do you prove it was illegal or against the law...my contention is that you can't unless they say it out loud in front of witnesses.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Damn...

 

We coordinate the work of all the various trades, and act as an advocate to the owner to make sure the trade contractors are providing what they are supposed to be providing. We also minimize change orders by helping architects and engineers develop the plans, and make sure the owner isn't getting screwed when changes do occur. We generally make between 3.2% and 5% of the cost of the work, depending on the size of the project. The larger the project, the smaller the percentage.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wrong.

 

 

 

Link.

 

So, if lifting more than 25 pounds is an essential function of her position, she's entitled to FMLA leave.

 

Then I will simply point you to the job description of a casual....which states whatever if pretty much needed at the time...so in relation to the actual work of a casual....this could never be met unless she is incapable or disabled.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

But you misrepresented what the quote said.

 

Perch was complaining about having to invent a job for a pregnant woman and you referenced your long quote and said the law said "in so many words" that he had to. My point was, quite simply that the law says you either need to give them an easier job or give them leave. That is not the same as saying that you have to give them an easier job.

 

I don't think you'd get much argument from either Perch or I if we were simply required to have a pregnant woman's job waiting for her once she was ready for work provided we were not required to pay her to do something that didn't need to be done just to keep her employed before she left to have the kid.

 

His point is quite sound. Any well run small business simply doesn't have extra jobs laying around or extra money to pay someone to do something else.

 

Like I said in my last post, by this definition, I am apparently not a small business. Thus, I must be so big that I could always use some extra help in the office if one of my line cooks got pregnant. Now, in my case, we've had a few women get pregnant that worked in the kitchen, we were able to shuffle things around and give them prep and pastry shifts and there was always someone around to lift anything heavy. It was no big deal and I was happy to do so.

 

But, let's say I've got a tree cutting service instead. I've got 15 people who cut down trees and 2 people who answer the phones and do office stuff. Say one of those working on the trees is a woman and she gets pregnant. So now I have to hire someone to take her spot working on trees. That's cool. But, that doesn't mean that I need an extra person in the office. Maybe there's barely enough stuff to do in the office as it is? Too much for one person, so I hired another but that person is barely busy. So, now I have to add a 3rd person to the mix?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK, but if they fire her or no longer offer he work, and mention nothing of the pregnancy...then how do you prove it was illegal or against the law...my contention is that you can't unless they say it out loud in front of witnesses.

 

Direct evidence, or an admission is not required to prove motive.

 

Think of criminal cases - the gov't proves motive all the time, and it's not from the defendant saying in front of witnesses "I am killing you because you slept with my wife."

 

If they can show that other employees with lifting restrictions were offfered light-duty positions, that she gave her supervisor a doctor's note saying that she has a lifting restriction because she is pregnant, and that her supervisor then told her that she has to resign or be fired, a fact-finder could easily conclude that the decision was based on her pregnancy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information