My fiance was terminated from her job

[detlef]

Cry me an f'ing river.

So why not just create a government program that all taxpayers kick into to pay them when they're pregnant rather than requiring employers to make up jobs for them?

 

Then everyone gets to pay for the good vibes of knowing that pregnant women don't have to worry about money rather than just the guys who employ them?

 

I mean, put your money where your mouth is.

 

Frankly, if I had my druthers, I'd just as soon as the actual couple having the child worry about the costs involved (including whether or not the mother is capable of working). However, if we're going to get all touchy feely about it. Let's all get touchy feely about it, not get all high and mighty about somebody else paying for the fact that you get to feel good about how we treat families expecting children.

[Squeegiebo]

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.

 

Um, what the FMLA says is that she is disabled if lifting more than 25 pounds is an essential part of her job discription.

[Cunning Runt]

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.

 

In reading the last several posts, it seems to me that people are relating the whole Pregnancy/Family Leave Act to this situation which I think merits closer review. I admittedly don't know the law as relates to this specific situation but it sure seems to me that a year-to-year employee, one that merits it's own title of "Casual Employee" would not fall under the same protections as a full-time employee. If the law says otherwise, and it might, I would personally think that's a bullsh!t law.

 

That said, Sox, what are you hoping to gain out of this?

Edited July 15, 2008 by Cunning Runt

[TheShiznit]

Um, what the FMLA says is that she is disabled if lifting more than 25 pounds is an essential part of her job discription.

Um...unless there is not job description? What aren't you getting about the fact casuals have no real job description.

 

ETA: Sox, I asked the question in my link as I thought was the issue....if you have anything to add, just state what those facts are.

Edited July 15, 2008 by TheShiznit

[Squeegiebo]

Um...unless there is not job description? What aren't you getting about the fact casuals have no real job description.

 

Um, you just gave the job description: "whatever is pretty much needed at the time."

 

If one of the things that may be needed at the time is lifting over 25 pounds, which it clearly was the work she was doing, then she is unable to perform an essential part of "whatever is needed."

[Beaumont]

In reading the last several posts, it seems to me that people are relating the whole Pregnancy/Family Leave Act to this situation which I think merits closer review. I admittedly don't know the law as relates to this specific situation but it sure seems to me that a year-to-year employee, one that merits it's own title of "Casual Employee" would not fall under the same protections as a full-time employee. If the law says otherwise, and it might, I would personally think that's a bullsh!t law.

 

That said, Sox, what are you hoping to gain out of this?

 

The law makes no distinction. If it did, you would have every employer up to and especially including Microsoft classifying all of their workers as temps and firing them all/discriminating against tthem since they did not have protection from discrimination ...

 

If you meet FMLA requirements you get it, period. I mean, jeez, its f'n UNPAID LEAVE. How onerous can that be?

[Squeegiebo]

If the law says otherwise, and it might, I would personally think that's a bullsh!t law.

 

Check out the links above for the definition of qualified employees.

[TheShiznit]

The law makes no distinction. If it did, you would have every employer up to and especially including Microsoft classifying all of their workers as temps and firing them all/discriminating against tthem since they did not have protection from discrimination ...

 

If you meet FMLA requirements you get it, period. I mean, jeez, its f'n UNPAID LEAVE. How onerous can that be?

 

Lets say she would qualify......she was up for retention in 45 days....they could argue they were saving her the trouble....in which case she gets 45 days of wages at best? I think sox and his wife are going to be unfortunately disappointed.

[keggerz]

Um...unless there is not job description? What aren't you getting about the fact casuals have no real job description.

 

ETA: Sox, I asked the question in my link as I thought was the issue....if you have anything to add, just state what those facts are.

if they work then they have a job description....no job description you say...i say the job description is: "i do sh1t for the Post Office"

 

Um, you just gave the job description: "whatever is pretty much needed at the time."

 

If one of the things that may be needed at the time is lifting over 25 pounds, which it clearly was the work she was doing, then she is unable to perform an essential part of "whatever is needed."

[Beaumont]

Lets say she would qualify......she was up for retention in 45 days....they could argue they were saving her the trouble....in which case she gets 45 days of wages at best? I think sox and his wife are going to be unfortunately disappointed.

 

Won't work. They could have fired her the next day for wearing a blue dress. Just because she might not have been retained one day from then or 45 days from then does not mean you get a free pass to discriminate and then call "no foul".

 

I do, however agree that sox and wife should temper their expectations. As someone who has handled > 300 plaintiff's employment law cases (PDA, FMLA, FLSA, you name it) I can tell you that the last thing you want is to have high expectations. There is a reason I take few if any of these cases anymore. They can expect some lost wages, a very small additional sum for their trouble, and get their lawyer paid.

 

And, no matter what, don't hire lawyers on an hourly basis to handle employment claims. If they wont take the case with skin in the game (full contingency) then why would you spend your cash on it. If they dont believe in the case, you shouldnt either. No individual should ever spend money needed by the family chasing a plaintiff's case. Let the lawyer do it or dont do it at all.

[keggerz]

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?

thats why SMALL BUSINESSES are EXEMPT

 

oh and to your tree cutter question....no I do not think you would have to give them a job in the office.... BUT say that the job of cutting the tree down consists of filling the chainsaws with gas, sweeping up wood chips, marking the trees/limbs that need to be cut, driving machinery to the job site, maintaining equipment(oil changes etc) etc....I would bet that if you could give that "disabled" employee the jobs that everyone normally does together and make it fill their day/work load then yeah I believe that is what the employer would/should have to do to meet the REASONABLE ACCOMODATIONS....you know sorta like the Post Office being able to find something "easier" for Sox's wife to do

[Sox]

Lets say she would qualify......she was up for retention in 45 days....they could argue they were saving her the trouble....in which case she gets 45 days of wages at best? I think sox and his wife are going to be unfortunately disappointed.

 

 

Disappointed in what?

 

I filed this because I'm angry and pissed off.Not because I saw a goose lay a golden egg.It's against the law,and I took it personally.Whatever happens happens.

 

The bottom line is this:we did nothing wrong,and they violated federal law.Talk about what if's and hypothetical situations all you want,but they broke the law,and for no good reason.I will always protect and defend me and mine.

 

This could all have easily been avoided,and it wouldn't have cost them one cent to follow the law.

[Ursa Majoris]

We do construction management so we really don't do any of the work with our on forces, we just provide the supervision, subcontracting out all the work.

Most construction management companies do the same. PMs, Superintendents, Field Engineers, etc.

[Sox]

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.

 

Well now.That's interesting.

 

I'm actually planning on getting statements from the 30-40 people that watched it go down last Tuesday.The same people that heard the MDO state that she would either have to resign or be terminated because of her restrictions.

 

Once again,here is the doctors note.

 

"To whom it may concern:

The above named patient is currently under our care for pregnancy.Her due date is 03/06/09.Due to complications of pregnancy,she is to work (see below) hours per day with the following restrictions:J******* is not to lift more than 25 pounds during the course of pregnancy."

 

Notice the "pregnancy" word in the note?

 

She shows up for work.She hands the note to her supervisor who then calls for the MDO.The MDO then states what I have already stated which is she can't work with the restrictions in the note,and will either have to resign or be terminated.The restrictions in the note states because of her pregnancy.

 

We will have nothing to actually prove.It's all there in the termination report and doctor's note.They did it for us.

[TheShiznit]

Well now.That's interesting.

 

I'm actually planning on getting statements from the 30-40 people that watched it go down last Tuesday.The same people that heard the MDO state that she would either have to resign or be terminated because of her restrictions.

 

Once again,here is the doctors note.

 

"To whom it may concern:

The above named patient is currently under our care for pregnancy.Her due date is 03/06/09.Due to complications of pregnancy,she is to work (see below) hours per day with the following restrictions:J******* is not to lift more than 25 pounds during the course of pregnancy."

 

Notice the "pregnancy" word in the note?

 

She shows up for work.She hands the note to her supervisor who then calls for the MDO.The MDO then states what I have already stated which is she can't work with the restrictions in the note,and will either have to resign or be terminated.The restrictions in the note states because of her pregnancy.

 

We will have nothing to actually prove.It's all there in the termination report and doctor's note.They did it for us.

 

Well, you shall see.....like I said...I hope it turns out well for you....I hope she makes a contingency on not getting a new one year appointment. At any rate...we shall see.

[Pope Flick]

So why not just create a government program that all taxpayers kick into to pay them when they're pregnant rather than requiring employers to make up jobs for them?

 

Then everyone gets to pay for the good vibes of knowing that pregnant women don't have to worry about money rather than just the guys who employ them?

 

I mean, put your money where your mouth is.

 

Frankly, if I had my druthers, I'd just as soon as the actual couple having the child worry about the costs involved (including whether or not the mother is capable of working). However, if we're going to get all touchy feely about it. Let's all get touchy feely about it, not get all high and mighty about somebody else paying for the fact that you get to feel good about how we treat families expecting children.

 

 

The EEOC already exists to take care of your first statement.

 

Since the EEOC is a govt organization we already do.

 

See above.

 

Again, I'm not saying she should expect paid leave, but her job shouldn't be taken away from her because she has gotten pregnant.

[Azazello1313]

"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.

 

it sounds like that would apply here, but it seems kinda dumb to me to treat pregnancy like race, religion, sexual orientation, etc. the latter are all protected because there is societal bigotry toward them, and because they don't affect one's ability to do a job in the least. who is bigoted against pregnant women? nobody, everybody loves them -- they've got bigger boobs and that whole "glow" thing going on. what's not to love? the problem, from a purely practical standpoint (and the real reason they are a protected class under the law), is that they make lousy employees and there is a certain amount of incentive to get rid of them. nothing physical for 9 months, which, if that's part of their job description, that's a pretty long time. longer than most hernias and sprained ankles, that's for sure. and at the end of that 9 months? well, at the drop of a hat they're gone entirely for 6 weeks, or longer. and you can't hire somebody to replace them during that time, because you're obligated to hold their job for them. that is a pretty big hit for a lot of employers to absorb.

 

not that any of that really applies here, this is the f'n post office, the supervisor has no stake, she is just being a dumb b*tch, really.

[detlef]

thats why SMALL BUSINESSES are EXEMPT

 

oh and to your tree cutter question....no I do not think you would have to give them a job in the office.... BUT say that the job of cutting the tree down consists of filling the chainsaws with gas, sweeping up wood chips, marking the trees/limbs that need to be cut, driving machinery to the job site, maintaining equipment(oil changes etc) etc....I would bet that if you could give that "disabled" employee the jobs that everyone normally does together and make it fill their day/work load then yeah I believe that is what the employer would/should have to do to meet the REASONABLE ACCOMODATIONS....you know sorta like the Post Office being able to find something "easier" for Sox's wife to do

Like I mentioned before, they need to do a better job of defining "small business". 15 or more employees is a completely arbitrary number. Again, like I said, nobody would ever confuse my business as anything but small, yet I have over 15 employees.

 

Also, I don't pretend to know about the tree cutting business and just threw it out there as a "what if". My point is that what you're describing may not be all that feasible. Say they don't go out in teams? Or at least, teams large enough that it would make sense to have one person do nothing more than sweep up wood chips and fill saws with gas. That's all I'm saying.

 

I honestly don't think my opinion varies a significant amount from others here. I agree that reasonable accommodations should be made. Reasonable. Of course, I also think that it should be recognized as a benefit being offered by a compassionate employer, not some law-mandated requirement. Like others have mentioned and Az does a fine job of illustrating below, unlike other forms of discrimination, this is voluntary and does effect job performance. As somebody who thinks far too many people who are completely ill-equipped to raise kids are having them, I wouldn't mind there being one barrier in place to think about. For example, if you do a physical job, don't expect your boss to automatically bail you out once you get pregnant.

 

If you're a valued employee, then the employer will likely suck it up in order to have a grateful employee return when she is able. That's the thing though, it appears the mindset here means that the employee wouldn't even be grateful that the employer made a point of creating a position to accommodate them. One that they might have had good reasons for not having before but simply created to make the best of a situation. No, they're entitled, not grateful.

 

See, here's the rub. Employers are shouldering some of the financial burden for couples to have kids. Kids that aren't theirs. We have dogs instead. Shouldn't we be able to put them on the health plan? Is our version of a family unit being unfairly discriminated against?

 

Say an employee is really not that good. Laws make it so you really can't fire them because, well, it's really hard to fire someone. However, this is the person who literally does just enough to keep their job. You're constantly having to remind them of things, etc. Now they get pregnant and are completely incapable of doing their job at all. So, now you've got to pay out of your own pocket to subsidize a work place situation that allows someone to undergo an optional segment of their life. Then you need to bring in a temp (who's likely better at the job than they are) only to have to get rid of that temp when the lazy f'er is ready to come back. Now, you've got a lazy employee who was always a pain, only now she's got a kid at home. Hell, you might as well adopt both them and the kid for how this is going to turn out.

 

Popeflick, you didn't answer my question in this regard. You just smugly pointed to the fact that we all pay into a government organization that makes sure employers suck it up on behalf of pregnant women. Not a government organization that actually sucks it up on behalf of pregnant women. Big difference.

 

it sounds like that would apply here, but it seems kinda dumb to me to treat pregnancy like race, religion, sexual orientation, etc. the latter are all protected because there is societal bigotry toward them, and because they don't affect one's ability to do a job in the least. who is bigoted against pregnant women? nobody, everybody loves them -- they've got bigger boobs and that whole "glow" thing going on. what's not to love? the problem, from a purely practical standpoint (and the real reason they are a protected class under the law), is that they make lousy employees and there is a certain amount of incentive to get rid of them. nothing physical for 9 months, which, if that's part of their job description, that's a pretty long time. longer than most hernias and sprained ankles, that's for sure. and at the end of that 9 months? well, at the drop of a hat they're gone entirely for 6 weeks, or longer. and you can't hire somebody to replace them during that time, because you're obligated to hold their job for them. that is a pretty big hit for a lot of employers to absorb.

 

not that any of that really applies here, this is the f'n post office, the supervisor has no stake, she is just being a dumb b*tch, really.

I agree with this to a large degree, including the last part.

Edited July 15, 2008 by detlef

[Perchoutofwater]

thats why SMALL BUSINESSES are EXEMPT

 

oh and to your tree cutter question....no I do not think you would have to give them a job in the office.... BUT say that the job of cutting the tree down consists of filling the chainsaws with gas, sweeping up wood chips, marking the trees/limbs that need to be cut, driving machinery to the job site, maintaining equipment(oil changes etc) etc....I would bet that if you could give that "disabled" employee the jobs that everyone normally does together and make it fill their day/work load then yeah I believe that is what the employer would/should have to do to meet the REASONABLE ACCOMODATIONS....you know sorta like the Post Office being able to find something "easier" for Sox's wife to do

 

Small businesses are not exempt. Businesses that the government classifies as small businesses are exempt. There is a big difference, as both I and Detlef have pointed out.

[keggerz]

Small businesses are not exempt. Businesses that the government classifies as small businesses are exempt. There is a big difference, as both I and Detlef have pointed out.

thats the point you are missing...you and detlef are not a small business by definition so just accept it and move on

[detlef]

thats the point you are missing...you and detlef are not a small business by definition so just accept it and move on

Then why bother discussing anything here? I mean, the government has a stance or definition on pretty much everything we argue about here. Why argue about Bush's tax cuts? He made them, move on. Why argue about whether we should be in Iraq, we're there, move on. Why thank Nancy Pelosi, she allegedly hates America, move on. Why argue about any laws at all? The government has spoken, move on.

 

Well considering that pretty much none of us on any side of the political fence is 100% cool with what the government is doing, we come here and argue about it.

 

That's the point you're missing.

[alexgaddis]

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.

Noramlly I would totally agree, but she wasn't a permanent employee...

[Savage Beatings]

I love being a man.

[Pope Flick]

Popeflick, you didn't answer my question in this regard. You just smugly pointed to the fact that we all pay into a government organization that makes sure employers suck it up on behalf of pregnant women. Not a government organization that actually sucks it up on behalf of pregnant women. Big difference.

 

 

OK - boo hoo on you. I went point by point, not smugly, and perhaps missed the distinction you were trying to make. You're lucky I did that at all, given the condescending 'koombaya" tone/label you tried to stick on me with your questions. I think the EEOC has made itself pretty clear with stuff like this, it's a position I approve of and think it's adequate in this regard.

 

If I put my money where my mouth is, do I lose 2% if I use a credit card?

[detlef]

OK - boo hoo on you. I went point by point, not smugly, and perhaps missed the distinction you were trying to make. You're lucky I did that at all, given the condescending 'koombaya" tone/label you tried to stick on me with your questions. I think the EEOC has made itself pretty clear with stuff like this, it's a position I approve of and think it's adequate in this regard.

 

If I put my money where my mouth is, do I lose 2% if I use a credit card?

OK, so you still haven't answered the question. Tone or no tone. The point is simply this. It's pretty easy to act high and mighty about how society should accommodate the choice for people to have children when society as a whole volunteers a very small segment of it to bear the brunt of that standard.

 

That's really all I'm saying. If society as a whole doesn't want to "penalize" someone for having a kid, why not let society as a whole pay for it?