No announcement yet.

Is it against the law to terminate a 20 year employee for taking FMLA? Ohio

This topic is closed.
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by ElleMD View Post
    You need to learn the meaning of the word, "condensed".

    You need to learn how not to be so rude to people just asking a question.

    You must work for a an HR manager or you are one because you are certainly pro company and not pro labor to be so rude and aggressive.

    You need to learn how to "comprehend" and read statement as you have clearly mixed up comments into your own thoughts that I posted.

    Did you not read the other posters comments or do you disagree with their thoughts.

    "It is illegal to terminate any qualified employee for taking FMLA."
    Last edited by Mark1959; 07-26-2017, 08:57 PM.


    • #17
      Yes, it is illegal to fire any qualified employee for taking FMLA. That is true.

      However, you have only a limited length of time in which you can take legal action. If you have not done so at the end of that limited window, you are forever barred from doing so.

      Your window of opportunity closed several years ago. Since you had not taken legal action by then, you can now never file legal action, even though the employer acted illegally.

      You waited too long. Case closed.
      The above answer, whatever it is, assumes that no legally binding and enforceable contract or CBA says otherwise. If it does, then the terms of the contract or CBA apply.


      • #18
        People lose jobs for a variety of reasons every single day. Sometimes fairly, other times not. Either way, the financial circumstances of the former employee are not something that has a remedy. That you chose not to pursue other employment, move to a less expensive place, have your spouse seek employment, etc. are not under the control of the employer. Might you have a reason which makes sense to you for wanting to act as you did or not having a financial safety net? Sure. But that does not make it your employer's fault such that there is any sort of legal remedy. The remedy would have been for the loss of the job only, not all of the financial woes as a result.

        Most retirement plans do require that the participant have applied for SSDI first or at the same time as disability retirement. In fact, I have never heard of one that did not. This is not by any means unique and it is not something that can be waived per the plan. It can take years to determine someone is totally disabled per whatever criteria is set forth in the retirement plan. If you do not meet the criteria set forth in the actual retirement plan to retire (and IRS regs) you can't retire. Retirement plans are governed by laws and their administrators can not arbitrarily decide to grant someone benefits or use criteria outside of the plan's design. It is just a fact that whether talking SSDI or some other plan, mental health claims are particularly difficult to get approved as the nature can vary widely and there are not objective measures a doctor can point to and say, over this threshold is definitely disabled.

        As for the ACA and the retiree plan, as I said before, there are many reasons the plan might not have to cover dependents until age 26 and it is perfectly legal. I was an administrator for such a plan. There are also provisions of ACA which do not apply to retiree plans. It is entirely legal. Courts have also consistently held that even if at the time of retirement a retiree did not have to pay anything toward their insurance premium, that is not a guarantee for life. Once upon a time most plans were fully funded by the employer. That has become the very rare exception and it is true for retirees as well. It is possible if your agreement spelled out in writing that you would never have to contribute toward a premium that you might not have to do so. Absent that, you are no different than any other member of the retiree plan, and in fact can not be treated differently than others in the plan. What you discussed 18+ years ago based on the rules in place at the time are meaningless if they are not in writing. Even if in writing, it would be legally questionable whether you could be treated differently, but there would at least be a legal argument to be made. In any event, waiting 11+ years to attempt legal action is far beyond the statute of limitations. The SOL gives a deadline to file a legal claim. You can do whatever you like before that deadline as far as appealing to the company to make an exception but it doesn't change the deadline to file a legal claim with the court.
        I post with the full knowledge and support of my employer, though the opinions rendered are my own and not necessarily representative of their position. In other words, I'm a free agent.


        • #19
          To prove ElleMD totally incorrect and expose her as a pro-company and labor hating person who does not have the ability to read facts and make clear decisions or comments.

          ElleMD, I without any law background learned how to research a bit more and found you are totally lost when it comes to the law. I will address your other insane comments and attacks as well.

          Fact- In Ohio the statute of limitations of labor law agreements and settlements is 15 years. Any contract signed before Sept 28, 2012 has a 15 year statute of limitations. Anything after has an 8 years so either way the breach of the agreement done by this company still is within the limitation. I also was told that since the breach of the contract happened and is currently still happening by them charging me for health care when it was totally free at the time of signing moves the statue of limitation due to activity of wrongfully taking money out of my retirement income allows me to re file EEOC and Labor Dept charges, damages from retaliation of using the FMLA to care for my ill wife, damages for causing financial harm due to willful and negligence termination of a 20 year employee for taking the FMLA. Let me remind you, it is the companies job to follow the law, when they corporate attorney added me back onto the seniority list that same day he admitted the local idiot HR manager wrongfully did this ( LOL his butt was fired after this ) and therefore he clearly asked me on video and on record what do you want for us to settle this issue? I clearly stated retirement as if I worked to aqe 65 and health care for me, my wife and my child. He clearly said, done! At the time of this agreement it was free. So the agreement cannot be changed by this company or myself without written agreement of both parties.

          Your comment about retirees and why should I get different. Well, showing your hate of labor you again take the wrong side of things. Reason why I am not considered as one of the "other" retirees is because none of the other retirees was wrongfully fired and none have a single personal settlement agreement that I have. At no time did the agreement state your health care cost or your retirement end because we want to end it. So you would be ok with this corporation to end retirement that was earned because it would be the same thing.

          Even the Labor Dept agreed with me on this issue, wrongful termination that caused not only health issues for me but when they added me back onto the seniority list they admitted to wrong doing and therefore are liable for everything that happened to me because of their wrongful decisions. I was also told since the statue of limitations is still intact because they breached the contract and agreement therefore moving the date forward to the date they started taking money out of my retirement to pay for health care which they and I agreed to as free as it was to all retirees and employees at the time the agreement was signed. It cannot be changed on the basis of my single agreement, it can be changed on "other" retirees because they did not have the agreement that I had.

          Your other comment, why did you wait so long. Did you even read the above? I clearly stated I have been calling, contacting, sending registered letters etc for 12 years with only one lame response given by a horrific unintelligent current HR manager who started as a laborer and could not do the job even then.

          No one should wrongfully terminated for using the FMLA without the HR manager, the employees who were a part of it and the company paying for it. I gave them a free ride on this issue because I had a sick wife at home. For you to say I should have moved to a lesser home etc is total hateful comments. Why should I move to a lesser home because a piece of crap company who hired a hit man like this HR manager who was later let go for this massive terminations, labor filings etc against him. Why should I change my life because of their wrong doings?

          It is a shame there are people like you giving advice on sites like this because it is clear you are either an HR manager, work for one or you are so anti labor that you come back with comments like you have posted which are pure wrong and hateful.

          I asked for help, you have attacks and took their side without even knowing the complete facts. In fact you failed to look into the statute of limitations has not expired. Proves to me you have absolutely no clue or you are here to be pro company and anti labor and post total BS with no factual information used, just your opinion which is wrong.

          I have contacted an attorney who is meeting with us soon. I hope I can not only get my 100k back but destroy this company, the current plant manager, current HR idiot, current CEO and make sure the stock holders which I am one of know about this because it has been swept under the rug because they were in the middle of a major merger at this time and was hidden away.


          • #20
            When you win your case, come back with a docket number that we can independently verify. Until then, I think this conversation is no longer productive.
            The above answer, whatever it is, assumes that no legally binding and enforceable contract or CBA says otherwise. If it does, then the terms of the contract or CBA apply.