Fired becauseof Medical Reasons

If you were only there for three months you probably weren't covered by the Family and Medical Leave Act.

I don't really get "strictly for medical reasons." Was it in the context of time off from work?

What do you do? Are you currently able to fulfill the essential functions of the position?

I was off from Oct 6 and was scheduled to return Nov 29th. I was not able to work at all.

Shosh,

When were you let go from your position? Would your boss consider re-hiring you when you are able to get back to work? I'm with Sozobe that you were not on the job long enough (meaning earned enough hours) to qualify for the Family Medical Leave Act. But if your boss were willing to even reconsider hiring you back, I would be talking to him every day and letting him know that you would love to come back and will be well enough to do so.

I remember when my older brother was first hired with Delta Airlines. He had worked his first week and then on his days off he went skiing to celebrate and broke his leg. He called his work every single day that he was laid up and in a cast to keep them informed. Had he not done that, I doubt they would have held his job for him.

Its worth a shot, eh?

Shosh, what I'd like to know is if you can do the essential functions now. Also if you were fired because of medical reasons (don't understand how that would work) or if it was because you were gone for a month when you'd only been at the job for three months.

(These questions will have to be answered by a real lawyer -- I am not one -- but I know a fair amount about the field, especially in terms of ADA, so would like to satisfy your curiosity/ give you some starting points. But I need to know more.)

I'm in NC, which is an "at will" state. California may or may not be the same.

When pregnant with my son 14 years ago, I went to my regular check up on Oct. 31 and immediately had to have surgery and be placed on bed rest until his birth. I was fired within a couple of weeks. I had been at that job 9 months - as a paralegal in large law firm.

Had all of the documentation showing rave reviews, offer for another caseload when one class action finished, etc.

Not a single law firm in the county would take my case, claiming one can be hired/ fired at will.

See if California has the same/similar law. Call an attorney for a free consult. If you have already been let go, it isn't likely you'll get your job back by legal means. Afterall, what would the working conditions be like after that???

I do know California is an at will state.

I can not perform the essential function of my the job in my current state. It is to physcially demanding.

I spoke to my boss about everyday to let him know how I was doing and let him know that I could not wait to return to work. Apparently that did not seem to matter. I asked about re-hiring me in the position that I had prior to my surgeries, and he brushed it aside and did not give me an answer.

The company is an HR company and does place people every once in a while and said that I would be eligable for an offsite position. They did not seem really welcoming to the idea of working for them directly again.

I had an infected gallbladder removed the afternoon of Oct 5th, ten days later I had a bowel obstruction and a hernia repaired. A day after I got out of the hospital I had an absyess that ruptured. This is what kept me out of work and why I can not and could not perform my duties.

If you can't perform the essential functions of your job, you're not covered by ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act).

It doesn't sound like you were there long enough to be covered by the FMLA (Family and Medical Leave Act.)

I strongly suggest you consult with a lawyer to find out for sure.

But I, personally (who worked in this field in California), think it's extremely unlikely that what your employer did was illegal.

Good luck.

(Squinney, things were a bit different 14 years ago, ADA was brand-new -- passed that year -- and FMLA was only about 7 years ago.)

Speaking of FMLA, this was out yesterday. Interesting becasue it made me think of this thread and your mention of the leave Act, soz. Is one able to be fired for being sick? Having a sick child? Even with the FMLA?

Sick days dwindle, disappear for many

Fri Nov 12, 6:30 AM ET USATODAY.com


By Stephanie Armour, USA TODAY

The flu vaccine shortage couldn't come at a worse time for employees, with cost-cutting employers reducing the number of paid sick days given to workers and curbing other benefits such as emergency back-up child care.



In addition, about half the full-time American workforce gets no paid sick days, according to the Department of Labor. Part-time employees and those in lower-wage service and blue-collar jobs are the least likely to have paid sick days. The peak flu season is late December and January. (Related story: Is someone to blame in flu vaccine debacle?)


"They're in low-wage jobs and living paycheck to paycheck," says Debra Ness, president of the National Partnership for Women & Families. "They have to go to work sick or lose a day's pay or, in some cases, lose their jobs."


Recent trends:


•Employees have fewer sick days. Paid sick days have been one of several benefits curtailed by employers in recent years. The number of employers providing paid sick leave dropped from 82% in 2002 to 76% last year, according to the Society for Human Resource Management (SHRM).


Sherry Allen, 35, of Indianapolis was a waitress in a restaurant and had no access to paid sick leave. She worked with strep throat and bronchitis. She says she was fired for taking too much time off to care for her son; she is currently unemployed.


"It's hard to have that fear of losing your job," says Allen, a mother of four boys, ages 18, 16, 12 and 9.


•Employees are less able to save up unused sick days. Cost-cutting employers are increasingly moving away from benefit programs that allow employees to accrue sick days. Instead, they are turning to a use-it-or-lose-it approach.


•Fewer employees have access to back-up care. The number of employers offering emergency back-up child care or child care when employees have sick family members has dropped from 14% in 2001 to 9% this year, according to SHRM.


Some employees say they feel pressured not to take time off.


Tanya Frazier says she was fired from her job as an executive assistant after taking time off to care for her 9-year-old daughter, who had the flu. She says she had used all the nine sick days allowed by her employer.


"My boss said, 'You're too dedicated a mother and not dedicated to your job,' " says Frazier, 39, a single mother in Topanga, Calif., who now is a temp.


Some human resource agencies are urging companies to revise their policies to give workers more sick days.


"If the flu really spreads, there will be a strong effort to get people not to come to work," says Lori Rosen, at human resources information provider CCH. "But people want to maintain their jobs, so they work even when they feel lousy."

Yep, sounds like what happened to Sherry Allen and Tanya Frazier may have been illegal. A whole lot of what I used to do (and may be getting back into) is just appraising people of their rights. A lot of people just kinda go oh well when what's happening to them is illegal.

FMLA has several conditions that must be met before it applies, including how much time the employee has been at that company and how many employees the company has (how big it is.) The time off must be for yourself or a member of your immediate family (not, like, a cousin, even if you're close.) Then there is also a limit to how much time may be taken off, total, I believe 12 weeks within one year (would have to check that.)

So if someone hasn't been working there long enough; or the company is too small; or he or she exceeded the limit in time off; the company may still fire him or her. BUT if the conditions ARE met, it's illegal.

Clinton passed that one, it's a good one. Really helped several of my clients who were moms.

http://www.dol.gov/esa/whd/fmla/