I think I got fired...is this right????

[MushyMushy]

I have no advice about the job situation, but what you said about going ahead and trying what you knew you shouldn't be doing really concerned me. Don't let anybody try to convince you to do any of that lifting or bending! Think of your health first.

I think what they're doing is, at the very least, ethically wrong.

Good luck. I hope you get it straightened out.

 

[happygirl]

I think I would check out short term disability

 

[DizBelle]

Have you filed for FMLA yet? Has anyone ever offered to tell you about FMLA? It stands for Family Medical Leave Act. Technically, if you file for FMLA for a legitamate medical condition or a medical condition of a family member, the company cannot terminate your employment because of excessive absenteeism related to the FMLA condition. Pregnancy itself would not qualify for FMLA, but complications with the pregnancy would.

I would be putting a call in to your state's labor department and inquiring as to your rights. If another employee all of a sudden has a back or joint problem that prohibits them from lifting & bending, would they be fired?

Just so you know....FMLA guarantees you a leave of absence without worrying about losing your job. It does not guarantee that you will be paid for the time off. That decision is still up to your employer.

Ask your doctor about FMLA!!!

FTR - you are not guaranteed to have a job at all if you are out on FMLA. If you would have been laid off if you were working, you can be laid off while on FMLA.

It also seems that if you are out on FMLA (i.e. not working) you would be laid off ahead of someone else that is working (all other things being equal that is).

 

[DisneyBamaFan]

You version and perspective of the events, as they occurred, is probably very different from that of your employer and HR department. They seem to believe that you are trying to play them. I am not sure how it go to that point, but there is no going back as a respected employee unless you can convince them that this is not the case.

The "no light duty" possibility exists, but it usually has to be specified in an HR policy. A letter to a single employee is not a company policy.

As for FMLA, it does not protect your job indefinitely.

I would suggest filling out FMLA paperwork and STD paperwork. Then search for another job...

 

[WDSearcher]

I can't really tell from the OP original description of events ... so I'll ask. OP -- was there ever a moment when you asked your boss or the HR folks, "So ... what are my options?" Thereby putting it in their court and having them tell you what WAS possible under company guidelines? This is usually a great way to go about things, because you're kind of forcing them to tell you what is and isn't allowed, and the onus is on them to tell you what can and cannot happen. It sounds as though you've been reactive through all of this and not proactive. Maybe that needs to change.

Clearly, the company believes that if you cannot do the entire job, then you cannot do any of the job. And by you coming back over and over again with doctors' notes, it probably appears to them like you are just trying to find the right combination of words that will work. Now ... also clearly ... doctors' notes that note specific restrictions are allowed, since why tell you to get a doctors' note if such things don't carry any weight?

My suggestion would be to schedule a meeting with HR and relate your current health concerns, matter-of-factly. Explain that you enjoy your job and this company and that you want to continue. And then ask them what your options are. If you have no options, then there's your answer. If they say, "You must do all of the job or none of it", remind them that there is one segment of the job that you cannot do and then ask them what option you have if that part of the job is not available to you. If they say "You have no options, we're sorry", then you're stuck. But right now, you're kind of going in as the scolded child, trying to find the magic formula that will work to fix the situation. You need to go in as a responsible adult, fully aware of your limitations physically, and ask them how to fix it. You may get no help at all, and then you're really no worse off than before. But then again ... they might surprise you.

Good luck!

 

[ChrizJen]

"The primary law prohibiting adverse employment actions against pregnant employees is the federal Pregnancy Discrimination Act (PDA), which amended Title VII of the Civil Rights Act to recognize discrimination based on pregnancy as a form of sex discrimination. The PDA applies to employers with 15 or more employees and requires covered employers to treat women affected by pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions in the same manner as other applicants or employees with temporary disabilities."

The key here is how does your employer treat people when they have other kinds of temporary disability? Like, if you broke a bone or had a muscle strain or whatever and brought a note, would they exempt you from doing one of the different tasks you do? Historically, have they exempted other employees from stuff like that because of temporary physical problems such as injuries? According to law, your employer must treat you the same way as they would when someone had this type of temporary physical disability.

I agree with some of the others -- talk to HR all the way up the chain and make sure they know that this is a serious legal issue and you want to be allowed to go back to work and do your job. Then, if they don't let you back to work, and you think what has happened falls under the civil rights act as described above, find yourself a lawyer, ASAP!

The bottom line in my eyes here is that the OP's employer did make an exception for another pregnant employee (and actually made an exception for the OP for a time if I read correctly). As others have posted, employers do have the right to deny you work if you're not able to perform your full duties. But once they've made an exception for anyone, they must make it for everyone. That's where they made their mistake. It would be discrimination plain and simple to make accommodations for one employee and not make the same accommodations for another. And she's also got them on the fact that they have no written policies on this issue. If employees were not made aware of a policy, and nothing was put in writing, then it cannot be enforced.

OP, definitely don't let this one go. They do not have the right to terminate you in this case. Under normal circumstances, if they had a written policy that you agreed to by signing, and if they had never made an exception for another employee, then they may be within their rights. But you've got reason to fight this.

Oh, and by the way, Congrats on the baby boy!!

 

[DisneyBamaFan]

The bottom line in my eyes here is that the OP's employer did make an exception for another pregnant employee (and actually made an exception for the OP for a time if I read correctly). As others have posted, employers do have the right to deny you work if you're not able to perform your full duties. But once they've made an exception for anyone, they must make it for everyone. That's where they made their mistake. It would be discrimination plain and simple to make accommodations for one employee and not make the same accommodations for another. And she's also got them on the fact that they have no written policies on this issue. If employees were not made aware of a policy, and nothing was put in writing, then it cannot be enforced.

Not necessarily. Employers are allowed to use discretion where no standing policy exists. They just have to prove that the situations differed.

IMO, the OP made a huge mistake when she tried to get multiple doctor's notes to gain the exclusion that she wanted. This will look very suspicious to a judge and a jury. A good lawyer can really make that look bad...

 

[themarquis]

The bottom line in my eyes here is that the OP's employer did make an exception for another pregnant employee (and actually made an exception for the OP for a time if I read correctly). As others have posted, employers do have the right to deny you work if you're not able to perform your full duties. But once they've made an exception for anyone, they must make it for everyone. That's where they made their mistake. It would be discrimination plain and simple to make accommodations for one employee and not make the same accommodations for another. And she's also got them on the fact that they have no written policies on this issue. If employees were not made aware of a policy, and nothing was put in writing, then it cannot be enforced.

OP, definitely don't let this one go. They do not have the right to terminate you in this case. Under normal circumstances, if they had a written policy that you agreed to by signing, and if they had never made an exception for another employee, then they may be within their rights. But you've got reason to fight this.

Oh, and by the way, Congrats on the baby boy!!

Yes, I agree. It sounds like from the description the OP gave, HR generally gives a certain kind of accommodation (or at least they have in the past) but they are refusing to give it to the OP.

Legally, it is fairly clear that they need to be consistent -- i.e., if anybody who can't do the full job gets terminated, then they can terminate the OP, that's totally fine, but if people who can't do the full job are exempted from certain tasks, then the OP should be exempted. Legally, they are in hot water when they start being completely inconsistent like this, because it amounts to disability-based discrimination. When everybody is treated consistently at a company, even if it sucks for them because they get laid off if they can't do the job, it is not discriminatory.

Re: some posters who are attempting to claim that it's basically the OP's fault for "choosing to get pregnant" (not sure what she is supposed to do -- keep lifting heavy boxes till she miscarries right there at work 'cuz it's her own darn fault anyway ??? ) fortunately, the law doesn't define pregnancy that way. It is on her side.

 

[SydneyBristow]

I'm sorry this is happening to you. It does sound like you're better off without them though, the stress alone can cause health problems and it's just not worth it.

 

[MelanieC]

Sorry you are going through this. It really stinks. I'd pursue this, but at some point I wouldn't want to work for a company who did this for me. My company goes out of their way for people who are pregnant and will hold a job for MANY months. Very sad you are being put through this.

 

[Teejay32]

I'm not an HR manager, but I share an office with one, and it sounds to me like a workman's comp lawsuit now, the company having forced the issue. It also sounds like they figured that out for themselves and are now in CYA mode.

 

[joyjoy]

I'm not an HR manager, but I share an office with one, and it sounds to me like a workman's comp lawsuit now, the company having forced the issue. It also sounds like they figured that out for themselves and are now in CYA mode.

Workers' Comp is for injuries sustained on the job that render a person unable to work. That doesn't seem to apply here.

Another HR point to make is that employers' do not have to have a specific policy for every single situation, if they can prove that there is "past practice" of doing things a certain way.

 

[bumbershoot]

"why can they say that its not okay for me to work but my friend who was pregnant awhile ago had a restriction for one specific job as well and they let her work up until the day her son was born?"


Some are assuming the friend was cleared from doing the exact same thing you're asking to be cleared from doing. I don't get that from your post.


I wonder if, when the company did let your friend not do that duty, if that is what caused them to change their policy? If it caused enough problems that they did not want it to happen again?

I know that pregnant people are protected, but I remember well a pg friend falling asleep at her desk, sleeping through alarms that she set while taking naps on her 15 minute breaks (which caused us to have to "be" her alarm if we could step away from our desks), having to hang up during phone calls with customers when she had to use the bathroom...those things were VERY disrupting to the rest of us, and none of us would have been allowed to do that. We had to pick up her slack, and although we adored her, and her baby was 'baby voodoo' at our wedding (DS is a honeymoon baby) after dancing with that baby on my hip, it was still difficult to watch her get away with flat out NOT doing her job but not getting disciplined for it. (and when I got pg I experienced exhaustion and needing the bathroom like crazy, but I couldn't even have made it through a job interview let alone an 8 hour shift, so I couldn't have worked a job at all and didn't)

So if your friend's excuse from whatever duty she was excused from caused problems, they could very well have decided "no more". And you not being scheduled for the bend/twist duty might have been coincidental since you did say it was something that was only introduced to your job duties a year ago.

It's possible they are doing something wrong, but it's also possible they've learned a lesson and just won't allow people to do only part of their jobs anymore.


I do agree with DisneyBamaFan, though...even if you "win" this one, your rep will be shot. I've seen it happen at hubby's jobs time and time again. Someone wins something at the expense of their rep, that someone is first on the chopping block when layoffs come around. He was actually on the chopping block, but chose to do what DisneyBamaFan suggests, and he went out and found another job before anyone was able to get rid of him.

 

[friendofgusgus]

I was thinking about this thread while I was at lunch and something occurred to me that hasn't been mentioned yet.

Maybe the other employees who need to perform the one task are the ones complaining?

That would put the company in an awkward position - especially if they have not been consistent with past practice. If that's the case, then this may become policy quickly - and they can require that you need to be able to perform the fundamental job duties in order to remain in it, AFAIK.

Just a thought.

 

[daisax]

it sounds to me like a workman's comp lawsuit now,

I can only think of one line of work where worker's comp would be pertinent, and I'm guessing that's not part of the OP's job description!

 

[des1954]

FTR - you are not guaranteed to have a job at all if you are out on FMLA. If you would have been laid off if you were working, you can be laid off while on FMLA.

It also seems that if you are out on FMLA (i.e. not working) you would be laid off ahead of someone else that is working (all other things being equal that is).

This is very true. What FMLA guarantees is that you cannot be fired or harrassed strictly based on absenteeism for the ailment stated on the FMLA papers. I.E. You have FMLA for say.... chronic sinusitis. No matter how many times you call out sick due to the sinusitis, those hours have to be logged separately from other absenteeisms. If you end up in the hospital due to say... pneumonia while approved for FMLA for sinusitis, the FMLA will not cover the pneumonia. You have to file separate FMLA papers for each health issue.

Each state has their own definition as to how lay-off's are determined - unless you are under a union contract - then the contract agreement takes precedent over state regulations. In the state of Florida, an employer does not have to give a reason for terminating your employment. If you feel you've been terminated because of an ailment covered by FMLA, you have to file a lawsuit to either get your job back or for monetary compensation for lost wages until you are employed elsewhere.

 

[VickiVM]

Per DOL website:

The Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) provides certain employees with up to 12 weeks of unpaid, job-protected leave per year. It also requires that their group health benefits be maintained during the leave.

FMLA is designed to help employees balance their work and family responsibilities by allowing them to take reasonable unpaid leave for certain family and medical reasons. It also seeks to accommodate the legitimate interests of employers and promote equal employment opportunity for men and women.

FMLA applies to all public agencies, all public and private elementary and secondary schools, and companies with 50 or more employees. These employers must provide an eligible employee with up to 12 weeks of unpaid leave each year for any of the following reasons:

for the birth and care of the newborn child of an employee;
for placement with the employee of a child for adoption or foster care;
to care for an immediate family member (spouse, child, or parent) with a serious health condition; or
to take medical leave when the employee is unable to work because of a serious health condition.
Employees are eligible for leave if they have worked for their employer at least 12 months, at least 1,250 hours over the past 12 months, and work at a location where the company employs 50 or more employees within 75 miles. Whether an employee has worked the minimum 1,250 hours of service is determined according to FLSA principles for determining compensable hours or work.

Time taken off work due to pregnancy complications can be counted against the 12 weeks of family and medical leave.

A final rule effective on January 16, 2009, updates the FMLA regulations to implement new military family leave entitlements enacted under the National Defense Authorization Act for FY 2008.

Special rules apply to employees of local education agencies. The Department of Labor administers FMLA; however, the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) administers FMLA for most federal employees.

OP - if you feel you've been denied your rights under FMLA protection, it costs nothing to file a claim with EEO and they will investigate. Although it is not illegal to lay off someone while they are out on FMLA, there has to be a reason completely not associated with the LOA to begin with such as company downsizing. What a company perceives as legitimate may not be legal by DOL standards. I work in HR for a major national co.

 

[goofyernmost]

I think if you are forced to do the duties your doctor has exempted you from, your employer is staring down the barrel of a shot-gun lawsuit, should any harm come to you or your baby. Hang in there!!!

To the OP who made the remark about "choosing" to put one self in a position for another possible "high-risk" pregnancy,,,, BULL!!! That was an insensitive remark that was uncalled for. Just because one pregnancy is high-risk does not predicate all pregnancies as being high-risk. We live in the 21st century for God's sake,,,, not back in the 70's when employers could terminate you just because you were pregnant!! I suppose you also feel that all women should stay at home, be good little women, treat their man right, and remain silent!! Geesh!!!

Speaking of BULL...the world does not owe everyone a living. Suppose you were staring down the barrel because you needed to "force" the person to do something that could be harmful to mother and baby. If you didn't have another available job for her, what would you do? Not everyone can do a job if they have a physical problem. A deaf person would probably not get a job conducting an orchestra. A person with no arms cannot drive a bus. If you cannot do it, you cannot do it. Simple! You need a different job. The provisions provided by Workers Comp are the ones that protect one from job loss because the injury occurred during working situations. Other than that, in most states, the employer is not required to "make work" or "adjust activities" to fit the employee. Usually because this means that some other person must either be inconvenienced or forced to do something that they were not hired to do. The idea of being trained in other areas is usually a plus but if the present need of the company is not in those other areas then they are paying you to do what they need done.

To say that mentioning the "high risk" pregnancy is insensitive, is also BULL. I didn't have a problem with the person deciding to have a child regardless of the risk, my complaint is when the individual expects everyone else to carry the burden of their decision. How does everyone feel about having to support the 8 children that the lady from California just had. She made a personal decision that the rest of us have to pay for. Sorry, that doesn't float for me.

Most states have an "at will" policy when it comes to employment unless they are obligated by other agreements such as a union contract. They would not be letting her go because she is pregnant...technically it is because she can no longer do the job that she was being paid to do. I know that seems unfair to the employee, but only if one thinks that we are owed a living.

I suppose you also feel that all women should stay at home, be good little women, treat their man right, and remain silent!!

As the Father of two grown women, I find that statement insensitive and hurtful. We are not talking about sexes here, we are talking about one's ability to do a specific job. Male or Female! It just happens that we are talking about a female in this case. Geesh!

 

[Mom2Nick]

OP - if you feel you've been denied your rights under FMLA protection, it costs nothing to file a claim with EEO and they will investigate. Although it is not illegal to lay off someone while they are out on FMLA, there has to be a reason completely not associated with the LOA to begin with such as company downsizing. What a company perceives as legitimate may not be legal by DOL standards. I work in HR for a major national co.

The OP has already indicated that she is not eligible for FMLA as she does not work enough hours in a year to qualify.

 

[maccagerl]

Speaking of BULL...the world does not owe everyone a living. Suppose you were staring down the barrel because you needed to "force" the person to do something that could be harmful to mother and baby. If you didn't have another available job for her, what would you do? Not everyone can do a job if they have a physical problem. A deaf person would probably not get a job conducting an orchestra. A person with no arms cannot drive a bus. If you cannot do it, you cannot do it. Simple! You need a different job. The provisions provided by Workers Comp are the ones that protect one from job loss because the injury occurred during working situations. Other than that, in most states, the employer is not required to "make work" or "adjust activities" to fit the employee. Usually because this means that some other person must either be inconvenienced or forced to do something that they were not hired to do. The idea of being trained in other areas is usually a plus but if the present need of the company is not in those other areas then they are paying you to do what they need done.

To say that mentioning the "high risk" pregnancy is insensitive, is also BULL. I didn't have a problem with the person deciding to have a child regardless of the risk, my complaint is when the individual expects everyone else to carry the burden of their decision. How does everyone feel about having to support the 8 children that the lady from California just had. She made a personal decision that the rest of us have to pay for. Sorry, that doesn't float for me.

Most states have an "at will" policy when it comes to employment unless they are obligated by other agreements such as a union contract. They would not be letting her go because she is pregnant...technically it is because she can no longer do the job that she was being paid to do. I know that seems unfair to the employee, but only if one thinks that we are owed a living.



As the Father of two grown women, I find that statement insensitive and hurtful. We are not talking about sexes here, we are talking about one's ability to do a specific job. Male or Female! It just happens that we are talking about a female in this case. Geesh!

From your sig:
"Older mans body, young childs spirit!!"

You might want to change that to "Older man's body, bitter old man's spirit"