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

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Does this sound right to you??? Virginia

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

  • Does this sound right to you??? Virginia

    I have a friend who works for a Defense Contractor in the Washinton, DC area. She is 8.5 months pregnant. She told her employer she wasn't sure if she was going to return to work after he baby was born.

    She was told a couple of weeks ago that she was being placed on admin leave without pay until after she had the baby. She was told that her being placed on admin leave was due to "inappropriate use of a government computer", which she acknowledged. When she was ready to return to work after the baby, if they had a position available, they would work her back into a position, otherwise she would be let go.

    She was planning on going on short term disability after she had the baby, and "fight the fight" when she was able to return to work. Today, they informed her she was being placed on Intermittent Status, which as it was explained to her was "not full time, not part time, and not unemployed. They also told her she would not be able to get short term disability, AND that she has lost the annual and sick leave that she has accrued up to this point.

    This doesn't sound right. Am I missing something here?????

  • #2
    Originally posted by Hokie1994 View Post
    I have a friend who works for a Defense Contractor in the Washinton, DC area. She is 8.5 months pregnant. She told her employer she wasn't sure if she was going to return to work after he baby was born.

    She was told a couple of weeks ago that she was being placed on admin leave without pay until after she had the baby. She was told that her being placed on admin leave was due to "inappropriate use of a government computer", which she acknowledged. When she was ready to return to work after the baby, if they had a position available, they would work her back into a position, otherwise she would be let go.

    She was planning on going on short term disability after she had the baby, and "fight the fight" when she was able to return to work. Today, they informed her she was being placed on Intermittent Status, which as it was explained to her was "not full time, not part time, and not unemployed. They also told her she would not be able to get short term disability, AND that she has lost the annual and sick leave that she has accrued up to this point.

    This doesn't sound right. Am I missing something here?????


    Here's the initial problem I see:

    She wasn't placed on administrative leave because she was pregnant; she acknowledged that it was because of inappropriate use of a government computer.

    Therefore I can't see her being successful in trying to claim discrimination because she's pregnant.

    I'm sure others with far more knowledge can address the rest.

    Comment


    • #3
      A woman cannot be terminated because she is pregnant, but she can be terminated in spite of it if she would have been terminated otherwise. In other words, being pregnant does not insulate someone from behavior that would result in termination. Having worked for government contractors myself, I can assure you and your friend that they take misuse of government computers very, very seriously as such behavior could result in contract penalties. If your friend still feels that the misuse of the computer was a pretext to fire her because of her pregnancy, she is free to file a complaint with EEOC, however, she probably faces an uphill battle.
      I am not able to respond to private messages. Thanks!

      Comment


      • #4
        RE does this sound right to you? Virginia

        There are a few variables that I, and perhaps you, still do not know so it is difficult to accurately assess the situation. However, using the data we do know, I think it would be prudent to consider the following: whether or not the employer's policies indicate and define what "inappropriate use of a government computer" is and what disciplinary tracks are attached to that action, whether or not the employer had knowledge of the inappropriate action prior to the pregnancy disclosure and was the action overlooked prior to pregnancy and only now its a problem, are there other "downsizing" activities occurring with the same firm and/or in the same division, and if there are other disciplinary issues unknown. We should ask ourselves if the employer would take these same actions if an employee were leaving for any other reason and disclosing that they may not return. And while some states have a seperate state disability for pregnancy, I am not sure, given the situation, if that would apply. Maybe considering these questions might help. Good luck.



        Originally posted by Hokie1994 View Post
        I have a friend who works for a Defense Contractor in the Washinton, DC area. She is 8.5 months pregnant. She told her employer she wasn't sure if she was going to return to work after he baby was born.

        She was told a couple of weeks ago that she was being placed on admin leave without pay until after she had the baby. She was told that her being placed on admin leave was due to "inappropriate use of a government computer", which she acknowledged. When she was ready to return to work after the baby, if they had a position available, they would work her back into a position, otherwise she would be let go.

        She was planning on going on short term disability after she had the baby, and "fight the fight" when she was able to return to work. Today, they informed her she was being placed on Intermittent Status, which as it was explained to her was "not full time, not part time, and not unemployed. They also told her she would not be able to get short term disability, AND that she has lost the annual and sick leave that she has accrued up to this point.

        This doesn't sound right. Am I missing something here?????

        Comment


        • #5
          Dept. of Defense....
          US Government....
          Misuse of government computers....
          Bradley Manning....

          Things that make ya go "hmmm".
          I don't believe what I write, and neither should you. Information furnished to you is for debate purposes only, be sure to verify with your own research.
          Keep in mind that the information provided may not be worth any more than either a politician's promise or what you paid for it (nothing).
          I also may not have been either sane or sober when I wrote it down.
          Don't worry, be happy.

          http://www.rcfp.org/taping/index.html is a good resource!

          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