OK, I work for a real estate company. Each week, I work atleast 35-40 hours a week. I have only been here since April; however, I have always gotten paid for Holidays. This week, when I received my pay check, I was utterly shocked! I had NOT been paid for Labor Day, and had not been told I wouldn't! Apparently, the broker/owner of our company decided that I was no longer considered full-time because they "work" with my school schedule (I only go 2 days a week, and come in 2 hours late) but I still work the same hours because I do not take lunches. They have a set number of hours I work each week 9-5. Usually, I stay late, I have worked nights, etc. Even being in school, I continue to work just as many hours as I did during the summer and didn't go to school. Sometimes, even more hours than before. There has to be some sort of law against this. That just is not right. I confronted my employer about this, and she informed me that I had been "demoted" to part-time because they worked with my school schedule. Shouldn't I have been notified of this? There has to be something I can do about this. I have confronted her about it and she has basically told me "tough, get over it." I looked all over the state of TN website and can not find anything....will someone PLEASE help me resolve this issue? I believe that I deserve to be paid for this Holiday!

Whether you "deserve" to be paid for the holiday is irrelevant. No law in any state requires that a non-exempt employee be paid for time they do not work, including holidays. Whether or not a non-exempt employee receives holiday pay is entirely up to the employer.

If your employer chooses to consider you part time because of your school schedule and if part time employees do not get paid for holidays, then you're out of luck. Nothing in the law is going to force them to pay you.

One more question......
I was hired in April 2006 at a beginning rate that I believe is entirely too low for my job duties, but at the time, my duties weren't as heavy as they are now. In June 2006, another employee was hired as a weekend receptionist at a beginning rate that was higher than mine! I am not considered a receptionist by my employer, but yet I am getting compensated the same (now) as the receptionist who only works weekends get paid. I was given a raise in mid June (about 2 or 3 weeks after the other employee was hired) to the same rate as our weekend receptionist. I have MANY more job duties, and a lot more responsibilities than this weekend, only employee. I am also a lot younger than this employee. Would this be filed under age discrimination? Any one 10+ years older than me performing this job would never be paid the pay that I am receiving (as I know someone with the same job title, responsibilities, etc. and is 8 yrs older than myself and is paid double what I am) Please help again!

No, this is not age discrimination. First of all, both Federal and Tennessee law requires that you be over 40 before you can make a claim of age discrimination. Secondly, even if that were not the case, you'd still have to prove that you were being paid less BECAUSE of your age and not for any other reason. It is a sad fact of life that the first in is often the lowest paid; it is quite common for new employees to be hired at a higher rate than those already in.

Well, what is the purpose of having such a law if you can not file until the age of 40? I am not but 19 years old, and the lady who works opposite of me (on the weekends) is approximately 45. I am quite certain that I am getting paid less for my age. I would almost guarentee it. Is there any way around the whole age of 40 thing?

No, there is not. The laws on age discrimination are meant to protect those who might otherwise be pushed out of their jobs on account of being considered "too old". At 19, there are virtually no jobs that you are "too old" for, hence it wouldn't make sense to offer these protections.

If you are 19, you also have a lot less experience than someone who is 45. Your employer is entitled to pay more on that basis. The 45 year old may also have negotiated a better salary when starting or was paid more in a previous job causing the employer to need to offer a higher salary to get her to accept the position.

Look at it from her point of view. If you were 45 and had the experience and maturity she does, would you want a 19 year old with very little experience to be making more than you? Would that seem fair then?

I am actually more qualified than she is. I was employeed in a similar facility for over 2 years. She has only worked in retail until this position. I also work more hours, have many more job responsibilities, and a lot higher performance rate. Even my employer says "she has nothing to do on the weekend." (referring to the weekend receptionist). I have NO time off. NONE. I don't take lunches due to my school schedule, and remain at work often until 6 or 7 (when the office closes at 5). I have even stayed until 9! I have 3 (count them, three) job titles, and only get paid as a receptionist. The other two job titles I currently assume WOULD be paid more if it were another individual. We are currently seeking someone to fill ONE of my job titles, and that person will make more than myself once they come in. I have been given the opportunity to assume either job title (AND continue to have the "receptionist" title). BOTH "new" job titles have higher pay than what I am currently making. This just CAN'T be right! I have all 3 titles, and someone who comes in and only assumes one gets paid more than myself when I have the experience and dedication they desire! GRR!! I hate this! Just because I am 19, people assume that I am not professional, responsible, and experienced. Why is that?

Because many 19 year olds are not. And you're not exactly proving your case by arguing that there ought to be a way around the law.

I'm not necessarily saying there should be away around it....that's not exactly what I meant. The fact of the matter is that I have more experience, work more, show more dedication, and have more responsibilities than this other individual (who also happens to be of a different race), yet I get compensated the same. It does not seem logical, ethical, or legal.

Whether you think it is ethical or logical or not, it is legal. And that is not going to change. Nothing in the law says that the most qualified person (even if we accept that you are, which you have not yet convinced me of) has to be paid the most.

I do not appreciate your negativity towards me. You have no idea how I am qualified and more experienced in my job simply by what is said here in this forum. However, I do appreciate you answering my questions. I do have one more. I am to go downtown tomorrow (which is approximately 45 minutes from where our office is located) to assist my broker/owner in a luncheon she is hosting. Am I to be paid for the travel time to/from the luncheon?

Whining that it is unfair does not help your cause, no matter what your age. If you feel that you are being paid unfairly, you are welcome to approach your employer and ask for a raise. I would not use what "Sally" is making as the basis for my argument. Focus on what you bring to the position and what others with similar experience and performing similar duties in your area and industry are making. Yes, this means doing a little research.

As I have yet to not be the youngest in my department anywhere I've worked, I understand it can be frustrating to feel that you are not being taken seriously because of your age. The best way to overcome that is to show them what you can do and and what you bring to the organization.

As for pay, I see your point but it still doesn't change either the legality or the other side of the picture. The other side being that even if not in the exact same industry or role, the other person does have 25+ years of experience on you and that does count for something. Not all experience needs to be strictly job duty related. Those at the same level as me at my job have fewer years of experience in this field except for 2, but all are at least 25 years older than me and have way more years of work experience in general. I may have more technical knowledge, but their experience over the years is also extremely valuable. It's just the way it goes.

To be blunt, 2 years of receptionist experience just doesn't render you as supremely qualified. Those in retail perform many of the same duties, just in a different setting. If you don't like the duties you are given or the pay they offer, you are welcome to apply elsewhere and see if you can get a better deal.

If you are leaving to and from home to get to the luncheon, and it is taking the place of your usual commute, no you do not have to be paid for your travel time.

And since I don't appreciate your arguing with me, we're even. You clearly have no idea what the laws require and your assuming that there MUST be a law that says what you want it to say, doesn't make your case of how professional and mature you are.

Keep in mind that she may not have been a receptionist as long as you have, but that does NOT mean that her previous experience doesn't count for anything or that she has no transferrable skills that add to her qualifications. I'm not questioning how qualified YOU may be; I'm questioning your decision that you MUST be more qualified than she is since you've been doing the job longer.

Does the luncheon fall within your regular work hours.

In addition, given that the other person works weekends, I can easily see that it might be more difficult to get people to work those hours and that the employer would need to pay them more as a result.

Yes it does.

I live approximately 20 minutes from my office. Tomorrow morning, I have school, and get to work usually about 11. The thing that I am supposed to do is leave school, and head straight to the luncheon. Which begins at 12.

So instead of a 2 minute commute from school to the office, I have a 45 minute commute downtown.

BUT, I use to work those hours. I was originally hired as the weekend receptionist at a lower pay that the woman who is now the weekend receptionist. After I was "promoted" (with no pay raise) to work full-time, Monday through Friday, there was no "weekend receptionist" for almost 3 weekends (so I assumed the role and worked 2 of those weekends). When the individual was hired, she began at a higher hourly wage than what I am making after being "promoted."

None of which changes anything.

My point to Marketeer is that obviously their motive isn't to pay someone higher for working more "difficult" hours. I was started out lower than she was for working the same hours with the same responsibilities.

Of course, that couldn't possibly be because of changes to market values. It HAS to be because they just wanted to pay you less.

I've got news for you, Jessica. The world does not revolve around you. All business decisions are not made with you in mind.

But since you are so convinced that there are laws being violated here, by all means call the TN DOL and tell them that you're 19, you've been doing the job longer than a 45 year old so clearly you are more qualified than she is despite whatever jobs she may have worked in the past, and a bunch of no-nothing HR professionals who only have 45+ years experience between them are telling you that's it's legal for them to pay her more than you and you'd like to put them in their places, so would they please tell you the law that says you have to be paid more since you're SO much more qualified, so that you can prove to them that you know more than they do?

Then, after they stop laughing, post back and tell us what they say.

you know, I'm glad your such a nice person! The fact of the matter is that I have been told by OTHER HR people that what was being done around this business was illegal, and I wanted other advise. You are rather rude, and I'm surprised that anyone will listen to what you have to say because by no means are you polite or easy to ask questions to. After all, you never answered my question about the luncheon. If you would stop being so irate, and actually understand where I am coming from, maybe you could see how you yourself would feel that some how a law was being violated. Obviously you don't care or don't have a heart.

Like it or not, she happens to be right. There isn't a single law applicable that prohibits them paying you less even if the only reason for it was that you are 19. We are simply saying that there are other possible explanations for the difference whether you agree with them or not. There is no way around the fact that there is no law that covers you. Arguing that the other explanations couldn't possibly be the case does not change the fact that even if you are right and it is based on your age, it isa legal. Your choices remain to live with it, try to change it, or seek greener pastures elsewhere. That is what is so frustrating. You don't seem to want to face the fact that the law isn't on your side here and you can't make them pay you more.

Don't believe us, read for yourself www.eeoc.gov/types/age.html

http://state.tn.us/humanrights/CHAPTER21.pdf
4-21-407. Age Discrimination.
(b) The prohibitions imposed by this chapter relating to age discrimination
employment shall be limited to individuals who are at least forty (40) years of age.

By no means am I arguing that there isn't a law that "helps" me. I am just frustrated in the fact that I can be run over by a company like this and it be legal! It seems, in my opinion, to be entirely unethical and illegal. Shouldn't I have had to sign some kind of paper saying that I was being "demoted" to a part-time position? I guess a lot of it comes to a bit of a shock that a business can technically demote you w/o notifying you. It seems that a business could fire you, not tell you, then in two weeks when you don't receive a pay check, say oh yea, I fired you. I guess in a way, I'm upset that no one seems to view my side and agree with me that it isn't "fair." I understand entirely that I'm not "protected" by the law. I just feel that I'm getting my butt chewed and being told that I'm immature and basically stupid for wanting to see if this was COMPLETELY legal.

I didn't answer your question about the luncheon because I asked you for some information I need to answer it, and you never answered.

The law does not require that you sign anything agreeing or even acknowleging that you are now part time. I'm not saying I agree with doing it that way but it's still legal.

Even if we agreed with you that it was not fair, it wouldn't change the legality of it.

Actually, I did. It was #15 of the posts. It said:..........

"Yes it does.

I live approximately 20 minutes from my office. Tomorrow morning, I have school, and get to work usually about 11. The thing that I am supposed to do is leave school, and head straight to the luncheon. Which begins at 12.

So instead of a 2 minute commute from school to the office, I have a 45 minute commute downtown."

My hours of work tomorrow are usually 11-5 w/no lunch break (because it is exactly 6 hours of work and I want to continue to keep the hours I have been working.)

And Elle answered your question about the luncheon.

If you are leaving to and from home to get to the luncheon, and it is taking the place of your usual commute, no you do not have to be paid for your travel time.

ok, thank you!