My employer threatened to fire me after I insisted they compensate me for doing the work of two entirely different positions. Both are clearly defined as being seperate in the corporate policy manual (they aren't even related).

I'm a salaried (exempt) employee who has worked for the company over one year. Two months ago I began filling in (took on this second position to help out) when someone quit unexpectedly. I was told that someone else would be hired, however, today I was informed that no one will be hired, and that I am expected to continue to do BOTH positions with no increase in pay --- or I will be fired.

Because I am able to do both positions within a 50 hour work week, they think its fair that I continue to only be paid for ONLY my original position.

What you describe is at the discretion of the employer. Unless hired under an enforceable employment contract or collective bargaining agreement, the employer is free to change the job requirements and responsibilities. The employer has no obligation to increase compensation solely based on the fact that responsibilities have increased.
However one thing to consider is your FLSA classifcation (exempt vs. non-exempt). If by taking on the additional requirements your status changes from exempt to non-exempt, you could now qualify for overtime consideration.

Here is a link to DOL on FLSA classifications: http://www.dol.gov/esa/regs/compliance/whd/fairpay/fs17a_overview.htm.

Your "primary" job duties determine your FLSA classification. If you are still unclear on your classification after reading the link, you can always ask DOL to issue a determination.

FYI! If they find that you are still considered exempt, then there are no circumstances where you'd be entitled to additional compensation. Your employer may increase your pay; but they would not be required to.

This would not be considered a wrongful termination! Since in theory, you'd be resigning by not accepting.

And I'm more than happy to provide information as needed! :)

Sometimes I Joke with my co-workers by saying I wish I would have acted stupid because they will make you do anything that they see you can handle. In all reality, in my place of employment, I am trained on 18 different positions, that include, lead positions, training, catering department, cafeteria, coffee shop, dieticians office, etc. I only get one hourly amount no matter what I do for them. It may not seem fair, but think of it this way, you are going to be hard to replace, so if nothing else, it sure is job security! Good luck to you, and keep up the good work!

Sorry, gotta agree with the others. While I would also feel like it was very unfair if I were in your shoes (and I have been), it is totally up to your er to define your job duties and your compensation, and there is nothing illegal in that. Unfair does not always mean illegal. Many moons ago, I was putting in 80+ hours per week, doing the work of three different full-time positions. I was not a happy camper when my boss assigned me a fourth full-time job.

>>today I was informed that no one will be hired, and that I am expected to continue to do BOTH positions with no increase in pay --- or I will be fired.<<

If that is exactly the way they approached you with this issue, out of the blue and with no provocation on your part, then someone needs to learn a little tact and diplomacy. There are ways to approach an ee with negative news that may help defuse situations as well as inflame. This approach you describe sounds inflammatory to me...unless of course there was some history on this issue between you and your boss that you have neglected to mention.

While I disagree that this would be considered a resignation or that resigning automatically precludes one from making a valid claim of wrongful termination, I do agree that based on the facts as presented the employer has done nothing illegal. On that basis, it is my opinion that you do not have sufficient grounds to make a legal argument that you would be wrongfully terminated.