Woman was fired because of her little kids

[kaytieeldr]

Would FMLA be able to be used in this type of situation?

Nope. Family Medical Leave Act wouldn't apply, since there's no medical condition to be taken care of. Nursing a child doesn't qualify. Presumably, she was physically back in the office between the end of maternity leave and the start of the shutdown. She found a way to feed him then.

 

[Brianstl]

Maybe the problem was she was making social media posts of pictures of her outside when she was supposed to be working at home.

 

[tzolkin]

She wasn’t fired because of her kids, she was fired for not doing her job.

Thank you. She also wasn't fired because she's a mom/female. I know my personality is more practical and logical than most so that's sometimes perceived as being "harsh". But the reality in this situation is that an employer is not going to pay someone who is not doing their job. If you cannot fulfill the responsibilities of your job description, then you should not continue to be employed.

ETA: Some information from the article that indicates that it was definitely not just about the kids "making noise" were that she was only available 3 hours per day to take calls and that she was enrolled in a mandatory time management class. Both of those details indicate clearly that she was not doing her job (aside from the noisy interruptions).

Anecdotally, I’m seeing the “who leaves the workforce” debate happen real time with many of my friends and co-workers. Childcare availability and reliability is atrocious is some areas, and not everyone lives by family.

I have a co-worker who is a father to two young kids (first and second grade). His wife makes more than he does and her job is where they get health insurance from. They’re having difficulty with daycare (no family nearby, problems finding consistent care that doesn’t get shut down because of a covid connection). If schools are online this fall, he has said he will need to take a leave of absence or quit, because of the two of them, they need her job more.

If my husband and I had young kids, we would be in the same position as my co-worker (no family nearby, just relocated). I get paid more than my husband, and my job is where our health insurance is. My husband would be the one to quit.

That may seem to show the opposite of what I stated first about women leaving the workforce, but consider this: the decisions above would be based on income and benefits.

The fact is that women make, on average, less than men. You can argue about how women tend to take lower-paying jobs than men, but if it comes down to a situation where someone in a man-woman relationship has to quit to take care of kids, it is more likely going to be the woman.

This is why I always thought it was ridiculous that many people think of being a stay-at-home parent as always being a luxury resulting from having lots of money. Sure, in some instances that is true. But for most people I have known it was a practical decision that had to be made because they did not have access to reliable or affordable childcare.

The numbers are definitely skewed more toward women being the primary childcare providers, but I have several family and friends where the dad stayed home because the mom had a higher paying job.

 

[Kestryl]

Whereas it should be, as with your co-worker, the person whose income/benefits have laws effect on the family.

Right, but again, on average women make less than men. So if we assume that in a man-woman partnership with young kids that the woman will generally make less than the man, if they are faced with the binary choice of choosing who should stay home with the kids, it will likely be the woman.

 

[LuvOrlando]

This has been very curious, not so much for this particular person but because of the point of views on responsibility in a crisis. I was a SAHM so this never would have applied to me, nonetheless I will advocate for working moms because I worry that as things grow more cut-throat it'll be way too easy to shove women in front of the bus for layoffs. Not a fan

I wonder, if this mess doesn't magically go away and schools do open but end up being a hotbed driving cases sky high and are forced to close, who will be ok with taking on other people's kids then? Probably very few caregivers will tolerate the risk so prices go up as a sort of hazard pay and less affluent families get stuck. If employers aren't expected to bend and countless primary caregivers end up with kids in October or November how does that play out? There will be a really high number of primary caregivers unemployed short term, which could become long term and then things could just go very very wrong and be very very expensive. So maybe it does go away, that would be great, I think we are all hoping for it, but if not shouldn't we hedge out bets just a smidge and get out in front of the curve?

 

[mom2rtk]

This has been very curious, not so much for this particular person but because of the point of views on responsibility in a crisis. I was a SAHM so this never would have applied to me, nonetheless I will advocate for working moms because I worry that as things grow more cut-throat it'll be way too easy to shove women in front of the bus for layoffs. Not a fan

I wonder, if this mess doesn't magically go away and schools do open but end up being a hotbed driving cases sky high and are forced to close, who will be ok with taking on other people's kids then? Probably very few caregivers will tolerate the risk so prices go up as a sort of hazard pay and less affluent families get stuck. If employers aren't expected to bend and countless primary caregivers end up with kids in October or November how does that play out? There will be a really high number of primary caregivers unemployed short term, which could become long term and then things could just go very very wrong and be very very expensive. So maybe it does go away, that would be great, I think we are all hoping for it, but if not shouldn't we hedge out bets just a smidge and get out in front of the curve?

I guess we'll have to cross that bridge when we get to it? In the meantime, employers should be as accommodating as possible, and employees should make a good faith effort to remedy the situation. She's had 4 months to come up with something. It's not like they closed up the office and immediately expected her to have a plan in place.

I altered my entire career path when we had kids so that one of us in the house would have flexible work hours. I didn't have a pandemic, but I did have 3 kids and knew kids get sick and lots of things happen to the best laid plans.

 

[Colleen27]

Right, but again, on average women make less than men. So if we assume that in a man-woman partnership with young kids that the woman will generally make less than the man, if they are faced with the binary choice of choosing who should stay home with the kids, it will likely be the woman.

And just like so many other things about this situation, that's going to have ripple effects that last a long, long time because any time away from the workforce carries a lifelong earnings penalty, reduces social security payments, and in many cases, creates a higher level of vulnerability should the marriage dissolve.

This has been very curious, not so much for this particular person but because of the point of views on responsibility in a crisis. I was a SAHM so this never would have applied to me, nonetheless I will advocate for working moms because I worry that as things grow more cut-throat it'll be way too easy to shove women in front of the bus for layoffs. Not a fan

I wonder, if this mess doesn't magically go away and schools do open but end up being a hotbed driving cases sky high and are forced to close, who will be ok with taking on other people's kids then? Probably very few caregivers will tolerate the risk so prices go up as a sort of hazard pay and less affluent families get stuck. If employers aren't expected to bend and countless primary caregivers end up with kids in October or November how does that play out? There will be a really high number of primary caregivers unemployed short term, which could become long term and then things could just go very very wrong and be very very expensive. So maybe it does go away, that would be great, I think we are all hoping for it, but if not shouldn't we hedge out bets just a smidge and get out in front of the curve?

I'm with you. I've been a SAHM or freelancer for most of my kids' lives so I've had the luxury of a lot of flexibility, but I'm very concerned about what I see coming. I think this is likely to set back efforts toward workplace equality significantly as more and more women find themselves in the untenable position of trying to show "personal responsibility" in their jobs and parenting at a time when school and childcare providers are inherently unreliable if not entirely unavailable and relying on traditional back-up plans like grandparents or other older relatives are ill-advised because of virus risk. It is going to put a lot of people, disproportionately female, in an impossible position when it comes to trying to find reliable enough care to maintain their jobs.

 

[sam_gordon]

This has been very curious, not so much for this particular person but because of the point of views on responsibility in a crisis. I was a SAHM so this never would have applied to me, nonetheless I will advocate for working moms because I worry that as things grow more cut-throat it'll be way too easy to shove women in front of the bus for layoffs. Not a fan

I wonder, if this mess doesn't magically go away and schools do open but end up being a hotbed driving cases sky high and are forced to close, who will be ok with taking on other people's kids then? Probably very few caregivers will tolerate the risk so prices go up as a sort of hazard pay and less affluent families get stuck. If employers aren't expected to bend and countless primary caregivers end up with kids in October or November how does that play out? There will be a really high number of primary caregivers unemployed short term, which could become long term and then things could just go very very wrong and be very very expensive. So maybe it does go away, that would be great, I think we are all hoping for it, but if not shouldn't we hedge out bets just a smidge and get out in front of the curve?

Should employers be willing to "bend" to help accommodate their employees? Yes. But should employees take advantage of the "bending" so everything is to their benefit? No. Did this woman ask that she work different hours (maybe a split shift)? Is it possible that shift doesn't benefit the business at all (again, no good having an employee at work at 6a if there's no work to do until 8a for example)?

I don't think it should matter whether a male or female asks for the accommodation. They should be treated equally.

 

[tzolkin]

This has been very curious, not so much for this particular person but because of the point of views on responsibility in a crisis. I was a SAHM so this never would have applied to me, nonetheless I will advocate for working moms because I worry that as things grow more cut-throat it'll be way too easy to shove women in front of the bus for layoffs. Not a fan

I am a feminist and I agree with your comments on advocating for working moms. I certainly do think that there should be some accommodations and the responsibility shouldn't completely fall on the mom in this crisis that she could not have prepared for in advance.

I guess her tone throughout the article and some of her mommy blogging just leaves me with the impression that she was being unrealistic about her employer having basic expectations and that she is an attention seeker.

The photo of her daughter with a sign, "My mommy got fired because her boss didn't want to hear me" makes me roll my eyes. I really don't believe that's why the woman was fired, but even if so I really dislike using your kids to try to pull at people's heartstrings.

Some of her comments throughout the article like asking the boss, "What do you want me to do? Lock the baby in a room?" make her seem like a drama queen that I would not want to be working with.

In the article she alleges that the boss repeatedly scheduled meetings during lunch time "when the kids were cranky", but she has a May 6th blog post bragging about what a great quarantine mom she is for making all these cute picnic lunches and states that they have gone for a 3 mile walk to a horse farm every single day for the last 39 days. The walk itself would take at least an hour, add in time to eat, play, and take photos (which she emphasizes since you have to document this "historic" time). It really makes me question if the real reason she didn't want to take the calls is because she just wanted to do fun stuff all day and was annoyed that the boss was interrupting her family time with work obligations.

 

[Mackenzie Click-Mickelson]

she has a May 6th blog post bragging about what a great quarantine mom she is for making all these cute picnic lunches and states that they have gone for a 3 mile walk to a horse farm every single day for the last 39 days. The walk itself would take at least an hour, add in time to eat, play, and take photos (which she emphasizes since you have to document this "historic" time). It really makes me question if the real reason she didn't want to take the calls is because she just wanted to do fun stuff all day and was annoyed that the boss was interrupting her family time with work obligations.

I didn't know that about her blog..well then why is she complaining that she's had to buy lots of stuff to entertain her kids and she blames her boss for that too. Seems like she was doing quite fine portraying a certain pandemic-lifestyle for her readers.

IMO she's not the type of person you'd want to use as an example for legitimate issues regarding how this pandemic has affected working parents. Maybe there is a better one this thread could be about? No offense OP.

 

[Kestryl]

This is why I always thought it was ridiculous that many people think of being a stay-at-home parent as always being a luxury resulting from having lots of money. Sure, in some instances that is true. But for most people I have known it was a practical decision that had to be made because they did not have access to reliable or affordable childcare.

The numbers are definitely skewed more toward women being the primary childcare providers, but I have several family and friends where the dad stayed home because the mom had a higher paying job.

Me too! My mom has the higher paying job. My dad basically had a part time job, so he did all the soccer/band practice runs and what not. I think it’s great when people are able to see all kinds of ways families can work. I have a distant relative whose wife thinks that a woman’s place is only in the home. Her entire family was like that- mom stayed home, dad worked. She was floored when she met me and asked me when I planned to quit and have kids and I told her that if either of us stayed home it would be my husband.

 

[HopperFan]

School was out for tons of teenagers. Tons of teenagers lost their typical teen jobs. She needed to find someone to come in and babysit. She would have needed daycare before any of this, so the money for child care must be there in the budget.

No, it's not ideal having another person in your house. But lots about this isn't ideal. They gave her ample time to address the situation.

Especially since she said she was spending so much money on stuff that would keep them busy. 1 and 4 ... stuff isn't the answer, a person was. Like you say there were tons who needed jobs and were sitting at home. She could have made it safely work.

 

[ScottOKW2K]

https://nypost.com/2020/07/02/i-was-fired-from-my-job-because-my-kids-were-noisy-during-calls/
I once had a neurologist (for migraines) invite me to reschedule to another time when I had a sitter because my toddlers were, well, toddlers. Responded SHARPLY that it was easier to get a new neurologist, and I did. Not a fan of this sort of human.

I have a question for you about this situation. I don't have migraines but know several family members that do. I know from their comments and experiences that when suffering from migraines they were very sensitive to light and sound - they only wanted to be in a dark, quiet room. If he was a neurologist treating migraines I would reasonably assume that he had other patients also present at his practice being treated for the same thing. Would it not have been reasonable to expect that he didn't want toddlers there not because they were toddlers ,but that the noise from a normal 4 year old would have been a source of pain and discomfort for the patients he is treating?

 

[mjkacmom]

Especially since she said she was spending so much money on stuff that would keep them busy. 1 and 4 ... stuff isn't the answer, a person was. Like you say there were tons who needed jobs and were sitting at home. She could have made it safely work.

On my local Facebook page there are more people looking to babysit than there are those needing baby sitters.

 

[ronandannette]

...IMO she's not the type of person you'd want to use as an example for legitimate issues regarding how this pandemic has affected working parents. Maybe there is a better one this thread could be about? No offense OP.

Love this!

 

[LuvOrlando]

^So who is a better example? I'm sure there are many examples, sort of weird the employer/employee dilemma is so quiet.

When I read the article it was interesting, not in a lasting way but just sort of a hmmmm, boss is a jerk, sort of way. Then the comments ended up being way more curious than the article itself because the vitriol was unexpected so that's that. Wasn't looking for a poster child, if so I guess you are right there would have been better options because of the blogging, didn't know that was the kiss ofdeath but I guess it means no-one who blogs is credible.

Still, this issue of parents and kids isn't likely to go away, do bosses bend or do we make room for lots of unemployed families in our state budgets. People either have jobs within the household or they end up on some sort of support, it's binary

 

[sam_gordon]

do bosses bend or do we make room for lots of unemployed families in our state budgets

Why are the bosses the only ones that have to bend? Shouldn't BOTH sides (employer AND employee) be willing to "bend" to find a solution that is beneficial to both of them?

 

[mjkacmom]

^So who is a better example? I'm sure there are many examples, sort of weird the employer/employee dilemma is so quiet.

When I read the article it was interesting, not in a lasting way but just sort of a hmmmm, boss is a jerk, sort of way. Then the comments ended up being way more curious than the article itself because the vitriol was unexpected so that's that. Wasn't looking for a poster child, if so I guess you are right there would have been better options because of the blogging, didn't know that was the kiss ofdeath but I guess it means no-one who blogs is credible.

Still, this issue of parents and kids isn't likely to go away, do bosses bend or do we make room for lots of unemployed families in our state budgets. People either have jobs within the household or they end up on some sort of support, it's binary

My husband’s large financial services company offered 90% of the employees a very generous severance package if they would quit (1 1/2 years pay and I think 2 years of health insurance). Right now is the time to show how valuable you are as an employee.

 

[tzolkin]

...but I guess it means no-one who blogs is credible.

I brought up the blogging and, no, I certainly didn't mean a broad sweeping judgment of every blogger. I was only referring to this woman in this particular situation.

To me, it seems ridiculous to be posting like you're a super mom for being excellent at keeping your kids occupied during quarantine and then be filing a lawsuit saying you were fired because your kids were interrupting your work.

She claims in the blog that they haven't missed their lengthy lunch walk/picnic/activity one single day ("rain or shine"), but in the article about the lawsuit she claims that the boss repeatedly scheduled meetings "during lunchtime when her kids were hungry and impatient". Both of those claims cannot be true. Either she's exaggerating that she's out "making memories and living history" every day at lunchtime during the quarantine or she's making up an excuse for having interruptions (and isn't really on work calls during lunchtime).

The article also says she was required to enroll in time management training. I can only assume that was mandated because she was not getting her work done and wasn't managing her time-- not because her kids were being noisy. So if you really got fired because you weren't doing your job (or due to financial cutbacks as the company claims), I just don't agree with using your kids to get sympathy for your lawsuit.

 

[Searc]

I brought up the blogging and, no, I certainly didn't mean a broad sweeping judgment of every blogger. I was only referring to this woman in this particular situation.

To me, it seems ridiculous to be posting like you're a super mom for being excellent at keeping your kids occupied during quarantine and then be filing a lawsuit saying you were fired because your kids were interrupting your work.

She claims in the blog that they haven't missed their lengthy lunch walk/picnic/activity one single day ("rain or shine"), but in the article about the lawsuit she claims that the boss repeatedly scheduled meetings "during lunchtime when her kids were hungry and impatient". Both of those claims cannot be true. Either she's exaggerating that she's out "making memories and living history" every day at lunchtime during the quarantine or she's making up an excuse for having interruptions (and isn't really on work calls during lunchtime).

The article also says she was required to enroll in time management training. I can only assume that was mandated because she was not getting her work done and wasn't managing her time-- not because her kids were being noisy. So if you really got fired because you weren't doing your job (or due to financial cutbacks as the company claims), I just don't agree with using your kids to get sympathy for your lawsuit.

Ah, but if she does that, then she doesn't have to take any responsibility for being a terrible, unavailable employee. It's because her boss is a jerk, it has nothing to do with her unprofessional behavior.