I was terminated from my job because my doctor put me on bed rest, and I didn't have enough vacation hours to cover the absence. However, I was never granted the opportunity to file for leave of absence since my supervisor terminated me over the phone, the day before I received my leave of absence paperwork. The company does work in three different states. My question is, would I have grounds for legal action because of the termination, or discrimination-due to the fact that several people whom I worked closely with missed more work than they had time for and still have there jobs? I did ask about the LOA and was told that I was not able to apply until after the child was born, but the paperwork I received stated that pregnancy complications resulting in out of work for more than 5 working days would qualify. And if you did not take LOA and used all your vacation and accured time, you would be written up before being terminated.
Anyone have any advise on the subject. I know when I talked to my doctor today he told me that since the company is based in multiple states that any actions would be on a federal level.
If anyone can help I would appreciate it.

1.) How long have you worked for this employer?
2.) In the last 12 months, have you worked at least 1,250 hours?
3.) Does your employer have at least 50 hours within 75 miles of your location?
4.) BEFORE your termination, how much time had you missed?

I have been with my employer since feburary of this year. And yes they have more than 50 people working within 75 miles. They have call centers in three different states. I missed 7 working days before I was terminated. three of those days I wasn't being payed for. So I only missed 4 payed days, the first two I used sick time, and then I was allowed to use 2 vacation days even though I had over 70 hours of vacation accured. And I was informed I will not be payed out the remainder of my vacation time.

newmom, since you have not worked for this company for 12 months, you don't qualify for any statutory leave time. As long as you were not treated less favorably than any similarly situated employees* who needed medical leave for non-pregnancy reasons, nothing illegal has occurred.

* That would be employees in a similar "job class" who have less than six months of service with the company.

Since you have only worked for the company since February, you are not yet eligible for FMLA, and Kansas does not have any state-mandated leave time.

That being the case, your employer has no legal obligation to hold your job longer than he would hold it for any other similarly situated employee with a non-maternity condition. Note that similarly situated includes the length of time of your employment. If employees who have been with the company longer (and who may qualify for FMLA, which you do not) have been allowed longer leaves, that is not illegal.

For you to have any kind of legal recourse, you would need evidence that other employees who have only been with the company for six months, but who have non-maternity conditions, have been granted longer leaves.

The law does not required that he allow you to apply for an LOA; nor does it require that he grant it if you do apply.

The law does not require that he allow you to use vacation time, and it certainly does not require that you be allowed to use vacation time you have not yet earned.

Your doctor is incorrect. The fact that the employer operates in several states does NOT mean that any action has to be on a Federal level. But no Federal law has been violated any more than a state one has, on the basis of your post.

You can try taking the paperwork you received to a local attorney to see if the EXACT wording gives you any recourse, but on the basis of the facts available to us, none exists.

newmom, I disagree a bit -- while I agree that the FMLA does not give you any recourse, it sounds as if your employer is not following your company's policies. If other people with temporary disabilities have been treated differently (and note: the other people do not have to be similarly situated in all respects; certainly they do not have to have worked for less than 6 months) and your company's policies aren't being violated, you may well have a Title VII/Pregnancy Discrimination Act claim and/or a breach of contract claim. I agree with cbg -- go see an attorney. If you can't find one in your area, send an email to me at info@worklifelaw.org and I'll see if I have an attorney in our network who is near you.

Cynthia
www.worklifelaw.org

So, Cynthia, your contention is that if ANYONE, no matter what the circumstances, was allowed a longer leave, our poster has to have been allowed a longer leave?

Sorry, but I do not agree with that.

cbg, I think you are stretching what I said. I said that similarly situated people do not have to be similarly situated in all respects, not that she could compare herself to ANYONE. I was concerned that you telling her that she had to be treated the same as others who have been employed for only 6 months gave her an overly restrictive view of the law. The courts have held repeatedly that for purposes of Title VII/PDA, the comparators need not be identical. She could compare herself to anyone at her level in the company who has a medical condition and does not have FMLA leave available. Of course, if an employer has a policy that one has to be at the company for x months before being eligible for leave, and the employer applies that policy consistently, then she should not compare herself to someone who has been at the company x or x+ months. But I don't understand that to be the case from her email.

Okay, I see your point. The point I was trying to get across is that she cannot compare herself to employees who already be eligible for FMLA, or whose position in the company gives them greater benefits. But I do take your point that in the literal sense, the 6 month comparison may appear restrictive.