[HN Gopher] Tell HN: Fired After 7 Years During Maternity Leave ...
___________________________________________________________________
Tell HN: Fired After 7 Years During Maternity Leave Paperwork
Filing
My wife is an employee (s/w eng) of a company of seven years. She's
been promoted several times during that time and works hard. She's
a few months away from having the baby and was in the process of
filing the paperwork. Today she was just fired, due to
"restructuring". There are plenty of other US-based employees still
working there. Her manager didn't even show up to the meeting. I
am livid. The company is Reputation.com.
Author : anon3333333333
Score : 65 points
Date : 2023-02-16 21:32 UTC (1 hours ago)
| bluetidepro wrote:
| 1) Take this post down. See point 2.
|
| 2) Talk to a lawyer.
|
| 3) Take this post down. See point 2, again.
| aaomidi wrote:
| No point.
|
| 1. It's already posted.
|
| 2. The post is claiming what happened.
|
| 3. No let this company be name and shamed.
| bluetidepro wrote:
| Just saying, from a family of lawyers, while this post will
| "feel good" to get validation, blow off some steam, shame the
| company, and get some internet points.... it's not a good
| idea. Never is. Just talk to a lawyer, take care of it, and
| THEN maybe shame them when it's all done.
| dbg31415 wrote:
| Is she visibly pregnant? Has she talked about being pregnant at
| work? If so, she could have a strong case for discriminatory
| firing.
| jeanloolz wrote:
| The fact that the company is reputation.com is the biggest irony
| ever.
| randyrand wrote:
| Getting fired is something that happens to the best of us.
| Restructuring could really be the reason, fresh labor is cheaper,
| and it does not sound like you have much evidence or reason to
| prove otherwise.
|
| Without more to go on, I suggest you move on and don't prolong
| the grief. And equally importantly, waste time in getting a new
| job.
| bawolff wrote:
| Is this an americans don't have rights thing?
|
| I feel that in most countries this situation is so illegal that
| you basically wouldn't be able to ask for a more slam dunk
| case.
| jstarfish wrote:
| > and it does not sound like you have much evidence or reason
| to prove otherwise
|
| Even without filing the paperwork, being [visibly] almost nine
| months pregnant is evidence enough to make a scene.
|
| There's a reason everybody conspicuously squawks about their
| disabilities and sexual orientation these days-- it makes them
| a walking EEOC complaint. Pregnancy counts.
|
| OP needs to see an employment attorney ASAP.
| [deleted]
| anon3333333333 wrote:
| Get a new job right before giving birth? I'm sure that will go
| well for everyone.
|
| Yeah, cost savings, it's great! Gotta get that 0.3% bottom line
| improvement. Doesn't matter how much of someone's life they put
| into the company.
| phoronixrly wrote:
| Yeah, the 'just give up' part was annoying enough, but the
| 'get a job' ending took it over the top...
| phoronixrly wrote:
| > Without more to go on, I suggest you move on and don't
| prolong the grief. And more importantly, waste time in getting
| a new job.
|
| I suggest they disregard random HN advice like this and ask a
| lawyer.
| aaomidi wrote:
| Seconded.
| fourseventy wrote:
| Fired or laid off? Restructuring sounds like layoffs.
| KyeRussell wrote:
| The very obvious implication of this post is that the employer
| said one thing and meant another.
| kome wrote:
| Fired with the excuse of layoffs.
| cramjabsyn wrote:
| Attorney is the best (only really) course of action here,
| schedule a free consultation (or a few) and see if you have a
| case.
|
| Also, while understandable, showing your cards like this is risky
| as it'd be easy for the company to identify who you are.
| csharpminor wrote:
| To be honest you should probably delete this post and just go
| directly to a lawyer. Naming the company could make things harder
| for you and your wife if they are able to identify her. Lawyer up
| or move on.
| kome wrote:
| Naming the company was the right thing to do. And it's so fun
| it's literally called Reputation.com.
|
| And of course it has to be some shitty tracking company,
| completely useless, but it's where all our best minds are
| working right now.
|
| We score a capitalism trifecta with this post.
| jeroenhd wrote:
| I'm no lawyer myself, but there's a reason lawyers usually
| tell their clients to shut up until they've had the
| opportunity to go over the details, and then to shut up until
| the case is over. If there's even a chance of taking legal
| action, detailing such stories online if they can be traced
| back to you (how many pregnant women recently got fired at
| this company? I'm willing to bet it won't be a large number).
|
| I assume it won't be too much of a problem in this case as
| the case resolves around OP's wife rather than OP himself,
| but if this stuff does end up in court then any statements
| that can be traced back to OP may be used against them in
| court.
|
| In a just world, you can share your experiences and opinions
| freely. In practice, things like "reputation damage" can
| lessen the payout or be grounds for a counter lawsuit if the
| company is scummy enough.
|
| OP is free to say as they wish as long as they don't go into
| libel/slander territory, but freedom of speech does not
| guarantee freedom from consequences and words you vent in
| anger can hurt your case in court.
|
| It's up to OP to weight the importance of sharing their
| experience and opinions against the possible impact on a
| theoretical court case, but I've never heard of anyone
| getting a worse settlement because they didn't share the
| details before legal consultantion got involved.
| dylan604 wrote:
| >And of course it has to be some shitty tracking company,
| completely useless, but it's where all our best minds are
| working right now.
|
| whoa there. I hope for all our sakes that's just hyperbole.
| maybe "it's where all our best _paid_ minds are working right
| now " but to say that best in a blanket term is working in
| that field is even a bit pessimistic for my pessimistic
| views.
| irrational wrote:
| Thank you for naming the company. I really appreciate it.
| dylan604 wrote:
| The OP was made in an attempt to anon, but...is this actually a
| self-dox? How many expecting within months just got released
| from the company that has been clearly named? Also, fired vs
| laid off seems like something to inquire about. Did this "tech"
| company not take advantage of the trend of laying off ~10% of
| employees during the restructuring?
| dan-robertson wrote:
| What are they going to do, fire his wife twice?
|
| (I think there are some more plausible things one could
| imagine happening but I'm curious how likely they actually
| are? The things I'm imagining don't feel _very_ likely to me
| but maybe I'm missing something)
| anon3333333333 wrote:
| It's only anon because I don't want it tied to my main HN
| account.
| dylan604 wrote:
| okay, but do you _really_ think that you didn 't just self-
| own this one? with all of the data out there about people,
| you honestly don't think someone can find out your wife's
| name, then find out who she's married with, and then find
| out what accounts that person (you) has on websites? hell,
| your wife's now previous employer probably has teams of
| people that could do this in 5 minutes.
|
| I'm sorry, but I just hope your emotional state isn't
| blocking logic here.
| controversial97 wrote:
| Consult an employment lawyer.
| thejarren wrote:
| Yes it's very likely that if the company was aware of the
| pregnancy that this was illegal.
| ipv4dhcp wrote:
| being aware doesnt make it illegal. only if it was because of
| the pregnancy.
| Grazester wrote:
| Wait! In a restructuring it's illegal to fire someone who is
| pregnant? That's nonsense.
| etchalon wrote:
| It's not illegal to fire someone who is pregnant. It's
| illegal to fire someone because they're pregnant. You have
| to be able to point to another reason, such as performance.
|
| Meaning, if you're doing layoffs, and you thought to
| yourself, "Let's fire person X! They're about to have a kid
| and won't even be around for two months. That'd be a waste
| of money!", you would be breaking the law.
| jessaustin wrote:
| In a civilized nation, that certainly would be the case.
| You're probably right that parent meant USA instead.
| wvenable wrote:
| A court case could determine through discovery if it was
| really "restructuring" or just an excuse to fire this one
| person in particular.
|
| We don't not have enough information to make an educated
| assessment here.
| [deleted]
| netsharc wrote:
| Hint: the restructuring is most probably a made up excuse,
| they just wanted the pregnant lady gone.
|
| Hmm, it should be a slam-dunk case, the lawyer just needs
| to ask "Show the court all the paperwork regarding this
| 'restructuring'. What structures were before, what are they
| now, and what's the rationale?".
| danbrooks wrote:
| I second this. I have friends who consulted an employment
| lawyer in similar circumstances - and were able to negotiate
| additional severance.
| Ancalagon wrote:
| Oh my god I interviewed with that company and it was one of the
| most unprofessional experiences I've ever had.
| runnr_az wrote:
| do tell?
| more_corn wrote:
| Laying people off to avoid paying for maternity leave is illegal
| but quite common. It's difficult to prove though.
|
| She can file a complaint. If she can prove it was over her
| pregnancy she can win, but the company can simply lie and say it
| was part of larger layoffs. Her best bet is to get someone
| clueless and angry to admit it was over her pregnancy.
|
| Have her pick a fight with her boss over text message. If he
| admits it she sues and submits that as evidence. If he doesn't
| there's really no way to prove it.
| yownie wrote:
| >but the company can simply lie and say it was part of larger
| layoffs.
|
| Which they would have to prove by showing others laid off.
|
| >Have her pick a fight with her boss over text message. If he
| admits it she sues and submits that as evidence. If he doesn't
| there's really no way to prove it.
|
| This some of the worst advice you could offer someone.
| willcipriano wrote:
| I wonder how they will get this post deleted.
| Mountain_Skies wrote:
| What does "in the process of filing paperwork" mean exactly? She
| opened a Word document and started to write a letter to HR or she
| actually asked HR for the required documents, making her
| intention known to the company? The two are very different things
| but both could fit that description.
| anon3333333333 wrote:
| She was working with HR.
| kbrackson wrote:
| That is BIG illegal.
| electric_mayhem wrote:
| If there's nothing else besides what's stated, near certain
| that you can find a lawyer who'll take that case on
| contingency. Reputation is gonna get spanked.
| jay-barronville wrote:
| Consult with an employment attorney ASAP.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2023-02-16 23:01 UTC)