Lawyer Guys - Employment Law Help (1 Viewer)

[The_Man]

Update?

 

[Snotbubbles]

Wife contacted HR yesterday by email and they replied that their response is being drafted and will be sent via certified mail.  I assume, this means she lost stage one of the appeal but I'll wait until we receive the findings to confirm.  

What we do know is that HR did in fact contact her witnesses and they all confirmed that she wasn't sleeping.  If she loses the appeal, I'm confused how they couldn't overturn this based on all the evidence in her favor.  But we'll find out exactly what's what in the next day or two. 

 

[SWC]

i hope she gets her job back from what you have posted i do not see how she could not i am hoping for a win for you take that to the bank brosnotcho

 

[prosopis]

Update?

More to the story behind the scenes? I feel there is still more to hear from behind the scenes.

 

[Beef Ravioli]

Does she get any severance pay? Did she disqualify this possibility by sleeping on the job? 

 

[Beef Ravioli]

Any update? 

 

[gmbacm]

 

[Snotbubbles]

Lost her appeal.  Can now appeal to higher up's within the system.

HR said that her two RN witnesses that she had could not confirm that they were actually present at the time in question.  Her other witness, the clerk who is required to be at the desk, HR said the location of her area is situated so that her view was blocked.  She also is having issues collecting unemployment since her separation is considered "with cause".  So we're pretty much screwed for now.

 

[RUSF18]

Lost her appeal.  Can now appeal to higher up's within the system.

HR said that her two RN witnesses that she had could not confirm that they were actually present at the time in question.  Her other witness, the clerk who is required to be at the desk, HR said the location of her area is situated so that her view was blocked.  She also is having issues collecting unemployment since her separation is considered "with cause".  So we're pretty much screwed for now.

Time to sue for the inappropriate touching by the supervisor.

 

[Beef Ravioli]

Bummer! Does this disqualify her from any severance? 

 

[Henry Ford]

The handbook says that progressive discipline does not need to be followed for certain infractions.  It then lists infractions like theft, harrassment, workplace violence.   After listing maybe 5 or 6 different acts that allow them to not follow progressive discipline they use etc. as a catch-all.  I'll provide the exact language in a bit.  It doesn't specifically say sleeping is an act that allows them to skip progressive discipline but with the way the handbook is worded they could pretty much not use progressive discipline for any act that they choose.  They left the clause extremely broad. 

Sorry I missed this, and I'm not sure what things are like in your state, but in mine (and those other at-will states I'm aware of) the employee handbook does not actually confer contractual (or quasi-contractual) rights upon the employee.  So failure to follow their policies can be evidence that the firing was improper/pretextual when it was actually because of some illegal reason, but just because the handbook wasn't followed doesn't mean she gets a win.  At least in Louisiana, as I said I don't know about where you are.

 

[Snotbubbles]

Wife had appeal with VP of the Hospital today.  This is a higher up that she knows very well.  The VP seemed puzzled that she was here for a termination appeal considering how good an employee she was.  Gave a slight indication that a suspension probably should have been given rather than a termination.  VP said this is a "he said-she said" case and that he would get to the bottom of this.  Would take a day or two.  Not getting my hopes up.  Wife said the previous appeal went well and then HR totally dismissed her witnesses for various reasons.  

 

[eoMMan]

Employment law question from a friend of mine (I’m not a lawyer and don’t know the answer)….

He works for a large, national private company that has both exempt and non-exempt employees. He’s based in FL. Anyway, he’s a few steps above entry level in his position and classified as exempt but he doesn’t directly supervise other staff. More of just an experienced employee. Also, the next step down from his position and further below are all non-exempt and receive 1.5x for all OT hours.

So, a decision is made from leadership that all staff in his department (him, supervisors, everyone) has to work an additional 10 hours per week for at least the next 3 weeks so his department can catch up (he says they are understaffed). The issue for him though is he feels he’s getting kinda screwed over being that he’s not getting paid for these additional hours whereas the position right below him is getting 1.5x for all time worked. I think he’s got a point but I don’t know.

Is it a case of “tough S, it is what it is. You’re exempt, buddy” or does he have a case to be upset since there’s a clear amount of hours expected over a certain period of time?

 

[bigbottom]

Employment law question from a friend of mine (I’m not a lawyer and don’t know the answer)….

He works for a large, national private company that has both exempt and non-exempt employees. He’s based in FL. Anyway, he’s a few steps above entry level in his position and classified as exempt but he doesn’t directly supervise other staff. More of just an experienced employee. Also, the next step down from his position and further below are all non-exempt and receive 1.5x for all OT hours.

So, a decision is made from leadership that all staff in his department (him, supervisors, everyone) has to work an additional 10 hours per week for at least the next 3 weeks so his department can catch up (he says they are understaffed). The issue for him though is he feels he’s getting kinda screwed over being that he’s not getting paid for these additional hours whereas the position right below him is getting 1.5x for all time worked. I think he’s got a point but I don’t know.

Is it a case of “tough S, it is what it is. You’re exempt, buddy” or does he have a case to be upset since there’s a clear amount of hours expected over a certain period of time?

Having to work the extra hours is not what would create liability. It’s not qualifying for exempt status. You don’t have to supervise people to be exempt, but you do have to meet the requirements of one of the other exempt statuses.

 

[eoMMan]

Employment law question from a friend of mine (I’m not a lawyer and don’t know the answer)….

He works for a large, national private company that has both exempt and non-exempt employees. He’s based in FL. Anyway, he’s a few steps above entry level in his position and classified as exempt but he doesn’t directly supervise other staff. More of just an experienced employee. Also, the next step down from his position and further below are all non-exempt and receive 1.5x for all OT hours.

So, a decision is made from leadership that all staff in his department (him, supervisors, everyone) has to work an additional 10 hours per week for at least the next 3 weeks so his department can catch up (he says they are understaffed). The issue for him though is he feels he’s getting kinda screwed over being that he’s not getting paid for these additional hours whereas the position right below him is getting 1.5x for all time worked. I think he’s got a point but I don’t know.

Is it a case of “tough S, it is what it is. You’re exempt, buddy” or does he have a case to be upset since there’s a clear amount of hours expected over a certain period of time?

Having to work the extra hours is not what would create liability. It’s not qualifying for exempt status. You don’t have to supervise people to be exempt, but you do have to meet the requirements of one of the other exempt statuses.

What are the requirements to be considered exempt? Is simply being on salary one of them?

 

[bigbottom]

Employment law question from a friend of mine (I’m not a lawyer and don’t know the answer)….

He works for a large, national private company that has both exempt and non-exempt employees. He’s based in FL. Anyway, he’s a few steps above entry level in his position and classified as exempt but he doesn’t directly supervise other staff. More of just an experienced employee. Also, the next step down from his position and further below are all non-exempt and receive 1.5x for all OT hours.

So, a decision is made from leadership that all staff in his department (him, supervisors, everyone) has to work an additional 10 hours per week for at least the next 3 weeks so his department can catch up (he says they are understaffed). The issue for him though is he feels he’s getting kinda screwed over being that he’s not getting paid for these additional hours whereas the position right below him is getting 1.5x for all time worked. I think he’s got a point but I don’t know.

Is it a case of “tough S, it is what it is. You’re exempt, buddy” or does he have a case to be upset since there’s a clear amount of hours expected over a certain period of time?

Having to work the extra hours is not what would create liability. It’s not qualifying for exempt status. You don’t have to supervise people to be exempt, but you do have to meet the requirements of one of the other exempt statuses.

What are the requirements to be considered exempt? Is simply being on salary one of them?

There are different exemptions and each has its own requirements. Without knowing what kind of job it is it’s hard to know which one the company is relying on for his exempt status. By way of example, here are the requirements for the “administrative” exemption:

Administrative Exemption​

To qualify for the administrative employee exemption, all of the following tests must be met:

• The employee must be compensated on a salary or fee basis (as defined in the regulations) at a rate not less than $684* per week;
• The employee’s primary duty must be the performance of office or non-manual work directly related to the management or general business operations of the employer or the employer’s customers; and
• The employee’s primary duty includes the exercise of discretion and independent judgment with respect to matters of significance.

 

[Van Dyman]

Wife had appeal with VP of the Hospital today. This is a higher up that she knows very well. The VP seemed puzzled that she was here for a termination appeal considering how good an employee she was. Gave a slight indication that a suspension probably should have been given rather than a termination. VP said this is a "he said-she said" case and that he would get to the bottom of this. Would take a day or two. Not getting my hopes up. Wife said the previous appeal went well and then HR totally dismissed her witnesses for various reasons.

I know it was 6 years ago, but how did this story end?

 

[Snotbubbles]

Wife had appeal with VP of the Hospital today. This is a higher up that she knows very well. The VP seemed puzzled that she was here for a termination appeal considering how good an employee she was. Gave a slight indication that a suspension probably should have been given rather than a termination. VP said this is a "he said-she said" case and that he would get to the bottom of this. Would take a day or two. Not getting my hopes up. Wife said the previous appeal went well and then HR totally dismissed her witnesses for various reasons.

I know it was 6 years ago, but how did this story end?

She was terminated. I won her case for unemployment compensation against the hospital. She got a new job in another health system rather quickly and worked her way up to assistant manager of the ER there now.

 

[eoMMan]

Employment law question from a friend of mine (I’m not a lawyer and don’t know the answer)….

He works for a large, national private company that has both exempt and non-exempt employees. He’s based in FL. Anyway, he’s a few steps above entry level in his position and classified as exempt but he doesn’t directly supervise other staff. More of just an experienced employee. Also, the next step down from his position and further below are all non-exempt and receive 1.5x for all OT hours.

So, a decision is made from leadership that all staff in his department (him, supervisors, everyone) has to work an additional 10 hours per week for at least the next 3 weeks so his department can catch up (he says they are understaffed). The issue for him though is he feels he’s getting kinda screwed over being that he’s not getting paid for these additional hours whereas the position right below him is getting 1.5x for all time worked. I think he’s got a point but I don’t know.

Is it a case of “tough S, it is what it is. You’re exempt, buddy” or does he have a case to be upset since there’s a clear amount of hours expected over a certain period of time?

Having to work the extra hours is not what would create liability. It’s not qualifying for exempt status. You don’t have to supervise people to be exempt, but you do have to meet the requirements of one of the other exempt statuses.

What are the requirements to be considered exempt? Is simply being on salary one of them?

There are different exemptions and each has its own requirements. Without knowing what kind of job it is it’s hard to know which one the company is relying on for his exempt status. By way of example, here are the requirements for the “administrative” exemption:

Administrative Exemption​

To qualify for the administrative employee exemption, all of the following tests must be met:

• The employee must be compensated on a salary or fee basis (as defined in the regulations) at a rate not less than $684* per week;
• The employee’s primary duty must be the performance of office or non-manual work directly related to the management or general business operations of the employer or the employer’s customers; and
• The employee’s primary duty includes the exercise of discretion and independent judgment with respect to matters of significance.

Gotcha, thanks.

 

[Grahamburn]

Wife had appeal with VP of the Hospital today. This is a higher up that she knows very well. The VP seemed puzzled that she was here for a termination appeal considering how good an employee she was. Gave a slight indication that a suspension probably should have been given rather than a termination. VP said this is a "he said-she said" case and that he would get to the bottom of this. Would take a day or two. Not getting my hopes up. Wife said the previous appeal went well and then HR totally dismissed her witnesses for various reasons.

I know it was 6 years ago, but how did this story end?

She was terminated. I won her case for unemployment compensation against the hospital. She got a new job in another health system rather quickly and worked her way up to assistant manager of the ER there now.