Where I used to work in the States—as editor of a small-town weekly newspaper with roughly nine employees (three of them being members of the family that owned the paper)—the gal who did all the print ads got pregnant. They couldn't fire her, of course, because a) she was a good friend of the publisher's daughter, b) she did her job quite well, and c) they absolutely loathed having to go through the hiring process when anyone left/retired. Because there was no paid maternity leave, as soon as she found out she was pregnant she would work five days and get paid for four, essentially "banking" one paid day for her eight weeks off for maternity leave and getting somewhat of a regular paycheck every week while she was gone. But at least she knew she had a job she could come back to when those banked days ran out.
I got fired once on the very day I intended to turn in my notice. They fired me because I refused to do something they asked me to do which was illegal, and they had me escorted out of the building by a security guard. Fortunately I'm smart and I plan ahead and I had already taken home all my stuff and deleted all my personal files from the computer. And I didn't get unemployment because I worked for a Catholic religious order that wasn't required to contribute to unemployment.
And that's just wrong. I don't care if they are a religious organization, the fact is they employed a lot of civilian personnel, and if they do that then they should be required to contribute to Social Security and unemployment, because the employees are NOT members of the religious order. This should be true no matter how many employees they have.
There are a LOT of details missing from this post and the underlying article, as well as some misinformation. Because Robyn is NOT an employment lawyer, allow me to explain a few things to tamp down the outrage.
1. If Sofia got 12 weeks of unpaid leave after the birth of her child, she’s probably protected by the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA), although the article isn’t clear on this point.
2. The FMLA provides that eligible employees are not only entitled to 12 weeks of unpaid leave (with maintenance of insurance benefits during that period), but also entitled to reinstatement to the same job at the end of leave. Reinstatement for an hour isn’t going to cut it. Even if her employer decided her temp replacement was better, or that other workers were capable of handling her position, that is not legal grounds for termination, meaning she has a legal cause of action.
3. The FMLA also has an anti-retaliation provision, which allows workers to sue if they were retaliated against for taking FMLA leave. Retaliation claims are much easier to prove in court.
4. While most federal anti-discrimination and retaliation statutes (under Title VII, the ADAAA, and the ADEA) require first filing a Charge of Discrimination with the EEOC, that is not the case with FMLA claims, which is an error in this post. Also, even if the administrative charge does not find cause, the employee is still issued a notice of right to sue.
5. Yes, an employee is probably best served by hiring a lawyer who specializes in an employment law. But, they rarely have to pay these attorneys on an hourly basis, as the vast majority of these cases are taken on contingency, which means the lawyer gets a percentage of the recovery, either via settlement or after winning at trial.
6. On a related note, most federal employment statutes provide that successful plaintiffs are also entitled to recovery of reasonable and necessary attorneys fees. Defendant employers, OTOH, usually have to pay their counsel by the hour and don’t get to recover those fees if they win, which is why many of these cases settle.
I’m not going to argue that there aren’t shitty employers out there; that the US needs stronger protection for workers; or that paid family leave should be a thing. But it really bothers me when ideology gets in the way of actual facts.
But if the business need requires eliminating her position, they aren’t violating her rights. They’ll just leave her job vacant for six months or a year and then find a pressing business need to fill it. Then the onus is on her to pay a lawyer to prove they were playing games - and her financial recovery won’t be very large, will it?
I’m coming from the viewpoint that (a) I’m older than Robyn, and (b) have been an employment lawyer for decades, so I am (perhaps ironically) less cynical about what employers do.
Either they need someone to fill the position, or they don’t. Why would you assume that the employer would “play games” for 6-12 months just to get rid of an employee simply because she had a baby?
As for the employee having to pay a lawyer, please see point 5 above. The vast majority of plaintiff employment claims are based on contingency, so the plaintiff isn’t putting up their own money to pay their attorney.
There are lots of reasons why it doesn’t make financial sense for a company to fire a good employee, either for lawful or unlawful reasons. I’m not saying it doesn’t ever happen, but I think Robyn is being overly dramatic based on the limited information contained in a TikTok video.
I’m coming from the point of view by being let go in exactly the same circumstance which I laid out - with the caveat I had been at the job two weeks before announcing my pregnancy so no time to determine if I was a good employee or not. The replacement they hired six months later was post - child bearing age.
While I agree that this is probably very uncommon, it doesn’t mean it doesn’t happen. Young women should be aware of the risks, aware of their rights, and most importantly, aware of their employer’s rights.
I agree that I don’t like exaggeration in that way because ultimately I think it undermines our arguments, but I will say I have a good number of friends whose employers will choose the FMLA leave time as a policy, even if they aren’t required to. Perhaps it saves on policy making for those smaller companies, or perhaps they don’t like having arguments with employees expecting FMLA. So those friends got the leave without the job protections, and boy did their employers want them to know how lucky they were to have such beneficent employers.
There are definitely companies that provide FMLA benefits even if not required to. There are also companies who provide paid leave, even if not required, because they recognize the benefits of retaining a qualified workforce.
I would like to see FMLA benefits extended to smaller employers, and paid leave for up to 6 weeks for smaller employers and 12 weeks for larger companies. There are various options to implement those benefits.
What I don’t care for is assuming that every employer is evil and looking for away to terminate otherwise good employees, which seems to be the message of this article.
Here in Oz you can get 12 months leave (unpaid) from your employer. Otherwise you are entitled to up to 20 weeks of Parental Leave Pay. Sacking you isn't an option.
I was tending bar when I got knocked up.. I didn't get fired when I can back from my 10 days I took off after giving birth, but I lost all my good shifts, so instead of Friday and Saturday nights I was working tables Tuesday and Thursday for lunch. I went from around $40k annually to closer to $18k if I had stuck it out. I quit and took my big mama boobies to drive bev cart at a golf course.
MAGA folks shout "Socialism!" at anything the Dems propose...and 100% of it will benefit them directly. Aside from simply falling for Repub/Fox lies, there isn't an explanation I can settle on that makes this make sense.
The loopholes in the FMLA, which are designed to ensure pregnant workers don't actually have any guarantee of job security, are similar to the section of the ACA which states that all employers having 50 or more employees must provide a private space, which is NOT a restroom stall, for breastfeeding moms to pump during their working shift. Guess where most breastfeeding moms end up pumping. In restroom stalls. No wonder we have the lowest persistent breastfeeding rates in the developed world.
Oh, man, you should have been there when I went to a conference at a hotel and asked where I could pump. Young woman at the desk suggested the restroom. I just looked at her and said, with a sour face, “that’s kinda gross.” Within two seconds, she said “oh! I can just put you in a room, what time will you need it?” It took TWO SECONDS ONLY for that 19-year-old to realize that expecting someone to pump in a place someone else was peeing was gross. And that they had an entire hotel available for a half an hour twice in one day. I swear, this stuff does not need to be so hard, people are just assholes.
I have pumped:
in a shared office (with a nursing apron),
in an empty, dusty classroom (requested a lock and eventually, a portable wall so they’d stop walking in and being embarrassed),
in several conference rooms (always with frustrated principals annoyed outside the door when they’d scheduled meetings in there. They had enormous offices of their own - I would have been happy to swap, but I did not have much flexibility as to time, no matter how many times they told me that when they had babies, they’d had to use formula, and couldn’t I just do all the pumping after 2pm!),
in nurses’ offices,
in detention rooms (extra special best when they stood outside complaining they were supposed to be able to bring kids in anytime),
and on one memorable occasion, in what I discovered was a janitor’s closet and break room, without them informing the janitorial staff.
The only time I felt safe in any way was the time I stuck my head in to my designated conference room (since they’d reassigned my office to include a new (old, male) administrator and I think just hoped I’d leave the whole office to him because they’d made it so inconvenient, but I refused to let my office go unless they planned on directly informing me it was no longer mine) and asked how long they would be, since it was the place they’d assigned for me to pump. “Oh!” said the one admin that I trusted in my whole career there, “we can go in the principal’s office.” And they decamped.
After that I felt absolutely fine telling them off for removing the blinds in the conference room they’d assigned me to pump in in one building. Because what the hell! And I stopped accepting the dust and the everyone-has-keys-but-me situation and the passive aggressive “I had to formula feed” admins.
I should have left sooner but boy oh boy did it feel good knowing they were too afraid to fire me.
Well done for hanging in there. There is no reason it should be so hard for working moms to breastfeed. We know the minimal accommodations they need. Employers just refuse to do the bare minimum, or actually create unnecessary barriers.
Going over it again made me realize just why I have so much mental illness residue from that job. There were so many times I was cutting them slack when I look back and realize, nah, they were trying to get rid of the mouthy lady. Removing the blinds, that was definitely a clue, and I’d forgotten all about it until I made this list. Yeesh.
The combination of "at will employment" plus "health insurance coverage linked to employment" plus "no concept of paid maternity leave" make America a backwards nation to work in compared to other first world countries.
One of the many many of societal ills that the blame for which can be laid DIRECTLY at the feet of the GOP.
Where I used to work in the States—as editor of a small-town weekly newspaper with roughly nine employees (three of them being members of the family that owned the paper)—the gal who did all the print ads got pregnant. They couldn't fire her, of course, because a) she was a good friend of the publisher's daughter, b) she did her job quite well, and c) they absolutely loathed having to go through the hiring process when anyone left/retired. Because there was no paid maternity leave, as soon as she found out she was pregnant she would work five days and get paid for four, essentially "banking" one paid day for her eight weeks off for maternity leave and getting somewhat of a regular paycheck every week while she was gone. But at least she knew she had a job she could come back to when those banked days ran out.
Companies go through layoffs all of the time. Companies try not to signal layoffs. There will be bad timing for someone.
Name checks out.
So does yours. Very funny joke.
While not impossible, I think it highly unlikely you have the first clue as to what my user name even refers to.
Now ask, Do I care?
That said, I’m sure you’ll just have to indulge.
I bet you're fun at parties.
I usually bring the dope. Doing anything Saturday night?
I got fired once on the very day I intended to turn in my notice. They fired me because I refused to do something they asked me to do which was illegal, and they had me escorted out of the building by a security guard. Fortunately I'm smart and I plan ahead and I had already taken home all my stuff and deleted all my personal files from the computer. And I didn't get unemployment because I worked for a Catholic religious order that wasn't required to contribute to unemployment.
And that's just wrong. I don't care if they are a religious organization, the fact is they employed a lot of civilian personnel, and if they do that then they should be required to contribute to Social Security and unemployment, because the employees are NOT members of the religious order. This should be true no matter how many employees they have.
Alas, America and the “religious exemption”.
Ta, Robyn. Infuriating and not unexpected.
Happened to me 25 years ago.
TPM on why Senators PROBABLY mean it when they pledge to maintain the filibuster if Trump wins.
Tl;dr: It allows them to not do anything and blame Dems for it because they are smart enough to know what they campaign on is deeply unpopular.
https://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/would-republicans-toss-the-filibuster-for-trump/sharetoken/kOVQyzkuct62
Is his argument logical? Sure.
It's also predicated on Donny NOT being a dictator and that things would run, more or less, as usual.
I ain't taking that bet.
There are a LOT of details missing from this post and the underlying article, as well as some misinformation. Because Robyn is NOT an employment lawyer, allow me to explain a few things to tamp down the outrage.
1. If Sofia got 12 weeks of unpaid leave after the birth of her child, she’s probably protected by the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA), although the article isn’t clear on this point.
2. The FMLA provides that eligible employees are not only entitled to 12 weeks of unpaid leave (with maintenance of insurance benefits during that period), but also entitled to reinstatement to the same job at the end of leave. Reinstatement for an hour isn’t going to cut it. Even if her employer decided her temp replacement was better, or that other workers were capable of handling her position, that is not legal grounds for termination, meaning she has a legal cause of action.
3. The FMLA also has an anti-retaliation provision, which allows workers to sue if they were retaliated against for taking FMLA leave. Retaliation claims are much easier to prove in court.
4. While most federal anti-discrimination and retaliation statutes (under Title VII, the ADAAA, and the ADEA) require first filing a Charge of Discrimination with the EEOC, that is not the case with FMLA claims, which is an error in this post. Also, even if the administrative charge does not find cause, the employee is still issued a notice of right to sue.
5. Yes, an employee is probably best served by hiring a lawyer who specializes in an employment law. But, they rarely have to pay these attorneys on an hourly basis, as the vast majority of these cases are taken on contingency, which means the lawyer gets a percentage of the recovery, either via settlement or after winning at trial.
6. On a related note, most federal employment statutes provide that successful plaintiffs are also entitled to recovery of reasonable and necessary attorneys fees. Defendant employers, OTOH, usually have to pay their counsel by the hour and don’t get to recover those fees if they win, which is why many of these cases settle.
I’m not going to argue that there aren’t shitty employers out there; that the US needs stronger protection for workers; or that paid family leave should be a thing. But it really bothers me when ideology gets in the way of actual facts.
But if the business need requires eliminating her position, they aren’t violating her rights. They’ll just leave her job vacant for six months or a year and then find a pressing business need to fill it. Then the onus is on her to pay a lawyer to prove they were playing games - and her financial recovery won’t be very large, will it?
I’m coming from the viewpoint that (a) I’m older than Robyn, and (b) have been an employment lawyer for decades, so I am (perhaps ironically) less cynical about what employers do.
Either they need someone to fill the position, or they don’t. Why would you assume that the employer would “play games” for 6-12 months just to get rid of an employee simply because she had a baby?
As for the employee having to pay a lawyer, please see point 5 above. The vast majority of plaintiff employment claims are based on contingency, so the plaintiff isn’t putting up their own money to pay their attorney.
There are lots of reasons why it doesn’t make financial sense for a company to fire a good employee, either for lawful or unlawful reasons. I’m not saying it doesn’t ever happen, but I think Robyn is being overly dramatic based on the limited information contained in a TikTok video.
I’m coming from the point of view by being let go in exactly the same circumstance which I laid out - with the caveat I had been at the job two weeks before announcing my pregnancy so no time to determine if I was a good employee or not. The replacement they hired six months later was post - child bearing age.
While I agree that this is probably very uncommon, it doesn’t mean it doesn’t happen. Young women should be aware of the risks, aware of their rights, and most importantly, aware of their employer’s rights.
I agree that I don’t like exaggeration in that way because ultimately I think it undermines our arguments, but I will say I have a good number of friends whose employers will choose the FMLA leave time as a policy, even if they aren’t required to. Perhaps it saves on policy making for those smaller companies, or perhaps they don’t like having arguments with employees expecting FMLA. So those friends got the leave without the job protections, and boy did their employers want them to know how lucky they were to have such beneficent employers.
There are definitely companies that provide FMLA benefits even if not required to. There are also companies who provide paid leave, even if not required, because they recognize the benefits of retaining a qualified workforce.
I would like to see FMLA benefits extended to smaller employers, and paid leave for up to 6 weeks for smaller employers and 12 weeks for larger companies. There are various options to implement those benefits.
What I don’t care for is assuming that every employer is evil and looking for away to terminate otherwise good employees, which seems to be the message of this article.
Thank you 2Cats! I just love it when our Wonk lawyers bring the facts to the table. It makes my head stop hurting well done thank you.
Here in Oz you can get 12 months leave (unpaid) from your employer. Otherwise you are entitled to up to 20 weeks of Parental Leave Pay. Sacking you isn't an option.
I was tending bar when I got knocked up.. I didn't get fired when I can back from my 10 days I took off after giving birth, but I lost all my good shifts, so instead of Friday and Saturday nights I was working tables Tuesday and Thursday for lunch. I went from around $40k annually to closer to $18k if I had stuck it out. I quit and took my big mama boobies to drive bev cart at a golf course.
MAGA folks shout "Socialism!" at anything the Dems propose...and 100% of it will benefit them directly. Aside from simply falling for Repub/Fox lies, there isn't an explanation I can settle on that makes this make sense.
They're angry. Why? They've lost on pretty much every single issue since before the Civil War.
Note we've gone from 90% of Americans living on farms in 1800 to about 2% today, with 90% living in "urban areas"?
Sorry rural folk. It was the industrial revolution that really started the decline of your political power.
The loopholes in the FMLA, which are designed to ensure pregnant workers don't actually have any guarantee of job security, are similar to the section of the ACA which states that all employers having 50 or more employees must provide a private space, which is NOT a restroom stall, for breastfeeding moms to pump during their working shift. Guess where most breastfeeding moms end up pumping. In restroom stalls. No wonder we have the lowest persistent breastfeeding rates in the developed world.
Oh, man, you should have been there when I went to a conference at a hotel and asked where I could pump. Young woman at the desk suggested the restroom. I just looked at her and said, with a sour face, “that’s kinda gross.” Within two seconds, she said “oh! I can just put you in a room, what time will you need it?” It took TWO SECONDS ONLY for that 19-year-old to realize that expecting someone to pump in a place someone else was peeing was gross. And that they had an entire hotel available for a half an hour twice in one day. I swear, this stuff does not need to be so hard, people are just assholes.
I have pumped:
in a shared office (with a nursing apron),
in an empty, dusty classroom (requested a lock and eventually, a portable wall so they’d stop walking in and being embarrassed),
in several conference rooms (always with frustrated principals annoyed outside the door when they’d scheduled meetings in there. They had enormous offices of their own - I would have been happy to swap, but I did not have much flexibility as to time, no matter how many times they told me that when they had babies, they’d had to use formula, and couldn’t I just do all the pumping after 2pm!),
in nurses’ offices,
in detention rooms (extra special best when they stood outside complaining they were supposed to be able to bring kids in anytime),
and on one memorable occasion, in what I discovered was a janitor’s closet and break room, without them informing the janitorial staff.
The only time I felt safe in any way was the time I stuck my head in to my designated conference room (since they’d reassigned my office to include a new (old, male) administrator and I think just hoped I’d leave the whole office to him because they’d made it so inconvenient, but I refused to let my office go unless they planned on directly informing me it was no longer mine) and asked how long they would be, since it was the place they’d assigned for me to pump. “Oh!” said the one admin that I trusted in my whole career there, “we can go in the principal’s office.” And they decamped.
After that I felt absolutely fine telling them off for removing the blinds in the conference room they’d assigned me to pump in in one building. Because what the hell! And I stopped accepting the dust and the everyone-has-keys-but-me situation and the passive aggressive “I had to formula feed” admins.
I should have left sooner but boy oh boy did it feel good knowing they were too afraid to fire me.
Well done for hanging in there. There is no reason it should be so hard for working moms to breastfeed. We know the minimal accommodations they need. Employers just refuse to do the bare minimum, or actually create unnecessary barriers.
Going over it again made me realize just why I have so much mental illness residue from that job. There were so many times I was cutting them slack when I look back and realize, nah, they were trying to get rid of the mouthy lady. Removing the blinds, that was definitely a clue, and I’d forgotten all about it until I made this list. Yeesh.
Sorry you went through that. Workplace related PTSD is real.
Thanks. Sometimes I find it hard to believe, and I was there.
Oh so sanitary!
The combination of "at will employment" plus "health insurance coverage linked to employment" plus "no concept of paid maternity leave" make America a backwards nation to work in compared to other first world countries.
One of the many many of societal ills that the blame for which can be laid DIRECTLY at the feet of the GOP.
It makes us a backwards nation compared to many THIRD world countries.
Thank you MI AG Dana Nessel. The police should not be above the law:
https://www.mlive.com/news/grand-rapids/2024/05/michigan-state-trooper-charged-with-murder-for-striking-man-with-police-car.html?e=94d726cb1a6e59d581882f72f336b579&lctg=6348e99688b47eb03e0bdcb1&utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Newsletter_breaking&utm_term=Newsletter_breaking_news
As always, your acumen and moral compass produce beautiful writing on utter barbarity.
Many thanks, CD!
When I first ran a bidness, the rule was if ya got pregnant, ya got fired.
A long time ago. But my crew was about 65% women, and having a wife
and kids myself, I was not surprised when they did.
In those days a GM could do almost anything they wanted if you made money.
So I worked around what pregnant ladies wanted to do.
Small town, employees would meet my wife in the grocery store.
My kids went to school with their kids.
As my head honchos were on the East Coast, they had bigger problems than
than the occasional pregnant lady in Hickville, CA.
No problems me.
Oh, and that guy should just be hiring robots.
Save us all some trouble.
Sounds like a great policy to encourage women to have abortions. Must have been thought up by a “pro-life” republican.
Thank you for your kindness and business sense.
𝑦𝑜𝑢 𝑐𝑎𝑛’𝑡 𝑓𝑖𝑟𝑒 𝑠𝑜𝑚𝑒𝑜𝑛𝑒 𝑓𝑜𝑟 𝑔𝑒𝑡𝑡𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑝𝑟𝑒𝑔𝑛𝑎𝑛𝑡. 𝑀𝑜𝑠𝑡𝑙𝑦
This is enraging. Also, how can someone be mostly pregnant?
They mostly get pregnant at night. Mostly.
It's been my experience that pregnancy is an all or nothing deal.