Is this grounds for an EEOC complaint, or ADA lawsuit?My girlfriend had been working for an engineering firm for about 2 years. About 6 months after she went to work there she was diagnosed with kidney disease and had to go on dialysis and. While on dialysis her employer allowed her to go on part-time status working only 24 hours per week. After 8 months on dialysis she recieved a kidney transplant and was out of work on long term disability for six months. Her boss knew she was on the transplant list and would be out six months after the surgery and indicated he was ok with this.
She returned to work full-time exactly six months following the transplant. About three months later she developed complications and became ill while on a business trip and had to cancel the remainder of the trip and return home to see his doctor. She had to to be hospitalized several days for testing and a procedure to remove a kidney stone and insert a stent. The day after she returned to work following this hospitalization her boss called her into the office and told him her she was being "laid off due to lack of work".
This is a large multi-national firm with hundreds of employees and the company is doing VERY WELL having recently been awarded Federal contracts worth nearly half a billion dollars. The company kept two other less experienced employees in her office who did basicly the same job. One of these employees was a new hire right out of college with NO EXPERIENCE who had just started work there a month before my girlfriend was laid off. At the time my she was laid off the company had an opening for a position with a job description IDENTICAL to my girlfriend's job posted on their corporate website. If she was laid off due to lack of work why were they advertising for new employees?
They were also in the process of moving to a larger office because her boss said they were planning to expand the staff in that office and needed more space. I am pretty sure my girlfriend was targeted for layoff due to her medical problems because she was the only person in that office who was laid off and she was much more experienced and had been with the company longer than the two other employees in the same position that they kept.
After she was laid off she contacted someone in HR to ask questions about benefits and this person apparently slipped up and told her that she was not let go due to "lack of work" as she was told but because of the quality of her work. She has had good performance reviews ever since she has been with the firm so she is not sure why they would say this. She contacted the regional manager (her boss's boss) to clarify why he was laid off and these other less experienced employees were kept and they beat around the bush and told her that her education and job skills did not match up with the current work load they had, etc., etc. This is total BS because the other employees they kept have the EXACT SAME job description and she worked together with them on projects. When she pointed this out they they got very defenseive and a company attorney who was also in on the conversation told her they are an "at will employer" and added that "since Virginia is a right to work state they can legally terminate any employee at any time, for for any reason and don't even have to give a reason." Is this really true, I can't believe this is legal?
Fortunately, my girlfriend managed to get on disability due to her health problems but it only pays her about 1/7 of what she was earning as an engineer. She has a printout of the job posting that they had online the day she was laid off and also a bunch of newsletters and emails sent out by he CEO that document the financial status of the company as well as the new contracts they had just been awarded. Should she file a charge of discrimination with the EEOC since she still has several weeks before the deadline to file? Does she have grounds for an ADA lawsuit against this company?
Posted by hdhayes60
She very possibly has a case. She needs to consult an attorney right away. It's true that, in a right-to-work state, an employee can be terminated for no reason, but the circumstances surrounding the termination could cause legal issues.
Posted by Kathi S
No she does not. Because of the amount of time you are describing she has used up her FMLA which was the only job protection the employer had to give her. Missing extended time from work is not an accommodation under the ADA, the company has a job that needs to be done and they need someone who can be there to do it. If she is sick enough to qualify for disability then she has already proven she is too sick to work. The company can terminate for any reason so you really do not have a case.
Posted by Trevor
Yes, it most certainly is and this company was asking for a lawsuit when they singled her out for termination. A person with end stage renal disease is considered permanently disabled and as a result is part of a protected class under the ADA. At will employment does not mean that employers can ignore the ADA and single out a disabled employee for layoff because they have medical problems. This company is going to have to prove to the EEOC that they really had no work for her to do and that keeping her employed would have constituted an undue financial hardship for the company (doubtful). They are also going to have to explain to the EEOC why they chose to lay her off rather than the less experienced employees who had less senority. The EEOC will also want to know why they had just hired a new employee and were advertising an opening in that office if the company was really suffering financial hardship due to "lack of work". I think this company is going to have a really tough time explaining this!
Orignal From: Is this grounds for an EEOC complaint, or ADA lawsuit?
No comments:
Post a Comment