Need some lawyer type advice

[tonyr0802]

Looking to get some advice from any lawyers we may have here at the huddle.

 

My wife, who is 8 months pregnant, was just notified that she's going to be a part of a job reduction, about 50 people will be notified tomorrow that they are losing their jobs. She works in HR so they brought her in and notified her today. Because she's pregnant they are going to allow her to continue working until she delivers and then allow her to stay on payroll through her short term disability period of recovery and once she's release to return to work they will officially end her employment with them.

 

While on the surface it appears the company is trying to be nice by not letting her go now, during her pregnancy, I feel it's more of a CYA move on their part. By not officially letting her go while she's pregnant they could be covering themselves from any action that could be taken against them.

 

My question to you lawyer types out there is, do we have any grievance that could be filed against the company or have they successfully covered themselves to prevent it? Indiana law applies here in case it helps.

[yo mama]

While pregnancy is a "protected class" (like race, religion, etc), once you raised a prima facie case that she was fired because she was pregnant (basically, a mere allegation coupled with the fact that your wife is, in fact, pregnant) then the company would be given an opportunity to show she was fired for some other (non-discriminatory) reason. The burden would then shift back to you to convince a judge/jury that their reason is BS - and that she was really fired because of the pregnancy.

 

That said, if your wife is merely one of 50 people who are getting laid off you've likely got an uphill battle, unless everyone who is getting fired is similarly a member of a protected class. (If that were the case you'd probably be able to infer that layoffs, even if necessary, put people of protected classes on the firing line first, which might be enough to ring the bell).

 

I dunno, you can sue anyone for anything in this country and try to shake them down. But without some factual evidence that your wife was let go because of her pregnancy the company will likely point to financial need, bad economy, and the fact that 50 people were let go; so they weren't discriminating against your wife on an individual basis (i.e., that she would have been let go regardless). The case might be easier if your wife was the only person who was let go. Regardless, being a member of a protected class only means you can't be treated worse than everyone else; it doesn't entitle to you preferential treatment. And believe me, the company will do all they can to show that they nevertheless gave your wife preferential treatment compared to the non-protected class folks who got canned.

 

Of course, I don't know anything about Indiana state law, which may provide for different causes of action. Also, if your wife had an employment contract that might also afford her a separate cause of action.

Edited October 28, 2008 by yo mama

[The Irish Doggy]

Wow, was just covering this sort of thing in class (MBA) yesterday. You'll probably have to check with an Indiana lawyer to be sure. There are certain conditions that have to be met when you release a lot of people at once. So if that 50 is 1/3+ of the workforce, they have to give 60 days notice of layoffs (the WARN Act). Otherwise, you'd probably have to prove discrimination based on some racial, religious, sex, etc. basis. But big companies usually have some sort of criteria for who is let go and stick with it to avoid the action you are considering now.

 

Anyway, this is way shetty timing. I'm sorry you have to go through it.

[Savage Beatings]

Since she is just one of 50 people losing their jobs, I think that they are indeed doing her a favor by allowing her to stay on with them temporarily and keep her health coverage etc. while she's pregnant, and that maybe looking to sue them isn't the best way to repay that favor.

 

I guess if you REALLY believe that she is being let go strictly because she is pregnant, then hey go to town and lawyer up. But it sure doesn't sound that way from your description.

[SEC=UGA]

Up hill Battle, my friend

 

 

Indiana is considered an "employment at-will" state. At-will employees may be terminated for any reason, so long as it's not illegal. Generally, employees who work under an employment contract can only be terminated for reasons specified in the contract. However, in Indiana, the mere fact that an employment contract is in writing is not sufficient to overcome the presumption that the employment is at-will. To overcome this presumption, an employment contract must directly limit, in a meaningful and special way, the employer's right to terminate the employee without cause. In other words, the employer has to unequivocally indicate that it will not terminate the employee except under specific circumstances.

Employee Handbooks

 

While an employer is not required by law to have an employee handbook, in most cases, it is recommended. An employee handbook provides a centralized, complete and certain record of the employer's policies and procedures. An employee handbook also provides more convenient access by employees and managers.

 

At a minimum, an employee handbook should include:

 

A statement regarding the at-will employment relationship

An equal employment opportunity statement

A policy regarding sexual and other types of harassment in the workplace

Internet access, e-mail, and voice mail policies

The Family Medical Leave Act

The laws regarding an employer's duties and responsibilities arising under an employee handbook are complex, and a licensed attorney should be contacted to review individual circumstances.

[Double Agent]

If this were my wife, I'd tell her to search for employment while on maternity leave and let this go. If it were only her being fired, then you may have a cause of action. But sounds like they are doing layoffs and trying to help your wife out in the process. Obviously they're covering their tails too.

[Furd]

What yo mama said. Kinda hard to prove that she is being discriminated against because of her pregnancy if she is 1 of 50, particularly if they let her work longer than the others.

 

It doesn't sound to me that they are "covering themselves" at all.

Edited October 28, 2008 by Furd

[tonyr0802]

Thanks everyone for weighing in. I figured that there likely was no case here, but considering I don't know the laws well enough to make that determination on my own so I wanted to get opinions- and knew here was the place to do it.

 

So far her time with this company has been a good experience for her, and the people do seem nice. That said, it's hard to ever know anymore that someone is truly looking out for you instead of the company. Hence my skepticism on how genuine an action letting her stay on truly was. Had this happened 50 years ago, I'd say it was for sure someone trying to do the right thing in this kind of situation. Hopefully that truly is the intention behind letting her stay on until her pregnancy is over.

 

Thanks again to everyone for replying.

[Grimm74]

Considering the fact that 50 people are being let go does your wife really think she is being discriminated against?