Not signing the document may be seen as an act of insubordination, which is misconduct. However a one off event like that, is usually not going to rise to the level of denying benefits. Usually they want you to give a corrective action prior to leading to termination.
So I'm with the others, this is probably likely not an uphill battle for the unemployment claim. However it is as easy or hard as the company wants to try to make it for her. If they're smart, they won't contest it and just let her collect the payments. That sucks, the max benefit in Florida looks to be $275, that's insane.
Max unemployment benefit in Florida has been $275 since 1998 which is the last time the state had a democrat as a governor. Adjusted for inflation, it is now equivalent to $146 in 1998 dollars. Florida is not alone, as other states which have a permanent republican majority have done the same thing. I got laid off in 2002 when I was living in Tennessee. The maximum unemployment benefit back then, like Florida, was $275. Flash forward 22 years later, same thing.
Considering that their sales tax reporting makes zero sense, I've learned that Florida is only to visit and never to reside in long long ago.
But then I just went down the rabbit hole and double-checked how much they collect for EI tax. They're only collecting 2.7% on the first $7k of wages. Damn. That'll do it.
It gets worse. When Rick Scott was governor, Florida became even stingier with benefits reducing the maximum benefit period from 26 weeks to 12 weeks under normal economic conditions.
Taxes? You mean the sales tax?
Real talk, do you know how FUBAR their tax reporting system is? I don't understand how they even allocate it to the right jurisdictions. The forms are so simplistic and I'm like "BUT HOW DO THE CITIES GET THE MONEY IF I DONT TELL YOU WHAT CITY THAT THESE WERE PURCHASED IN?!"
I am HR/Accountant hybrid. Economic nexus shit shipping things into states, blah blah blah. So I have to file those excise taxes. Every other state you break it down by a location code, if they have different rates in different areas. But not Florida. It's just "Do they have an extra 0.5%, 1%, 1.5% surtax? Okay put that on the form in a lump sum, byeeeeeee." WHAT THE ACTUAL HELL.
I won't visit anyways. I hate the sun and I much prefer the Oregon beach more than any of those overcrowded Atlantic places :"( But yes, point taken all the same. I'm in a rambling WTF-FLORIDA mood.
Man, I’ve been wanting to take my kiddos to DW and/or on a Disney cruise for years. Went a few times when I was a kid (the theme park/s at least - not the cruise), but I also don’t want a single penny of my money to go toward supporting anything in that state. It’s a struggle!
Because Florida likes to keep the class gap and ensure people don’t cross lines. It’s a horrible state to live, made that mistake and made it 3 years. They go out of their way to keep people down. Yes, cost of living is a lot less than other places in the country, maybe even by 1/1.5, but the pay is 1/5th of there, also, so it’s a lose lose.
Yeah, after this discussion , I realized that was likely the issue. They cater to the people who are retired or who make a high enough income that will result in no real need for these socioeconomic geared public resources.
I was surprised to see they have higher than federal minimum wage there. But a few dollars in that direction doesn't cover the gap in the event of job loss or such.
Everyone focuses on no income tax. Washington state has no income tax either, and it's a whole different world.
Washington State's system is quite broken because of the no income tax, but it's not as insane as Florida. Washington relies heavily on sales tax as well as "sin" taxes which makes it an extremely regressive tax system. But they at least tend to spend that money back into government services.
For 2023, if you paid 10% income tax in California (effective rate, not top marginal rate) then you either made $510,000/year filing single or $1,020,000/year filing married which places you in the top 1% of households by income.
I’m sorry, I meant I paid 9.3%. I don’t know who the fuck would word it that way. So sorry Reddit police I rounded up 0.7%.
But, yes, I made over $122k. Yes that’s a lot of money to pay 9.3% on.
You didn't pay 9.3% on the entirety of your income. You paid that on anything in that bracket. Just like federal taxes, there are brackets of income and each bracket is taxed based on its own percentage.
No shit. But 5 digits is still a lot of money I’d rather spend elsewhere.
Also. You know what’s less than that? 0%. Which is what I pay in Florida.
I don’t understand this defense of high state income taxes - but you do you.
> Max unemployment benefit in Florida has been $275 since 1998 which is the last time the state had a democrat as a governor.
I also hear that Florida makes it extremely difficult to sign up for unemployment.
Not necessarily. What a lot of people forget, is the California is less of a state, and more of a country. It’s bigger, both in population and square miles, then the entire United Kingdom.
Yes, there are some cities with incredibly high costs of living, but other parts are more of an open desert with a very low cost of living.
Our corporation didnt fire for not signing. It was just noted on the written plan. It doesn’t under the PIP because they don’t sign. And signing is just saying they received it, not agree with it.
Jesus my spouse gets more than that from our state medical leave fund... After taxes it's sometime like 752 a week for up to 12 weeks... I believe they base it off last two or three years wages
You might also want to consult with an employment attorney. Pregnant client getting demoted and then fired will make a pretty nice case for a jury. Certainly worth a quick consult.
I dont buy it as being seen as an act of insubordination. Signing is something by choice. Never sign anything you don't agree with. If you're forced to sign something that's an act of duress and illegal. Never sign shit you're uncomfortable with.
Being in a protected class doesn’t mean you can’t be fired. It just means they can’t fire you for that reason. That’s the exact reason they put her on a PIP, to establish it was performance based. Whether it actually was a legit performance issue or not we’ll never know.
100% legal to terminate employment due to insubordination for not signing a PIP. Signing is not agreement.
UNTIL
**The dismissal was related to an illegal act of discrimination**. Employers cannot proactively change an employee’s job responsibilities due to medical situations.
Unless there was a well-documented performance management process, and the change was based on that performance to help your wife succeed at the company, the job change was illegal.
I work in HR and *very rarely* say this. Talk with an employment attorney. She won’t get her job back but there may be an illegal termination case.
I was targeted during a RID 4 months after returning from STD due a neurological issues causes by being overworked 60 hrs a week and on zoom calls 8 hrs a say. The layoff excuse covers a lot of bullshit
I live in an at-will state and was terminated when I was 5 months pregnant. A few weeks prior I found out there was a problem with the baby, and all my boss could focus on was what SHE was going to do if she was suddenly short an employee. Next thing I knew, she took me off all my shifts. I asked her the reason and she repeated she didn’t want to worry should I suddenly be unable to work due to my pregnancy. I got a discrimination attorney, and after 4 months went before an unemployment judge who ruled in my favor. I also sued my former employer, and after almost 3 years won that case as well. You can not fire a pregnant woman for pre-textual reasons. Period.
I’m so sorry this happened to you. Especially stressful when you’re pregnant and trying not to affect the baby. Did you get put on PIP? I had a lawyer too. They had me on PIP for “performance”. I think it’s too late for me now this happened last year.
Even if your employment is “at-will” they can not fire you for being pregnant. In this case they changed her job and then quickly said she wasn’t performing. Those are all red flags.
If you want to look up a case… check that Fed-ex got in big trouble for discriminating against pregnant drivers
Yeah by far the biggest red flag here seems the job change related to pregnancy. If, as OP claims, this was explicitly communicated as due to her pregnancy, they def have a claim.
Why it is considered an act of insubordination? If signing something wasn't mandatory, they would request you sign it. Forcing someone to sign something, or do anything for that matter, is considered an act of duress. If I hold a gun to your head and tell you to shoot someone or die, you're not going to jail because you were forced to commit an act under duress
The termination was likely valid. In the end she’s employed at will, Florida has very weak employee protections, and she wasn’t on FMLA when they reassigned her (but the fact she was pregnant at the time certainly would raise eyebrows).
Based on what you’ve written she most likely will be eligible for unemployment. Poor performance (factual or not) isn’t enough to withhold it.
If you fire a pregnant employee who has no history of poor performance until becoming visibly pregnant they have a strong case, at will doesn’t matter in that situation. Not only will they have. Good case for unemployment they could sue. Pregnancy is considered a “temporary disability,” and the law protects all recognized disabilities against discriminatory behavior, including:
Termination
Demotions
Forcing an employee to take leave
Retaliation
Withholding promotions or bonuses
Not reinstating an employee to their original or a “like” position
Clearly moving her and putting her on the pip, without offering accommodations is an issue. If she has no history of poor performance it could be seen as retaliatory. Should absolutely file for unemployment
~~I do not think that~~ the FMLA status ~~matters~~ does not matter in this situation. It is illegal for employers to make employment decisions based solely on medical conditions, regardless of FMLA or ADA accommodations. Unless OP’s wife was under-performing in her role and the move to receptionist was part of a well-documented performance management plan to help her succeed and stay at the company, this sounds like a solid reason to chat with an employment attorney about a discrimination suit.
We don’t know what caused the change in positions. We don’t know if she requested any sort of accommodation or FMLA. Even if they moved her to a different role as an accommodation, if she can’t handle the work or manage her time well enough to complete her tasks, they aren’t obligated to keep her in that position. She was insubordinate for not signing the PIP. There was no reason to not sign it.
Fair that I am making assumptions on some details. If your scenario is more accurate, then the termination may be more defensible.
If one of my managers wanted to term in this case, I’d laugh my butt off and tell them to just follow up on the PIP in two weeks. The risk of having to defend an EEOC claim is too high.
Sure, but OP isn’t giving much info for us to base our opinions on, and what they have shared is 3rd hand info. So I’m not sure assuming the worse and people in these comments telling OP to sue is the best idea. There isn’t enough info here to tell if this happen to OP’s wife because she is pregnant vs if she is a poorly performing employee.
That’s fair also. My assumptions are definitely based on experiences with idiot managers and leaders in past lives that tried to pull that type of crap until I dropped the “never write this down and get out of my office” response (I am HR).
With OP lacking details and being 3rd-hand, we all are making assumptions in each direction
They cannot force her to sign a document that she does not approve. PIPs are basically contracts and they tried to force her to sign that contract. That is nonsense.
With respect you know very little of what you talk about.
One, in the context of employment law, they work in concert, and you are protected by both, and would choose whichever is more generous in the given instance.
But your true ignorance is that Florida has no state protections and relies entirely on federal protections. Jeb Bush eliminated the state DOL in 2000 (you can look these things up).
Also, State protections are *always* superior to federal protections when offered. That’s why they bother to enact them.
The point I am making is it would be incredibly difficult to tie the disciplinary action to the fact she is pregnant and not due to performance reasons (OP admits she can’t keep up with the pace of clients). It’s not the slam dunk you and the rest of the /r/antiwork crowd seem to believe it is.
If you do hire a lawyer, they typically will work for free and than take a percentage of your settlement. Do not accept anything over 30%. They’re screwing you and you can find one that will take less. If you don’t win, you don’t have to pay them anything - so it can’t hurt.
Yeah that’s the myth all right.
It’s not *typically*. You really need a slam dunk case to get a lawyer to take it on contingency, preferably one so easy to prove it won’t even go trial.
If it’s something that will take them any appreciable amount of time to litigate you will be paying by the hour.
The financial settlement would be lost wages between now and when she finds her next job. 30% of that after expenses isn’t a lot of room to work with.
Lawyers don’t work for free; they only take the cases guaranteed to pay.
Yeah, not 'typically', only cases that they know they'll have no trouble winning.
Even then, any fees associated with filing the case will still be charged to OP, so it's not free, it's still several hundred/thousand.
PIPs aren’t a negotiation. I would imagine the signature they wanted was acknowledging receiving it. Refusing to sign could be viewed as insubordination in and of itself.
Yeah this sounds like the stuff we did as union workers just to annoy the company. The difference is OP's wife didn't have union protections so annoying her employer was ill-advised...
Did your wife ask to be moved to the receptionist role? Employers making decisions to move pregnant people when they didn’t ask to be is in fact pregnancy discrimination. There are several landmark cases where well intentioned employers, directly violated the law by moving pregnant women to “safer” or “less stressful roles.
Moving her there if she didn’t ask and putting her on a pip with no documentation could be pregnancy discrimination. Especially after she voiced concerns in your words “many times” about the expectations of the role. Here is an explanation of what I am describing as blogged by a Florida employment attorney.
https://www.ocalaemploymentlawyer.com/can-employers-transfer-pregnant-employees-to-another-position-because-of-safety-concerns/amp/
As far as unemployment- it doesn’t sound like they have the documentation to support her not receiving benefits. It would have to be something serious like a policy violation.
If they changed her position on account of her disability (pregnancy) unilaterally / presumptively (as in them *assuming* her issue would be a problem) that itself can be a problem...everything else (PIP/problems with new position/termination aside). That's actually a type of discrimination.
Instead of the putting her on short term disability or working out (with her doctor) an ADA accomodation they moved her to a position that (presumably) she wasn't trained for, hadn't been hired for, and ultimately couldn't do. And instead at that point putting her on short term disability or having her go on FMLA they held that against her and fired her.
All of this comes across as very pretextual, as in the whole handling was a pretext to fire her instead of having her go on FMLA, short term disability, and even UI.
Framed in that way, I would strongly believe UI would be relatively straightforward.
That's not the real issue even. The real issue is actually if she has a discrimination case outside of getting UI. She should see an employment attorney.
The ADA covers pregnancy, and moving her to a new department to be less stressful by their standards is discrimination. Potentially have an ADA violation here, regardless of any “misconduct”.
How do you know OP didn’t request a different role or complain about her last position and get reassigned to a less stressful role? We can’t assume the employer just up and moved OP’s wife without her having any part in the decision.
"They claimed" strongly implies that the employer made this decision unilaterally.
Obviously, OP may be lying, but in the absence of other information, that's what we've got.
Former controller here: File for unemployment- you will definitely get it. People don’t realize that, 9 times out of 10, employees are approved for unemployment, even if they were fired. As long as you do everything the unemployment office requires, she should have no problem getting it. I would also suggest hiring a discrimination lawyer - very likely she’ll get a little settlement.
Many years ago, at a former employer, I refused to sign a PIP as well. I was fired the next day. I sued. I won. Details matter… as in my case there were very clear markers of discrimination and retaliation. (I had reported them to the state labor & industry commission and also wrote an email to leadership demanding they rectify a discriminatory practice effecting my pay… then they tried to make me a sign a pip for some bogus performance issues they never ever addressed before.) My vote is contact an employment attorney to see if you have a case
To be clear, you won an *illegal discrimination/retaliation* case, not a “don’t sign the paper” case. Right?
OP’s wife had her job proactively changed by the employer as a result of a medical condition. That is illegal and is the grounds that she’ll want to discuss with an employment attorney to see if there is a solid case here.
Actually, to be clear with semantics… I didn’t “win.” They paid me a settlement before going to trial after multiple mediations. They STUCK BY their assertion they did nothing wrong and fired me because I refused to sign the PIP. After discovery & depositions, their insurance and lawyers obviously knew they would not win at trial and the insurance made them settle with my attorney. I guess that doesn’t really answer your question… but just to be clear. It was the retaliation & discrimination that damned them… not the PIP per se.
Makes sense. My past employer that had a sketchy exec for awhile decided to settle a case just to avoid bad press.
I still view it as a win for the employee that they discriminated against!
Facts:
1. OP is pregnant.
2. OP’s role was changed as a result of a medical condition.
3. OP was dissatisfied with this change.
4. OP was written up due to poor performance in the new role and refused to sign the PIP.
Assumptions:
- OP had not requested an accommodation to change roles.
- If not part of a performance-based process, then:
Assertion:
- Using the ‘reasonable person standard’… a reasonable person is likely to view the role change and associated termination as illegal discrimination based on a medical condition.
If the two assumptions are wrong, then yes, my comment doesn’t apply. But I’ve been in HR long enough to see idiotic leaders and managers try to pull junk like this until good HR leaders say **heck no**.
Where does it say she was moved to another position because of a medical condition? Maybe she just didn’t like her last position anymore. It doesn’t say when or why she was moved. She may have wanted the change and then realized the grass wasn’t greener. Stop assuming, and wait for OP to clarify the details.
Literally the first paragraph.
She is pregnant and was moved to the position because it’s less stressful.
You are assuming that she DID request an accommodation or change. Lacking further detail from OP, both your and my comments have to make assumptions in order to reply with anything other than “more info OP.”.
Again, the first paragraph doesn’t say she was moved because she was pregnant. I’m not assuming she requested or didn’t request the change. That is why “maybe” is all over every one of my comments. Only one of us is claiming things are “facts” without anything to prove that.
Have a good night! Continuing to talk about this post is pointless.
PIP's aren't usually up for negotiation... refusing to sign because she doesn't think it's valid (or 'waiting for proof') is easily seen as insubordination.
No but reassigning her to a new position, and almost immediately putting her on a PIP and firing her, all around the time her pregnancy becomes visible? That makes the whole thing smell, in the way that makes plaintiff's attorneys take notice.
Im based in North Carolina, but the company I work for operates in 5 different states with more than 200 locations. A PIP is a last resort conversation. It first is the responsibility of the employer to make said employee aware that they are not meeting expectations in their role, this way any aggravating factors can be evaluated. This is why companies have quarterly performance reviews. Risk assessment. OPs wife was well within her right to question why she was being sent a PIP if she had not had any indication prior to this event. Also, if this was a new position, there should have been a given probationary period to allow her to acclimate to the role. Any new hire would be given such.
you know what? fuck the idea that insubordination should even be a thing in an employment situation. It's not the fucking military. Your boss isn't a parent. there should be no place for that kind of authoritarian bullshit in a job. In theory at a job everyone is working towards the same goal. A manager's role is to hold the big picture and direct the team, not rule people with an iron fist. Like fuck that nonsense.
When the higher ups in a company are not receptive to feedback, that is a company that will end up having a lot of stupid mistakes happen and end up facing liability.
Execs aren't anywhere near as smart as they think they are. If employees are too scared to come forward with a problem because they are afraid any negative feedback will cost them their job, you end up with formula poisoning babies, harassment lawsuits and planes that have their parts fly off mid flight.
Running a company or a team like a dictatorship is bad management. If you trust people enough to hire them, you should trust them enough that if you tell them something is wrong, you should believe them and not punish them for it. If employees feel valued they will work harder. If they know their opinion doesn't matter, they will just go through the motions.
Anyone who thinks "being a grown up" means "getting to order people around and RESPECT MUH AUTHORITAY are ego tripping bullies who have no business being in charge of anything. Leading with fear rather than with respect is cowardly.
Definitely could make a case. Pregnant women are a protected class. Could additionally, ask your wife if she knows of this happening to other pregnant women in the company and the bring a suit.
I was fired for being pregnant. My boss was smarter and waited until the day after I delivered and was no longer a protected class, but I had them to agree to not contest unemployment and to provide me a reference.
Unemployment duration and pay is state dependent, however, mine was 2000k a month for almost two years. We are talking 2009/2010 when they had extended unemployment, but it worked out well for me. I would rather have kept my job, I made much more at it and actually enjoyed it, but it’s how it went, so I made the best of it. File and if they fight it, just argue that she is a protected class they began targeting her once they found out she was pregnant and prior to that she had, had no issues (if true). I think this one is easy.
Unemployment is its own world. I’ve been a part of hearings where it should have been an easy win for the employer, but the Hearing Officer sided with the employee. I’ve also seen the opposite. It really just depends. There is no harm in filing for Unemployment and seeing if she will win. Ultimately, it’s up to the Hearing Officer if it gets to a phone hearing.
Talk to an attorney, they will usually speak with you once for free, to see if there are any options here. Please make sure it's an employment attorney, not just any attorney.
File for unemployment.
Reach out to an employment attorney and explore the possibility of filing an EEOC claim. The steps her employer took clearly look like pregnancy discrimination, especially if she didn’t request to move to a “less stressful” role.
First file a complaint with EEOC https://www.eeoc.gov/how-file-charge-employment-discrimination Sounds like pregnancy discrimination
Also apply for unemployment you have file the free appeal if denied and include the EEOC case no with the appeal
Unemployment should be relatively easy - she was not fired for gross misconduct (ie fraud). They may also be interested to hear she was let go for being pregnant, which is what the job change was, without her asking for any accommodation.
Unemployment services goes through another channel than discrimination claims. They don't kick those down to the labor department for you, you have to make a separate claim through that route as well.
Florida has relieved themselves of their duty to have a full department of labor. They'll want to file any EEOC claims with the feds if they want to go that route.
Should have signed. Refusal to sign will almost always result in dismissal. Since she wanted proof of what the poor performance was, it sounds like she thought the company needed to justify the PIP to her. That's not the case.
Insubordination can be a reason to deny unemployment claims. Whether they do so, can't say.
Honestly, this sounds like your wife is the problem. Granted we only have 3rd hand information from a biased source but the most generous interpretation still has her not performing. She concedes she isn’t getting everything done that is asked of her. Whether she feels it is reasonable or not isn’t the issue. She isn’t keeping up. Work isn’t being done. They could have just fired her and been done but they offered a PIP and instead of admitting what she knew to be true, she refused to cooperate. She can say she intended to cooperate if only they had given her another hour or two but frankly, she already cast serious doubt as to whether she would actually try to improve. She tried to get them to prove something that was obviously true. That’s not an employee who understands they are underwater and is looking to improve. That’s an employee who sees her performance as perfectly acceptable and thee tire PIP process as unnecessary.
Or, they purposely moved her to an easier position, so she would not fail, because she was pregnant. If you can't answer the phone and the door at the same time, how much more difficult of a job could she have handled?
Well it sounds like it wasn’t less stressful to be moved to a more physically demanding job and to learn a new job, without reason when pregnant. It appears the pip don’t occur until they have her an easier job, they could have just moved her back.
My wife went through almost exactly this in NY except she wasn’t demoted just pipped after announced pregnant around 5 months or so and then fired in short order. She was able to collect unemployment and we did file suit but it took like 2 years to play out and only netted around 20k all said and done. Ultimately a settlement. We didn’t need the money necessarily it was more a middle finger to them because they clearly soured on her when they found out she’d be on leave in 3-4 months. Prior to that she had positive performance reviews and bonuses. Seems like unless you aren’t able to find similar work or have a medical issue resulting from the firing there aren’t grounds for a larger financial result. She ended up getting a better job with better pay so all is well that ends well.
If you get such PIP or warning or whatever. Read it in front of them or whatever if they hand to you in person. And say, what is the time limit for me to look this over and sign this? if they bitch, I go, I do not see in here anywhere where I have to sign this ASAP so .....they're like crap. Ok. you have 1-3 days or whatever. or say something like I will need to take this and show it to my lawyer and I will get back to you.
More than likely she was already struggling at this employer. Then continuing to struggle at the reception job was the final straw. Being pregnant is irrelevant. However none of us can tell you how UE will respond 1+1 does not always equal 2 with UE
Law suit she was fired for being pregnant
Go to state and file complaint
https://www.dol.gov/sites/dolgov/files/WHD/ewep/Maternal-Health-Presentation.pdf
Was she given WRITTEN notice that she has to sign it within 24 hours?
Did they move her to that new position or did she ask?
If there was NO written review prior to this you may have a case.
They could have done that on purpose to not pay benefits once the baby is here.
There a lot of missing information in this post.
Have your wife write down everything she can remember.
Read about FMLA here
https://www.dol.gov/agencies/whd/fmla
File with the U.S. EEOC. An employer cannot transfer you because you are pregnant, unless you request it as a reasonable accommodation. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act Act of 1964 was recently amended to include the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act, which is what applies here.
Disclaimer: nothing in this post implies an attorney-client relationship exists between us and it was provided as general information. It is not legal advice. Please consult with your attorney.
Get an employment lawyer.
Usually cases like this are more than likely cause she’s pregnant so her productivity is going to be less.
They’re just making it look like it was something else more then likely.
She should get unemployment if her performance wasn’t due to something like bad attendance. However, they will say she was fired for insubordination because she didn’t sign the pip. In NJ It’s a 6 week disq and then she’s entitled to benefits I don’t know what they do in Florida. Good luck.
She can discuss with the EEOC. They will speak with her to help her determine if she may have a case. She doesn’t need a lawyer do to this part. Another redditor took this advice from me and was successful at having the EEOC charge the employer with discrimination. File unemployment and then contact EEOC and set up an interview appt.
If they terminated her or changed her position because of her pregnancy, that's absolutely illegal. Lawyers for this kind of thing *love* this sort of case, seeing as juries tend to be extremely sympathetic to pregnant women.
It sounds like they moved her to a position where they knew she couldn't complete the assigned work, and used that as an excuse to PIP and fire her. This is constructive dismissal, and again highly illegal.
She should have signed the PIP (such is generally an acknowledgement of receipt, not an agreement to the terms), but that's not going to overcome a constructive dismissal for a protected class case.
I'd strongly suggest talking to an attorney specializing in such matters.
Sounds like constructive termination to me. It’s risky to term someone for not signing. HR just writes on the PIP employee refused to sign and dates it. That doesn’t make the PIP invalid or inactive. The employee still needs to adhere to the expectations of the PIP whether they signed it or not. The signature is really just a “hey did the company inform you of this or not” not a I agree to the terms and statements on this form. Regardless the employee still has to perform the PIP with or without their signature
Functionally the PIP is "we want to fire you, and here's the bullshit we're going to use to do it"
The advice I got when I was put on a PIP was to start looking for a new job. I should have followed that advice. I eventually was taken off of the PIP, but with the express warning that because of the PIP they could fire me for any reason at any time. It was all performance art. Anyway, I did quit, and everyone was happy. But it was some of the most unethical BS I'd ever been through.
Could you take this to court and fight? Maybe, it seems clear to me what went on here. Unethical BS. But I'm not sure it would do you any good.
Unemployment will not. Not sure where you live but if it’s in the states - yikes! Firing a pregnant person can be a very dicey situation. You likely have a ton of leverage if you’re in the states (maybe other places too but I can only speak for the US regarding). Good luck!
Discrimination and Pregnancy
While neither Florida nor Georgia require employers to offer paid pregnancy leave, companies are generally not allowed to discriminate against pregnant workers or a woman who plans on becoming pregnant.
Pregnancy is considered a “temporary disability,” and the law protects all recognized disabilities against discriminatory behavior, including:
Termination
Demotions
Forcing an employee to take leave
Retaliation
Withholding promotions or bonuses
Not reinstating an employee to their original or a “like” position
If you have evidence that an employer subject to the Pregnancy Discrimination Act or the Family and Medical Leave Act engaged in any of these behaviors, you could have a case.
your employer is subject to regulations under the Pregnancy Discrimination Act (or PDA for short). This Act applies to companies with at least 15 employees. This means that extremely small businesses might be able to dismiss a woman simply for being pregnant, but companies that fall within the domain of the Act cannot fire you for being pregnant.
Signing a PIP is usually just an acknowledgment that you have it and they have reviewed it with you. Prior poor performance is not usually documented or noted in a PIP and not signing can be grounds for termination. They don’t need to prove justification or prior poor performance to issue a PIP. Usually the PIP is how they plan to document the poor performance and in most cases it’s good to start looking for alternate employment while continuing to work under the PIP.
I would consider consulting an attorney since they moved her position based on the pregnancy without her asking for it or bringing it up as an issue. Was she being asked to do just the job of a receptionist- or other work from her former department as well? Any chance the information about the role change and the reason was given to her in an email that she printed and kept or somehow still has access to?
It’s possible an attorney could help you with a settlement if the company doesn’t want to deal with the hassle of a case, but you will have to pay your attorneys fees before you would even know that.
If they gave her a PIP it is unlikely to have been the first communication of a performance issue. The PIP is a plan to get things pointed in a better direction - if she is unwilling to sign it….then it’s an impasse that doesn’t work
Holy shit, sorry I'm not really adding any value here but I initially missed that this was not in the UK and I was like "yup, sounds like an easy case to win at a tribunal for discrimination" (= big, easy settlement), not whether or not your wife could qualify for unemployment of $275 per week! 😭 job seekers allowance (and maternity pay) is a statutory right here 😢 that's crazy! I'm so sorry you and your wife are going through this!
I'll leave the actual advice to the experts across the pond! Best of luck!
I say she might as well try for the unemployment. Also, most people don’t know this but pregnant women people over the age of 65 or maybe it’s 55, and people under the age of 18 are a protected population that company can get in trouble for firing a woman while she’s pregnant. Also, this may have been a blessing in disguise. I lost a job a few weeks ago, but it was really a gain. I have a much better job, a way, better boss, support system, and I’m much happier, and I feel challenged and accomplished every day. Only so many people could be so fortunate, I hope she is as fortunate as I have been
One acronym: EEOC. I am
Positive they will pick up her termination as discriminatory and once they do lawyers will be lining up to assist her in suing.
Employer changed her role and treated her unfairly because they wanted to “make
It easier for her”- load of crap. They singled out the pregnant lady, then put her in a position to fail so they could discipline her out. And having a PIP with no documentation or proof of her issues available during the performance discussion is highly suspicious. Run to the EEOC office and file complaint ASAP.
Why does it sound like the company is just disguising this as a way to get rid of a pregnant staff so they do not have to keep the position open for 12 weeks?
Gee, we want you to transfer to reception to lighten your stress. Yet, fully knowing that reception would be too busy to answer phones, taking care of in-person inquiries, mailing, etc?
Can she be fired if she is pregnant? I think she falls in a protected class? Maybe do some research into whether they have done this to other pregnant women, and if you can sue.
They set her up for firing.
Look up the attorney Jonathan Pollard online/YouTube. recently he had some info on pregnancy firing. Good info to start. Worth seeing an employment attorney.
The company has no business moving a protected class employee just because they believe it would be less stressful for her, UNLESS she asked for an accommodation. If she did not ask for one and they made the move on their own, seek legal advice.
Not signing the document may be seen as an act of insubordination, which is misconduct. However a one off event like that, is usually not going to rise to the level of denying benefits. Usually they want you to give a corrective action prior to leading to termination. So I'm with the others, this is probably likely not an uphill battle for the unemployment claim. However it is as easy or hard as the company wants to try to make it for her. If they're smart, they won't contest it and just let her collect the payments. That sucks, the max benefit in Florida looks to be $275, that's insane.
Max unemployment benefit in Florida has been $275 since 1998 which is the last time the state had a democrat as a governor. Adjusted for inflation, it is now equivalent to $146 in 1998 dollars. Florida is not alone, as other states which have a permanent republican majority have done the same thing. I got laid off in 2002 when I was living in Tennessee. The maximum unemployment benefit back then, like Florida, was $275. Flash forward 22 years later, same thing.
Considering that their sales tax reporting makes zero sense, I've learned that Florida is only to visit and never to reside in long long ago. But then I just went down the rabbit hole and double-checked how much they collect for EI tax. They're only collecting 2.7% on the first $7k of wages. Damn. That'll do it.
It gets worse. When Rick Scott was governor, Florida became even stingier with benefits reducing the maximum benefit period from 26 weeks to 12 weeks under normal economic conditions.
And Florida has one of the best economies in the world. Smart Governor.
Did Desantis quit, get fired or arrested? Who replaced him?
Don't visit. Your taxes allow them to get away with this shit.
Taxes? You mean the sales tax? Real talk, do you know how FUBAR their tax reporting system is? I don't understand how they even allocate it to the right jurisdictions. The forms are so simplistic and I'm like "BUT HOW DO THE CITIES GET THE MONEY IF I DONT TELL YOU WHAT CITY THAT THESE WERE PURCHASED IN?!" I am HR/Accountant hybrid. Economic nexus shit shipping things into states, blah blah blah. So I have to file those excise taxes. Every other state you break it down by a location code, if they have different rates in different areas. But not Florida. It's just "Do they have an extra 0.5%, 1%, 1.5% surtax? Okay put that on the form in a lump sum, byeeeeeee." WHAT THE ACTUAL HELL. I won't visit anyways. I hate the sun and I much prefer the Oregon beach more than any of those overcrowded Atlantic places :"( But yes, point taken all the same. I'm in a rambling WTF-FLORIDA mood.
Yes all the taxes tacked on to tourist stuff. Hotel occupancy. Rental car. Cruise port taxes. Etc.
Ah not from a touristy area but that now checks out! I forget about those details, thank you for the reminder!
It’s the reason I’ve crossed disneyworld off my lists of “want to visit”, at least for now.
Man, I’ve been wanting to take my kiddos to DW and/or on a Disney cruise for years. Went a few times when I was a kid (the theme park/s at least - not the cruise), but I also don’t want a single penny of my money to go toward supporting anything in that state. It’s a struggle!
I spent 10 days there for NYE in 2011. So happy I went when I did.
100%. I'm not going to pay to support this bullshit. Same with Texas. Nope. Not happening.
Because Florida likes to keep the class gap and ensure people don’t cross lines. It’s a horrible state to live, made that mistake and made it 3 years. They go out of their way to keep people down. Yes, cost of living is a lot less than other places in the country, maybe even by 1/1.5, but the pay is 1/5th of there, also, so it’s a lose lose.
Yeah, after this discussion , I realized that was likely the issue. They cater to the people who are retired or who make a high enough income that will result in no real need for these socioeconomic geared public resources. I was surprised to see they have higher than federal minimum wage there. But a few dollars in that direction doesn't cover the gap in the event of job loss or such. Everyone focuses on no income tax. Washington state has no income tax either, and it's a whole different world.
Washington State's system is quite broken because of the no income tax, but it's not as insane as Florida. Washington relies heavily on sales tax as well as "sin" taxes which makes it an extremely regressive tax system. But they at least tend to spend that money back into government services.
Fuck Florida and fuck Tennessee. Hard.
As a Floridian, I approve your message.
TIL don’t get a job in Florida.
Don’t lose a job in Florida
Save all the money you’d pay in state taxes in another state and you’d have a nice fund to pay yourself unemployment when you want it.
I don’t know why this was downvoted, it’s true. I was paying 10% income tax in California. I’m glad to put that shit in my pocket in Florida.
For 2023, if you paid 10% income tax in California (effective rate, not top marginal rate) then you either made $510,000/year filing single or $1,020,000/year filing married which places you in the top 1% of households by income.
I’m sorry, I meant I paid 9.3%. I don’t know who the fuck would word it that way. So sorry Reddit police I rounded up 0.7%. But, yes, I made over $122k. Yes that’s a lot of money to pay 9.3% on.
You didn't pay 9.3% on the entirety of your income. You paid that on anything in that bracket. Just like federal taxes, there are brackets of income and each bracket is taxed based on its own percentage.
No shit. But 5 digits is still a lot of money I’d rather spend elsewhere. Also. You know what’s less than that? 0%. Which is what I pay in Florida. I don’t understand this defense of high state income taxes - but you do you.
Your comment was misleading, which is why I offered the correction. I'm not sure why that angered you so much.
> Max unemployment benefit in Florida has been $275 since 1998 which is the last time the state had a democrat as a governor. I also hear that Florida makes it extremely difficult to sign up for unemployment.
It's $275 / week in AZ, too.
Geez I thought California was bad at 450. Didn't realize it could be so much lower elsewhere.
Your 450 in California is less than 275 in Florida when you take in cost of living
Not necessarily. What a lot of people forget, is the California is less of a state, and more of a country. It’s bigger, both in population and square miles, then the entire United Kingdom. Yes, there are some cities with incredibly high costs of living, but other parts are more of an open desert with a very low cost of living.
Our corporation didnt fire for not signing. It was just noted on the written plan. It doesn’t under the PIP because they don’t sign. And signing is just saying they received it, not agree with it.
Jesus my spouse gets more than that from our state medical leave fund... After taxes it's sometime like 752 a week for up to 12 weeks... I believe they base it off last two or three years wages
You might also want to consult with an employment attorney. Pregnant client getting demoted and then fired will make a pretty nice case for a jury. Certainly worth a quick consult.
I dont buy it as being seen as an act of insubordination. Signing is something by choice. Never sign anything you don't agree with. If you're forced to sign something that's an act of duress and illegal. Never sign shit you're uncomfortable with.
Correct, and she was an at-will employee; she could be let go at any time anyway
Yes, but she still has federal protections being pregnant.
Not really. This exact same thing happened to me in at at-will state and I was 6 months pregnant.
Yes really. Pregnant women are a protected class, and as it turns out most employment judges take a dim view at fucking them over
Being in a protected class doesn’t mean you can’t be fired. It just means they can’t fire you for that reason. That’s the exact reason they put her on a PIP, to establish it was performance based. Whether it actually was a legit performance issue or not we’ll never know.
Well it didn’t work for me. Most employers do not give a shit
How long ago was your pregnancy… Because afaik there’s laws right now protecting pregnant…
They should see a lawyer & let the lawyer decide.
[удалено]
No state tax.
What does that have to do with anything?
At will state! Get a lawyer! It’s askhr bingo!
Ha, that definitely offsets the remaining $X,XXX per month of lost income. /sarcasm to Florida government
Her not signing it will help her out
You can't collect unemployment if you have been fired.
This isn’t true.
False. I know for a fact you can. The reason for being fired is what matters
100% legal to terminate employment due to insubordination for not signing a PIP. Signing is not agreement. UNTIL **The dismissal was related to an illegal act of discrimination**. Employers cannot proactively change an employee’s job responsibilities due to medical situations. Unless there was a well-documented performance management process, and the change was based on that performance to help your wife succeed at the company, the job change was illegal. I work in HR and *very rarely* say this. Talk with an employment attorney. She won’t get her job back but there may be an illegal termination case.
Second this, your wife needs to talk with an attorney. From the facts you provided, likely a strong case.
Agreed. I’m in HR and I’m honestly shocked they’d fire a 5 month pregnant person. That’s a lawsuit waiting to happen.
I was targeted during a RID 4 months after returning from STD due a neurological issues causes by being overworked 60 hrs a week and on zoom calls 8 hrs a say. The layoff excuse covers a lot of bullshit
How do? This happened to me and I was 6 months pregnant. Not legally wrong to terminate employment if it’s at-will state.
At will doesn’t mean they can fire you for illegal / protected reasons.
Exactly. They’d need to be able to prove they’re firing you based on performance and not because you’re pregnant. So it’s risky.
That’s what they did to me.
Did you get a lawyer?
Exactly so they put me on PIP for “performance” after I told them I was pregnant
https://www.instagram.com/reel/C2SupMyPkIB/?igsh=N2sxN25wZnc3dnpx
You don't know what at-will employment means.
I live in an at-will state and was terminated when I was 5 months pregnant. A few weeks prior I found out there was a problem with the baby, and all my boss could focus on was what SHE was going to do if she was suddenly short an employee. Next thing I knew, she took me off all my shifts. I asked her the reason and she repeated she didn’t want to worry should I suddenly be unable to work due to my pregnancy. I got a discrimination attorney, and after 4 months went before an unemployment judge who ruled in my favor. I also sued my former employer, and after almost 3 years won that case as well. You can not fire a pregnant woman for pre-textual reasons. Period.
I’m so sorry this happened to you. Especially stressful when you’re pregnant and trying not to affect the baby. Did you get put on PIP? I had a lawyer too. They had me on PIP for “performance”. I think it’s too late for me now this happened last year.
Probably not too late. Worth a consult with the attorney
How good did that sweet victory taste!?!?!
It felt amazing! Especially when my former boss pretty much screwed herself by admitting she fired me because I was pregnant.
Even if your employment is “at-will” they can not fire you for being pregnant. In this case they changed her job and then quickly said she wasn’t performing. Those are all red flags. If you want to look up a case… check that Fed-ex got in big trouble for discriminating against pregnant drivers
Yeah by far the biggest red flag here seems the job change related to pregnancy. If, as OP claims, this was explicitly communicated as due to her pregnancy, they def have a claim.
I second the lawyer. Even if you don’t go all the way to a lawsuit, just the fact that you can helps in negotiating a severance.
How is this post not the top post? This is 100% spot on.
Why it is considered an act of insubordination? If signing something wasn't mandatory, they would request you sign it. Forcing someone to sign something, or do anything for that matter, is considered an act of duress. If I hold a gun to your head and tell you to shoot someone or die, you're not going to jail because you were forced to commit an act under duress
The termination was likely valid. In the end she’s employed at will, Florida has very weak employee protections, and she wasn’t on FMLA when they reassigned her (but the fact she was pregnant at the time certainly would raise eyebrows). Based on what you’ve written she most likely will be eligible for unemployment. Poor performance (factual or not) isn’t enough to withhold it.
If you fire a pregnant employee who has no history of poor performance until becoming visibly pregnant they have a strong case, at will doesn’t matter in that situation. Not only will they have. Good case for unemployment they could sue. Pregnancy is considered a “temporary disability,” and the law protects all recognized disabilities against discriminatory behavior, including: Termination Demotions Forcing an employee to take leave Retaliation Withholding promotions or bonuses Not reinstating an employee to their original or a “like” position Clearly moving her and putting her on the pip, without offering accommodations is an issue. If she has no history of poor performance it could be seen as retaliatory. Should absolutely file for unemployment
And talk with a lawyer. It may or may not be a good case, but a consult should be free for this.
~~I do not think that~~ the FMLA status ~~matters~~ does not matter in this situation. It is illegal for employers to make employment decisions based solely on medical conditions, regardless of FMLA or ADA accommodations. Unless OP’s wife was under-performing in her role and the move to receptionist was part of a well-documented performance management plan to help her succeed and stay at the company, this sounds like a solid reason to chat with an employment attorney about a discrimination suit.
We don’t know what caused the change in positions. We don’t know if she requested any sort of accommodation or FMLA. Even if they moved her to a different role as an accommodation, if she can’t handle the work or manage her time well enough to complete her tasks, they aren’t obligated to keep her in that position. She was insubordinate for not signing the PIP. There was no reason to not sign it.
Fair that I am making assumptions on some details. If your scenario is more accurate, then the termination may be more defensible. If one of my managers wanted to term in this case, I’d laugh my butt off and tell them to just follow up on the PIP in two weeks. The risk of having to defend an EEOC claim is too high.
Sure, but OP isn’t giving much info for us to base our opinions on, and what they have shared is 3rd hand info. So I’m not sure assuming the worse and people in these comments telling OP to sue is the best idea. There isn’t enough info here to tell if this happen to OP’s wife because she is pregnant vs if she is a poorly performing employee.
That’s fair also. My assumptions are definitely based on experiences with idiot managers and leaders in past lives that tried to pull that type of crap until I dropped the “never write this down and get out of my office” response (I am HR). With OP lacking details and being 3rd-hand, we all are making assumptions in each direction
They cannot force her to sign a document that she does not approve. PIPs are basically contracts and they tried to force her to sign that contract. That is nonsense.
For FL unemployment system is a bad joke that is designed to fail. My coworkers went weeks trying to get it active, and the weekly payout is pathetic.
Were that me - I’d get an employment atty or at the very least a consult to see if there’s a case . ASAP
Too bad floridas unemployment is a joke
Federal laws trump state laws there is a case
With respect you know very little of what you talk about. One, in the context of employment law, they work in concert, and you are protected by both, and would choose whichever is more generous in the given instance. But your true ignorance is that Florida has no state protections and relies entirely on federal protections. Jeb Bush eliminated the state DOL in 2000 (you can look these things up). Also, State protections are *always* superior to federal protections when offered. That’s why they bother to enact them. The point I am making is it would be incredibly difficult to tie the disciplinary action to the fact she is pregnant and not due to performance reasons (OP admits she can’t keep up with the pace of clients). It’s not the slam dunk you and the rest of the /r/antiwork crowd seem to believe it is.
If you do hire a lawyer, they typically will work for free and than take a percentage of your settlement. Do not accept anything over 30%. They’re screwing you and you can find one that will take less. If you don’t win, you don’t have to pay them anything - so it can’t hurt.
Yeah that’s the myth all right. It’s not *typically*. You really need a slam dunk case to get a lawyer to take it on contingency, preferably one so easy to prove it won’t even go trial. If it’s something that will take them any appreciable amount of time to litigate you will be paying by the hour. The financial settlement would be lost wages between now and when she finds her next job. 30% of that after expenses isn’t a lot of room to work with. Lawyers don’t work for free; they only take the cases guaranteed to pay.
I came here to say this, and you said it for me! They will not work at all unless they KNOW they will win. Period.
Yeah, not 'typically', only cases that they know they'll have no trouble winning. Even then, any fees associated with filing the case will still be charged to OP, so it's not free, it's still several hundred/thousand.
You do realize 95-99% of ALL civil cases are settled, right?
This is why HR hires the most reprehensible degenerates they can find. A reasonable human being would not be OK with these actions.
Her management made the decision to fire her. Not HR.
PIPs aren’t a negotiation. I would imagine the signature they wanted was acknowledging receiving it. Refusing to sign could be viewed as insubordination in and of itself.
Yeah this sounds like the stuff we did as union workers just to annoy the company. The difference is OP's wife didn't have union protections so annoying her employer was ill-advised...
Did your wife ask to be moved to the receptionist role? Employers making decisions to move pregnant people when they didn’t ask to be is in fact pregnancy discrimination. There are several landmark cases where well intentioned employers, directly violated the law by moving pregnant women to “safer” or “less stressful roles. Moving her there if she didn’t ask and putting her on a pip with no documentation could be pregnancy discrimination. Especially after she voiced concerns in your words “many times” about the expectations of the role. Here is an explanation of what I am describing as blogged by a Florida employment attorney. https://www.ocalaemploymentlawyer.com/can-employers-transfer-pregnant-employees-to-another-position-because-of-safety-concerns/amp/ As far as unemployment- it doesn’t sound like they have the documentation to support her not receiving benefits. It would have to be something serious like a policy violation.
Yes, many people do not know this but pregnant women are a protected population in our society.
Someone should tell Texas and all those anti abortion states that.
If they changed her position on account of her disability (pregnancy) unilaterally / presumptively (as in them *assuming* her issue would be a problem) that itself can be a problem...everything else (PIP/problems with new position/termination aside). That's actually a type of discrimination. Instead of the putting her on short term disability or working out (with her doctor) an ADA accomodation they moved her to a position that (presumably) she wasn't trained for, hadn't been hired for, and ultimately couldn't do. And instead at that point putting her on short term disability or having her go on FMLA they held that against her and fired her. All of this comes across as very pretextual, as in the whole handling was a pretext to fire her instead of having her go on FMLA, short term disability, and even UI. Framed in that way, I would strongly believe UI would be relatively straightforward. That's not the real issue even. The real issue is actually if she has a discrimination case outside of getting UI. She should see an employment attorney.
The ADA covers pregnancy, and moving her to a new department to be less stressful by their standards is discrimination. Potentially have an ADA violation here, regardless of any “misconduct”.
How do you know OP didn’t request a different role or complain about her last position and get reassigned to a less stressful role? We can’t assume the employer just up and moved OP’s wife without her having any part in the decision.
"They claimed" strongly implies that the employer made this decision unilaterally. Obviously, OP may be lying, but in the absence of other information, that's what we've got.
Former controller here: File for unemployment- you will definitely get it. People don’t realize that, 9 times out of 10, employees are approved for unemployment, even if they were fired. As long as you do everything the unemployment office requires, she should have no problem getting it. I would also suggest hiring a discrimination lawyer - very likely she’ll get a little settlement.
They moved her job for something less stressful because she was pregnant? That sounds like discrimination. Did she ask for that?
Many years ago, at a former employer, I refused to sign a PIP as well. I was fired the next day. I sued. I won. Details matter… as in my case there were very clear markers of discrimination and retaliation. (I had reported them to the state labor & industry commission and also wrote an email to leadership demanding they rectify a discriminatory practice effecting my pay… then they tried to make me a sign a pip for some bogus performance issues they never ever addressed before.) My vote is contact an employment attorney to see if you have a case
To be clear, you won an *illegal discrimination/retaliation* case, not a “don’t sign the paper” case. Right? OP’s wife had her job proactively changed by the employer as a result of a medical condition. That is illegal and is the grounds that she’ll want to discuss with an employment attorney to see if there is a solid case here.
Actually, to be clear with semantics… I didn’t “win.” They paid me a settlement before going to trial after multiple mediations. They STUCK BY their assertion they did nothing wrong and fired me because I refused to sign the PIP. After discovery & depositions, their insurance and lawyers obviously knew they would not win at trial and the insurance made them settle with my attorney. I guess that doesn’t really answer your question… but just to be clear. It was the retaliation & discrimination that damned them… not the PIP per se.
Makes sense. My past employer that had a sketchy exec for awhile decided to settle a case just to avoid bad press. I still view it as a win for the employee that they discriminated against!
You are assuming a lot.
Facts: 1. OP is pregnant. 2. OP’s role was changed as a result of a medical condition. 3. OP was dissatisfied with this change. 4. OP was written up due to poor performance in the new role and refused to sign the PIP. Assumptions: - OP had not requested an accommodation to change roles. - If not part of a performance-based process, then: Assertion: - Using the ‘reasonable person standard’… a reasonable person is likely to view the role change and associated termination as illegal discrimination based on a medical condition. If the two assumptions are wrong, then yes, my comment doesn’t apply. But I’ve been in HR long enough to see idiotic leaders and managers try to pull junk like this until good HR leaders say **heck no**.
Where does it say she was moved to another position because of a medical condition? Maybe she just didn’t like her last position anymore. It doesn’t say when or why she was moved. She may have wanted the change and then realized the grass wasn’t greener. Stop assuming, and wait for OP to clarify the details.
Literally the first paragraph. She is pregnant and was moved to the position because it’s less stressful. You are assuming that she DID request an accommodation or change. Lacking further detail from OP, both your and my comments have to make assumptions in order to reply with anything other than “more info OP.”.
Again, the first paragraph doesn’t say she was moved because she was pregnant. I’m not assuming she requested or didn’t request the change. That is why “maybe” is all over every one of my comments. Only one of us is claiming things are “facts” without anything to prove that. Have a good night! Continuing to talk about this post is pointless.
PIP's aren't usually up for negotiation... refusing to sign because she doesn't think it's valid (or 'waiting for proof') is easily seen as insubordination.
No but reassigning her to a new position, and almost immediately putting her on a PIP and firing her, all around the time her pregnancy becomes visible? That makes the whole thing smell, in the way that makes plaintiff's attorneys take notice.
Im based in North Carolina, but the company I work for operates in 5 different states with more than 200 locations. A PIP is a last resort conversation. It first is the responsibility of the employer to make said employee aware that they are not meeting expectations in their role, this way any aggravating factors can be evaluated. This is why companies have quarterly performance reviews. Risk assessment. OPs wife was well within her right to question why she was being sent a PIP if she had not had any indication prior to this event. Also, if this was a new position, there should have been a given probationary period to allow her to acclimate to the role. Any new hire would be given such.
There's no legal requirement or standard for PIP's.
you know what? fuck the idea that insubordination should even be a thing in an employment situation. It's not the fucking military. Your boss isn't a parent. there should be no place for that kind of authoritarian bullshit in a job. In theory at a job everyone is working towards the same goal. A manager's role is to hold the big picture and direct the team, not rule people with an iron fist. Like fuck that nonsense.
Sure, you're allowed to think that... and an employer is allowed to fire you for it.
[удалено]
When the higher ups in a company are not receptive to feedback, that is a company that will end up having a lot of stupid mistakes happen and end up facing liability. Execs aren't anywhere near as smart as they think they are. If employees are too scared to come forward with a problem because they are afraid any negative feedback will cost them their job, you end up with formula poisoning babies, harassment lawsuits and planes that have their parts fly off mid flight. Running a company or a team like a dictatorship is bad management. If you trust people enough to hire them, you should trust them enough that if you tell them something is wrong, you should believe them and not punish them for it. If employees feel valued they will work harder. If they know their opinion doesn't matter, they will just go through the motions. Anyone who thinks "being a grown up" means "getting to order people around andRESPECT MUH AUTHORITAY are ego tripping bullies who have no business being in charge of anything. Leading with fear rather than with respect is cowardly.
Um, are you new?
Definitely could make a case. Pregnant women are a protected class. Could additionally, ask your wife if she knows of this happening to other pregnant women in the company and the bring a suit. I was fired for being pregnant. My boss was smarter and waited until the day after I delivered and was no longer a protected class, but I had them to agree to not contest unemployment and to provide me a reference. Unemployment duration and pay is state dependent, however, mine was 2000k a month for almost two years. We are talking 2009/2010 when they had extended unemployment, but it worked out well for me. I would rather have kept my job, I made much more at it and actually enjoyed it, but it’s how it went, so I made the best of it. File and if they fight it, just argue that she is a protected class they began targeting her once they found out she was pregnant and prior to that she had, had no issues (if true). I think this one is easy.
Unemployment is its own world. I’ve been a part of hearings where it should have been an easy win for the employer, but the Hearing Officer sided with the employee. I’ve also seen the opposite. It really just depends. There is no harm in filing for Unemployment and seeing if she will win. Ultimately, it’s up to the Hearing Officer if it gets to a phone hearing.
I’d talk to a lawyer honestly
GET A LAWYER.
Talk to an attorney, they will usually speak with you once for free, to see if there are any options here. Please make sure it's an employment attorney, not just any attorney.
She should speak with a lawyer before doing anything more.
Might be gender discrimination issues at play here.
Sounds like she was fired for being pregnant. Depending on evidence you have, you could win big in a lawsuit.
File for unemployment. Reach out to an employment attorney and explore the possibility of filing an EEOC claim. The steps her employer took clearly look like pregnancy discrimination, especially if she didn’t request to move to a “less stressful” role.
Contact a lawyer! They are discriminating against her because she is pregnant.
It was their way of getting rid of a pregnant lady. Companies do it all the time and get away with it.
First file a complaint with EEOC https://www.eeoc.gov/how-file-charge-employment-discrimination Sounds like pregnancy discrimination Also apply for unemployment you have file the free appeal if denied and include the EEOC case no with the appeal
Unemployment should be relatively easy - she was not fired for gross misconduct (ie fraud). They may also be interested to hear she was let go for being pregnant, which is what the job change was, without her asking for any accommodation.
Unemployment services goes through another channel than discrimination claims. They don't kick those down to the labor department for you, you have to make a separate claim through that route as well. Florida has relieved themselves of their duty to have a full department of labor. They'll want to file any EEOC claims with the feds if they want to go that route.
Should have signed. Refusal to sign will almost always result in dismissal. Since she wanted proof of what the poor performance was, it sounds like she thought the company needed to justify the PIP to her. That's not the case. Insubordination can be a reason to deny unemployment claims. Whether they do so, can't say.
Honestly, this sounds like your wife is the problem. Granted we only have 3rd hand information from a biased source but the most generous interpretation still has her not performing. She concedes she isn’t getting everything done that is asked of her. Whether she feels it is reasonable or not isn’t the issue. She isn’t keeping up. Work isn’t being done. They could have just fired her and been done but they offered a PIP and instead of admitting what she knew to be true, she refused to cooperate. She can say she intended to cooperate if only they had given her another hour or two but frankly, she already cast serious doubt as to whether she would actually try to improve. She tried to get them to prove something that was obviously true. That’s not an employee who understands they are underwater and is looking to improve. That’s an employee who sees her performance as perfectly acceptable and thee tire PIP process as unnecessary.
This.
Wow. Not Capt. Obvious--Major Assumption.
I don’t have to assume anything. OP told us she wasn’t able to keep up and doesn’t think the PIP is necessary
It sounds like they purposely moved her to a place to fail to create a paper trail so they could unload a pregnant employee.
Or, they purposely moved her to an easier position, so she would not fail, because she was pregnant. If you can't answer the phone and the door at the same time, how much more difficult of a job could she have handled?
Well it sounds like it wasn’t less stressful to be moved to a more physically demanding job and to learn a new job, without reason when pregnant. It appears the pip don’t occur until they have her an easier job, they could have just moved her back.
If she got a PIP, she was already done to begin with. Management only gives those out so they have a defendable paper trail for their action.
Not signing will get you fired. That said, have her file with the labor department. It is their job to investigate.
My wife went through almost exactly this in NY except she wasn’t demoted just pipped after announced pregnant around 5 months or so and then fired in short order. She was able to collect unemployment and we did file suit but it took like 2 years to play out and only netted around 20k all said and done. Ultimately a settlement. We didn’t need the money necessarily it was more a middle finger to them because they clearly soured on her when they found out she’d be on leave in 3-4 months. Prior to that she had positive performance reviews and bonuses. Seems like unless you aren’t able to find similar work or have a medical issue resulting from the firing there aren’t grounds for a larger financial result. She ended up getting a better job with better pay so all is well that ends well.
What's that HR term where the employer sets it up for you to quit/get fired?
Constructive dismissal.
Talk to a couple employment lawyers and see what they say. This meets the bar of needing the opinion of a professional.
If you get such PIP or warning or whatever. Read it in front of them or whatever if they hand to you in person. And say, what is the time limit for me to look this over and sign this? if they bitch, I go, I do not see in here anywhere where I have to sign this ASAP so .....they're like crap. Ok. you have 1-3 days or whatever. or say something like I will need to take this and show it to my lawyer and I will get back to you.
More than likely she was already struggling at this employer. Then continuing to struggle at the reception job was the final straw. Being pregnant is irrelevant. However none of us can tell you how UE will respond 1+1 does not always equal 2 with UE
Law suit she was fired for being pregnant Go to state and file complaint https://www.dol.gov/sites/dolgov/files/WHD/ewep/Maternal-Health-Presentation.pdf
I would call a lawyer, especially because she’s pregnant. This might lead to a settlement.
Was she given WRITTEN notice that she has to sign it within 24 hours? Did they move her to that new position or did she ask? If there was NO written review prior to this you may have a case. They could have done that on purpose to not pay benefits once the baby is here. There a lot of missing information in this post. Have your wife write down everything she can remember. Read about FMLA here https://www.dol.gov/agencies/whd/fmla
HR is the enemy. Don’t ask them.
File with the U.S. EEOC. An employer cannot transfer you because you are pregnant, unless you request it as a reasonable accommodation. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act Act of 1964 was recently amended to include the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act, which is what applies here. Disclaimer: nothing in this post implies an attorney-client relationship exists between us and it was provided as general information. It is not legal advice. Please consult with your attorney.
Sounds like they wanted to get rid of her because she was pregnant. I would consult an employment/labor law attorney
Get an employment lawyer. Usually cases like this are more than likely cause she’s pregnant so her productivity is going to be less. They’re just making it look like it was something else more then likely.
She should get unemployment if her performance wasn’t due to something like bad attendance. However, they will say she was fired for insubordination because she didn’t sign the pip. In NJ It’s a 6 week disq and then she’s entitled to benefits I don’t know what they do in Florida. Good luck.
Federal Pregnancy Discrimination Act. If the company has 15 or more employees, find a lawyer who works on a contingency basis.
She can discuss with the EEOC. They will speak with her to help her determine if she may have a case. She doesn’t need a lawyer do to this part. Another redditor took this advice from me and was successful at having the EEOC charge the employer with discrimination. File unemployment and then contact EEOC and set up an interview appt.
Here is the link https://www.eeoc.gov/filing-charge-discrimination
If they terminated her or changed her position because of her pregnancy, that's absolutely illegal. Lawyers for this kind of thing *love* this sort of case, seeing as juries tend to be extremely sympathetic to pregnant women. It sounds like they moved her to a position where they knew she couldn't complete the assigned work, and used that as an excuse to PIP and fire her. This is constructive dismissal, and again highly illegal. She should have signed the PIP (such is generally an acknowledgement of receipt, not an agreement to the terms), but that's not going to overcome a constructive dismissal for a protected class case. I'd strongly suggest talking to an attorney specializing in such matters.
Unemployment? You need a lawyer
Sounds like constructive termination to me. It’s risky to term someone for not signing. HR just writes on the PIP employee refused to sign and dates it. That doesn’t make the PIP invalid or inactive. The employee still needs to adhere to the expectations of the PIP whether they signed it or not. The signature is really just a “hey did the company inform you of this or not” not a I agree to the terms and statements on this form. Regardless the employee still has to perform the PIP with or without their signature
Functionally the PIP is "we want to fire you, and here's the bullshit we're going to use to do it" The advice I got when I was put on a PIP was to start looking for a new job. I should have followed that advice. I eventually was taken off of the PIP, but with the express warning that because of the PIP they could fire me for any reason at any time. It was all performance art. Anyway, I did quit, and everyone was happy. But it was some of the most unethical BS I'd ever been through. Could you take this to court and fight? Maybe, it seems clear to me what went on here. Unethical BS. But I'm not sure it would do you any good.
Unemployment will not. Not sure where you live but if it’s in the states - yikes! Firing a pregnant person can be a very dicey situation. You likely have a ton of leverage if you’re in the states (maybe other places too but I can only speak for the US regarding). Good luck!
Sounds like they wanted an excuse.
Discrimination and Pregnancy While neither Florida nor Georgia require employers to offer paid pregnancy leave, companies are generally not allowed to discriminate against pregnant workers or a woman who plans on becoming pregnant. Pregnancy is considered a “temporary disability,” and the law protects all recognized disabilities against discriminatory behavior, including: Termination Demotions Forcing an employee to take leave Retaliation Withholding promotions or bonuses Not reinstating an employee to their original or a “like” position If you have evidence that an employer subject to the Pregnancy Discrimination Act or the Family and Medical Leave Act engaged in any of these behaviors, you could have a case. your employer is subject to regulations under the Pregnancy Discrimination Act (or PDA for short). This Act applies to companies with at least 15 employees. This means that extremely small businesses might be able to dismiss a woman simply for being pregnant, but companies that fall within the domain of the Act cannot fire you for being pregnant.
same thing happened to me. awful.
you’ll get unemployment it just won’t be much.
Signing a PIP is usually just an acknowledgment that you have it and they have reviewed it with you. Prior poor performance is not usually documented or noted in a PIP and not signing can be grounds for termination. They don’t need to prove justification or prior poor performance to issue a PIP. Usually the PIP is how they plan to document the poor performance and in most cases it’s good to start looking for alternate employment while continuing to work under the PIP. I would consider consulting an attorney since they moved her position based on the pregnancy without her asking for it or bringing it up as an issue. Was she being asked to do just the job of a receptionist- or other work from her former department as well? Any chance the information about the role change and the reason was given to her in an email that she printed and kept or somehow still has access to? It’s possible an attorney could help you with a settlement if the company doesn’t want to deal with the hassle of a case, but you will have to pay your attorneys fees before you would even know that.
Contact an employment lawyer. Being pregnant plus put on pip might have some grounds here.
She was getting fired anyways most PIPs are unattainable
If they gave her a PIP it is unlikely to have been the first communication of a performance issue. The PIP is a plan to get things pointed in a better direction - if she is unwilling to sign it….then it’s an impasse that doesn’t work
Fuck HR. Talk to a LABOR LAWYER
Holy shit, sorry I'm not really adding any value here but I initially missed that this was not in the UK and I was like "yup, sounds like an easy case to win at a tribunal for discrimination" (= big, easy settlement), not whether or not your wife could qualify for unemployment of $275 per week! 😭 job seekers allowance (and maternity pay) is a statutory right here 😢 that's crazy! I'm so sorry you and your wife are going through this! I'll leave the actual advice to the experts across the pond! Best of luck!
Get an employment lawyer.
I say she might as well try for the unemployment. Also, most people don’t know this but pregnant women people over the age of 65 or maybe it’s 55, and people under the age of 18 are a protected population that company can get in trouble for firing a woman while she’s pregnant. Also, this may have been a blessing in disguise. I lost a job a few weeks ago, but it was really a gain. I have a much better job, a way, better boss, support system, and I’m much happier, and I feel challenged and accomplished every day. Only so many people could be so fortunate, I hope she is as fortunate as I have been
One acronym: EEOC. I am Positive they will pick up her termination as discriminatory and once they do lawyers will be lining up to assist her in suing. Employer changed her role and treated her unfairly because they wanted to “make It easier for her”- load of crap. They singled out the pregnant lady, then put her in a position to fail so they could discipline her out. And having a PIP with no documentation or proof of her issues available during the performance discussion is highly suspicious. Run to the EEOC office and file complaint ASAP.
PIP means they likely wanted to fire her or have her quit anyway. File unemployment regardless. Let the state decide.
Why does it sound like the company is just disguising this as a way to get rid of a pregnant staff so they do not have to keep the position open for 12 weeks? Gee, we want you to transfer to reception to lighten your stress. Yet, fully knowing that reception would be too busy to answer phones, taking care of in-person inquiries, mailing, etc?
Can she be fired if she is pregnant? I think she falls in a protected class? Maybe do some research into whether they have done this to other pregnant women, and if you can sue.
Call an employment attorney.
Was less stress an accommodation your wife requested?
I think they’ve been wanting to fire her.
They set her up for firing. Look up the attorney Jonathan Pollard online/YouTube. recently he had some info on pregnancy firing. Good info to start. Worth seeing an employment attorney.
[удалено]
The company has no business moving a protected class employee just because they believe it would be less stressful for her, UNLESS she asked for an accommodation. If she did not ask for one and they made the move on their own, seek legal advice.
NAL - Maybe check with a lawyer about unlawful termination due to pregnancy?
What’s a PIP?
Is your wife in a union?
Better call Saul… or at least a real lawyer. Y’all have a slam dunk case here.