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

[goofyernmost]

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"

I don't think you helped your cause much, but OK for the sake of argument. I am bitter about spending a lifetime trying to do what was needed to support and raise my family. No handouts, no supplements, just working everyday, doing my job only to see today's society thinking that I must now pay their way as well because "they have a self imposed problem".

If that's the case...so be it. I have enough years under my belt to see the difference between real need and entitlement.

 

[Cindy F]

I think in order to understand the whole situation, you probably need to post what jobs you were able to do and what jobs you were not-as well as your job title. It also depends on what your previous work history is.

It sounds as though you are in healthcare? That field is a bit different. We do not allow light duty because it is impossible to ensure limitations are observed while ensuring the safety of the patients.

Example, if a patient begins to fall, you are supposed to try and lower the patient to the floor. This helps to prevent severe injury to the patient as well as the health care worker (lowering instead of trying to "catch" or prevent the fall).

However, if someone is on light duty they would be put in the position of violating their restrictions or allowing the patient to fall. Neither of these options are good for anyone involved including the company. From a strictly business point of view--If you allow light duty and someone violates their restrictions for ethical reasons (i.e. prevent patient harm) and becomes permanently injured- you are now out a good employee..not to mention someone is now injured for life.

As a Chief Nursing Officer, I have probably heard every one-sided story including those that are intended to game the system. It's difficult for anyone not to become jaded and suspicious after awhile. Maybe that is the case with your supervisor?

I hope you have an uneventful pregnancy from here on out and are able to get your FMLA paperwork filed.

 

[cats7494]

Maybe some of this info will help, there's a contact # at the bottom of the page:

http://www.dwd.state.wi.us/ER/discrimination_civil_rights/publication_erd_7550_pweb.htm

I second this post. Also check into Wisconsin Civil Rights Office and see if you can file a discrimination claim.

PM SENT

 

[Teejay32]

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!

Unless I read her wrong, they won't accommodate her condition, they schedule her for jobs other people get to avoid when pregnant, and she can't work if she doesn't do them. Then, there were problems after doing bending & lifting things that her doctor said several times that she shouldn't be doing. Sounds like the beginning of a good case to me.

 

[Stacerita]

Im not sure that the company has to accomadate your situation. If you can't perform your duties, and they can't accomodate you, then you need to take the time off till you can.

 

[raysnkaysmom]

Wow...Ive only read your OP, but

I just turned in a note limiting my hours, but I'm lucky in the fact that they are 'protective' of me doing too much, even when I try to be stubborn in doing it.

I don't have great advice, just to say don't let it go, go as high up as you need to... their reasonings are just ridiculous...

 

[VickiVM]

To the PP. I never said it was my employers fault that I am pregnant. I also am not looking to get rich quick. I just want to do my job. I can do several other jobs within the company. I was not specifically hired to do the one job that is causing me problems. I was not trained on that job until about a year ago and I have worked at the company for almost 5.

Also I was told because I don't work enough hours in a year I do not qualify for any FMLA. I understand that I wouldn't get paid but I wanted some job security. I was told in my first meeting with HR that my job was not guaranteed after the birth of my baby.

Thank you to all of you who have shown support. It's been a very stressful time. Thanks again.

Just curious - how many hours do you work each week on average?

 

[Arielle22]

HR Manager here...for the Federal Government
The OP states that the "rules/ policy" were not written, there was no handbook that was A) signed B) agreed to, explaining that there was no "light duty" work available. If an ammendment is made to said policy or handbook, then it must be agreed to and signed off by each employee making sure they understand new policies.
Plus the OP also stated that a co-worked was able to not perform that certain part of the job when they were pregnant and was never fired. Once the "rules/ policy" is broken for one person, it ceases to exist.
Clearly this rule was broken when the previous employee was not required to complete task "A" because of pregnancy, and it was broken again when the company allowed the OP to not do task "A" for a month. They accomodated her then, they must accomodate her now, unless they want to discriminate- then they are opening up a can of worms. Plus, it is extremely unwise for the HR dept to make her perform task "A" when she and her physician have requested her not to- now they are looking for a Worker's Comp lawsuit...

Speaking as another HR Mgr I have to disagree with your statements.

If there is no handbook then there is no written policy for anything. Since it is not required by law many companies do not have written handbooks. Nevertheless the companies are entitled to enforce verbal policieis. (I do believe putting it in writing and sending any changes out for employee signature is the best policy and what I enforce). Employees do not sign off to "agree" to the policy but to indicate that they have received the policy.

A rule does not cease to exist because it was broken once. There could be valid reasons why the rule could not be enforced this time but could in the future. Maybe there was sufficient staffing for the prior employee and the OP (in the first month) to avoid certain duties but now there is not.

Also a dr's note for not bending/lifting or carrying certain weight would raise a red flag for any position. I am surprised that those restrictions wouldn't interfer with any job.

I wouldn't be surprised if a higher mgr (or HR) didn't know about the light duty until recently and when it was discovered the mgr was told to stop.

I do agree that it is a risk on the company's part to have her do that job. If she was my employee I would not allow her to work until we could come to a decision in regards to whether we could accomodate her restrictions.

I didn't see a mention of how many employees are at this work site. However I doubt the OP knows the entire history of leaves and light duty that other employees may have taken. It is possible that the prior employee and the OP were treated preferentially due to pregnancy (which is discrimination against other employees) compared to the light duty allowed other employees. If so the company is correct not to allow it now.

OP, rather than your dr writing the note to try to avoid the certain job it should be written strictly from your health point of view. The dr should say what your restrictions are then your work should decide if they can accomodate your restrictions.

Also you mentioned being told you might not have a job after delivery. If you are not entitled to any leave (either by federal/state law or by company policy) then the company is correct. My company is not covered by FMLA. Employees are allowed 8 weeks of medical leave. Beyond that we terminate employment and invite you to reapply when you are medically cleared.

I would definitely say that your company did not handle this professionally. Unfortunately many managers do not understand labor laws and cause this type of confusion and bad feelings.

 

[Arielle22]

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.

You can be on FMLA for more than one condition. In your example if you are hospitalized for several days, by law, your company has to send you paperwork to qualify the leave under FMLA. However you only get 12 weeks of FMLA in which type of year your company uses (either calendar or rolling). If you feel you were terminated due to FMLA then you file a charge with the federal government.It is not quick or easy.

States don't have laws on how to do lay offs. There are some laws in regards to mass layoffs. All states (except some instances in Montana) allow you to terminate employment for any reason which does not violate a law. A true lay off is when you are going to be brought back to work. Today is it used as code for "not your fault but you have no job".

 

[Eeyores Butterfly]

Goofyernmost:

There is only one job out of five that she says she cannot do, and that job ws only added within the last year. She can still do 4 other jobs, and it sounds like she is not hurting them by asking them to schedule her those four other jobs instead. In fact, they had no problem with it. She is not asking everyone else to pick up her slack. This is a very reasonable accommodation and I am frankly surprised that the company is having a hard time with this if it is indeed as the OP has described it. She is still a productive employee doing the job she was originally hired to do.

It sounds like you have been burned in the past, but comparing this woman to the octomom is completely uncalled for. Would you rather her employer make a reasonable accommodation that allows her to still collect her paycheck (and do the job she was originally hired to do) or go on temporary disability which means that your taxes will be paying for it? Unlike the octomom, she is actually trying to maintain her job and do the job appropriately.

OP, no words advice. Just hugs and good luck with your situation.

 

[Stacerita]

Another issue would be that if the employer makes the exception for her, then they need to be able to make it for everyone.

 

[goofyernmost]

Goofyernmost:

There is only one job out of five that she says she cannot do, and that job ws only added within the last year. She can still do 4 other jobs, and it sounds like she is not hurting them by asking them to schedule her those four other jobs instead. In fact, they had no problem with it. She is not asking everyone else to pick up her slack. This is a very reasonable accommodation and I am frankly surprised that the company is having a hard time with this if it is indeed as the OP has described it. She is still a productive employee doing the job she was originally hired to do.

Really? So who does her job while she is doing someone else's job? I will make an assumption here and say that in all likelihood the job she used to do is now being done by someone else. Would that be unreasonable to assume? Why isn't she still doing her original job, the one she was hired for? Did she ask to change on her own? Did she maybe not handle the first job that well so the company placed her someplace else in a job that she could do? There are many more questions then there are answers and I won't pretend to know the what they are. She may even be working for some class A idiots. Who knows! What I do know is the planet doesn't revolve around any specific individual. We have to adapt to the world, not the other way around. If she can't do the job that they need to have done, plain and simple, she can't do the job.

comparing this woman to the octomom is completely uncalled for.

Just for the record, I wasn't comparing her to the octomom...I was comparing the type of attitude that thinks that because they wanted to do something, the world needs to cater to their needs. It's their decision, it's their responsibility. This is certainly not to the degree of the octomom, just a common thread of expectation found running in society lately.

 

[disneymarie]

As a police officer I had a note that restricted activities that would have confrontation and heavy lifting. Not desk duty but not getting into physical apprenhensions.

The employer decided not to accomadate me and I went on unemployment as I could work with restrictions and accomadations but the employer refused to accomadate.

Is it an option to take the rest of the time off and stay home taking care of yourself and the baby. My son worked dietary and it is a lot of on the feet and even repetative lifting of pots and clearing, wiping tables, sweeping, stacking.

I wish you and the little boy a healthy pregnancy.
Di

 

[kaytieeldr]

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

Well, really, that's what she was told by the HR person. Given some of the other seemingly misinformation she's gotten from this source, I think the OP should determine for herself if she's eligible.

It probably won't have any effect on the ultimate outcome, but...

Anyway, 1,250 hours in the previous twelve months comes to just over 24 hours per week. Does the OP work at least (or at least an average of) 25 hours weekly?

My doctor by this point is not very happy that she has had to write out 1 and now soon to be 2 doctors excuses for the same issue. She also didn't know what the retirement home was looking for so she wrote "No bending or twisting while lifting". Once again I turned in this excuse and was told to go directly to the HR director with it. When I brought it in to him he laughed at it and said that right now sitting in that chair you are in direct violation of you doctors excuse because you are bending.

Really? And what were you lifting at the same time? Weighing how much? From what altitude to what altitude? I'd be leery of this HR manager. Since the company has one, it would not be unreasonable to expect that they do meet the conditions covered by the FMLA regulations (my own mind working, not any proven point) and that the OP could look further into that. She should keep in mind, though, that using any available time now - if there is any - means it will not also be available when/after she gives birth.

Really? So who does her job while she is doing someone else's job? I will make an assumption here and say that in all likelihood the job she used to do is now being done by someone else. Would that be unreasonable to assume? Why isn't she still doing her original job, the one she was hired for? Did she ask to change on her own? Did she maybe not handle the first job that well so the company placed her someplace else in a job that she could do? There are many more questions then there are answers and I won't pretend to know the what they are.

Well, since the world revolves around me ... I'm not doing the job for which I was originally hired because changes have been made over my employment with this company, and my job is now almost entirely different from what I was hired to do. Come to think of it, I don't know how or when that happened But it's not because I couldn't do the old job.

 

[des1954]

I don't think you helped your cause much, but OK for the sake of argument. I am bitter about spending a lifetime trying to do what was needed to support and raise my family. No handouts, no supplements, just working everyday, doing my job only to see today's society thinking that I must now pay their way as well because "they have a self imposed problem".

If that's the case...so be it. I have enough years under my belt to see the difference between real need and entitlement.

Ya know.... I had 30 years with the local telco and 5 years in another career. Does that qualify me for having enough experience under my belt? And...oh... I could never have children so I didn't need any pregnancy leave. BUT - this is a temporary medical condition and she is only asking to be placed on a lighter duty for the duration of her pregnancy & the request is supported by her doctor.

So....let's see. All the outside workers at the telco who were injured playing baseball or softball (self-imposed), that were put on light duty inside for weeks on end were slackers and expecting hand-out's - according to you. And...all the workers in the country who are recovering from a surgery, undergoing cancer treatments, or are temporarily unable to perform certain job duties and assigned to light duty...are SLACKERS looking for a hand-out!!

You have a very skewed view on life. And...oh...YaY for you!! You probably have never had any kind of illness or family emergency. That's great - unusual - but great. I suppose you expected your wife (or S/O) to go back to work the week following giving birth to your kids, too.

FWIW - a hand-out is to someone capable of working, but chooses to sit on their azz doing nothing at the expense of the Gov't. Not a person asking to be placed on light duty due to a medical reason. Light duty is still performing job duties. Last I knew - that was still working for a paycheck.

 

[princess jackie]

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!

When I had a meeting with HR I did ask them what my options were. I was told to bring in a more specific doctors excuse directly from the head of HR. I was never told the whole time that this was going on that I couldn't work with restrictions and was requested to bring in more specific doctors excuses. They finally did tell me at the last meeting that if I was unable to perform all aspects of my job that I would be unable to work. I asked for a copy of the policy stating that and was told that its not a policy.

 

[princess jackie]

I just wanted to state that I'm not looking for a hand out or for anyone to pay my way. I want to work! I love my job! I would give anything to be able to work. I have stated several times that I can do 4 jobs but can't do 1, all I asked was not to be put on the 1 job. I work in the kitchen area of a retirement home. I am not allowed to assist residents with anything, therefore I'm not putting them in harms way because my restrictions. Also my main concern was, why could they not schedule me on the one job for over a month without saying anything about the practice of not letting anyone do light duty. They could have mentioned something to me back then and this whole issue would have been over before it started.

Also the compnay I work for is not very big. There is 1 HR guy, a director of operations, and one head honcho. I have talked to all of them. I understand that whatever I do from here on out is going to hurt my rep at the company. Again, I am not looking for anything in return. I just don't want someone to be treated the way I was. I have already applied for several other jobs but as everyone knows, right now is not the easiest time to get a job either.

Thanks again to everyone for the words of advice.

 

[des1954]

Jackie-

I'm hoping the best for you. Perhaps it would be a good thing if you could find a job at another facility. It sounds like your current place runs low on compassion, which is not a good thing for a retirement facility.

Good luck, dear!!

 

[Eeyores Butterfly]

goofy: It sounds like she does her old job and the new one that is causing problems. She stated that you have to be scheduled for this job, and they had no problem scheduling her elsewhere for a month. Many companies will cross train workers on additional duties, it does not mean that they are diong something wrong at their original job, just that the company is giving themselves more flexibility in scheduling.

I'll give you an example: When I worked as a CP in attractions, I was initially trained on the Pooh Complex in Fantasyland. Later on I was crosstrained on Pan and then Philhar. It did not mean that I did not perform well at the Pooh Complex, it actually meant the opposite. I did my job well enough they trusted me to learn another position which made scheduling easier for them. It sounds like the OP's situation is similar.

Frankly, I find your attitude toward the OP to be incredibly callous. A problem of her own making? Please. How would you feel if somebody treated your two daughters that way? Thank God the law provides some protection for pregnant women. As I said earlier, I would much rather this woman do a productive job and just not be scheduled this one specific shift than having to collect disability or other government assistance because her employers were hard headed.

 

[karensi]

Jackie,
If I were you I think I would try to speak with a lawyer. Sometimes all it takes is a letter from a lawyer and all of a sudden things change perhaps in your favor.

Good luck,

Karen