Complete Labor Law Poster for $24.95
from www.LaborLawCenter.com, includes
State, Federal, & OSHA posting requirements

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Company not following its own policies re: pregnancy leave California

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

  • Company not following its own policies re: pregnancy leave California

    .......................
    Last edited by mazzy; 10-01-2010, 04:15 PM.

  • #2
    Company policies very rarely rise to the level of enforceable contracts.

    But let's look at the NET you're getting.

    The paid leave the company is providing is totally taxable.
    SDI benefits from the state plan are not taxable.
    Benefits paid by a third party insurance company are not taxable IF you purchased the coverage through your employer with after-tax deductions, or purchased an individual policy.

    If you were to calculate NET pay at 100% of salary less taxes, vs. NET pay at 50% of salary with taxes withheld, and some percentage of salary without taxes withheld, where would you be then?

    I agree that this policy is poorly written and was not researched thoroughly. I'm guessing it's the state benefits that are capped (well, I know they are) and not the third-party benefits. What percentage is the third-party paying?
    I don't respond to Private Messages unless the moderator specifically refers you to me for that purpose. Thank you.

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by Pattymd View Post
      Company policies very rarely rise to the level of enforceable contracts.
      Agreed, although "vary rarely" and "never" are not the same thing. The OP could try taking the document to a local contract law attorney to see if it rises to the level of a legally enforcable contract. The attorney would have to actually read the entire document. Still, "very rarely" sounds about right as far as the odds go.
      "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away".
      Philip K. **** (1928-1982)

      Comment


      • #4
        Thanks for your response.
        Last edited by mazzy; 10-01-2010, 04:15 PM.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by mazzy View Post
          Also, even though you raise the issue that company policies are rarely enforceable contracts, wouldn't there be a reliance/promissory estoppel issue? Especially since other employees have received 100% of their salary?
          Sure, why not. The problem is not only have courts rarely found company policies to be enforceable contracts, courts almost never find for employees in DR/PE claims. If you found prefer to lose a DR/PE claim as opposed to a "company policy is really an enforceable contract despite hundreds of thousands of court decisions that say otherwise", your choice. But losing is still losing.

          Discriminatory behavior is at least potentially interesting. Not the discrimination per se is necessarily or probably illlegal, but it at least opens the door for a claim of illegal discrimination. As in an actual law such as Title VII being broken.

          Why should a company not be required to adhere to its own written and established policies, no matter how poorly written?
          Because hundreds of years of court decisions say that a contract involves two people sitting down with an attorney and specifically drawing up a contract. That there be an actual intent that a contract exists at the time the contract was created. That both parties give up something and get something. We have hundreds of years of labor law saying that a document unilaterally created and imposed by ONE PARTY is not generally a contract. There have been exceptions but those exceptions are few and far between. Past that, we have Common Law principals such as Employment-At-Will which are not absolute, but which also are considered the "default" unless formally set aside by statutory law or formal contract. The notion that any old company policy magically causes any Common Law issues to go away has been negatively decided over the years. Contract law can override Common Law, but there legally has to be a clear agreement between both parties to do so. Unilaterly written company policies rarely meet this test.

          One more time. If you really think you have an enforceable contract, take to an attorney to read.

          May I ask you a question? Why do you ask questions that you do not want to hear the answers to?
          "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away".
          Philip K. **** (1928-1982)

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by DAW View Post
            .

            Discriminatory behavior is at least potentially interesting. Not the discrimination per se is necessarily or probably illlegal, but it at least opens the door for a claim of illegal discrimination. As in an actual law such as Title VII being broken.
            I'm not sure I understand this. Are you saying there is possibly discriminatory behavior here?

            And, I am here for answers, so I am open to listening to various points of view. I appreciate any and all input. Thanks.

            Comment


            • #7
              Do you have any EVIDENCE that you have not received 100% of your salary when others have, BECAUSE OF your race, religion, national origin, or other characteristic protected by state, Federal or local law?

              Every time there is a difference in treatment, there is discrimination. The problem, however, is that not all, or even most, discrimination is illegal. I discriminated when I put on the green shirt this morning instead of the blue one. I discriminated when I opened a bottle of white wine instead of red. When you went out to dinner and picked chicken instead of steak, you were discriminating. So yes, there was discriminatory behavior if other employees got 100% of their salary and you did not.

              However, without some evidence that Title VII or a related law was broken, that does not necessarily mean that there was any illegality.
              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.

              Comment


              • #8
                What CBG said. There is evidence of discrimination based on what you said. There is not evidence of illegal discrimination based on what you said.
                "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away".
                Philip K. **** (1928-1982)

                Comment


                • #9
                  ```````````````
                  Last edited by mazzy; 09-29-2010, 08:30 PM.

                  Comment

                  The LaborLawTalk.com forum is intended for informational use only and should not be relied upon and is not a substitute for legal advice. The information contained on LaborLawTalk.com are opinions and suggestions of members and is not a representation of the opinions of LaborLawTalk.com. LaborLawTalk.com does not warrant or vouch for the accuracy, completeness or usefulness of any postings or the qualifications of any person responding. Please consult a legal expert or seek the services of an attorney in your area for more accuracy on your specific situation.
                  Working...
                  X