• Hello there guest and Welcome to The #1 Classic Mustang forum!
    To gain full access you must Register. Registration is free and it takes only a few moments to complete.
    Already a member? Login here then!

Is this legal?

Gigantopithecus

Gigantopithecus

Well-Known Member
Some of you know my wife is a SPED teacher, and now there's a chance she might get out of that and move to US history. She spoke with the principal about the open spot, and the only reason he gave her for not getting that position is because her maternity leave is starting early in the next school year. He said he might have someone to fill that position, but that person does not want it....period. Even the teacher that doesn't want the job recommended my wife for the position. He's also talking about shuffling a bunch of people around, that shouldn't be. Some are not certified to teach some of the subjects. It's obvious this guy is a total idiot, and it's no secret that none of the teachers really care for what he's doing. So I'm not totally sure if the guy just doesn't get it, or really means that my wife can't have the job because she's pregnant.
If it IS on purpose, then it's in conflict with the Pregnancy Discrimination Act, and a big no no. But this guy being the clueless toolbag that he is, he probably doesn't even know it exists.

We're not talking lawsuits now. She's put a bug in the ear of the teacher that doesn't want the job, and that teacher happens to know a LOT of the folks on the school board. Maybe they'll have the superintendent have a pow wow with principal bummblenuts just to avoid any confrontations.
 
Provide him with a copy of the Pregnancy Discrimination Act with the areas of concern highlighted......may stir him in the right direction.
 
No it's not legal. Stating that she can't have the job because she's pregnant is proof enough he has no clue.

This guy is a fool.
 
"Sluggo" said:
No it's not legal. Stating that she can't have the job because she's pregnant is proof enough he has no clue.

This guy is a fool.
Click to expand...

Pretty much what I told her, but with more colorful metaphors.

Other teachers know what's going on, so we'll see where it goes. If he still wants to press the issue, that's when we'll start talking lawsuits.
 
Straight from EEOC's webpage:
Pregnancy Discrimination
Pregnancy discrimination involves treating a woman (an applicant or employee) unfavorably because of pregnancy, childbirth, or a medical condition related to pregnancy or childbirth.

Pregnancy Discrimination & Work Situations
The law forbids discrimination when it comes to any aspect of employment, including hiring, firing, pay, job assignments, promotions, layoff, training, fringe benefits, such as leave and health insurance, and any other term or condition of employment.

Pregnancy Discrimination & Temporary Disability
If a woman is temporarily unable to perform her job due to a medical condition related to pregnancy or childbirth, the employer or other covered entity must treat her the same as any other temporarily disabled employee. For example, the employer may have to provide modified tasks, alternative assignments, disability leave or unpaid leave.

Pregnancy Discrimination & Harassment
It is unlawful to harass a woman because of pregnancy, childbirth, or a medical condition related to pregnancy or childbirth.

Although the law doesn’t prohibit simple teasing, offhand comments, or isolated incidents that are not very serious, harassment is illegal when it is so frequent or severe that it creates a hostile or offensive work environment or when it results in an adverse employment decision (such as the victim being fired or demoted).

The harasser can be the victim's supervisor, a supervisor in another area, a co-worker, or someone who is not an employee of the employer, such as a client or customer.

Pregnancy & Workplace Laws
Pregnant employees may have additional rights under the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA), which is enforced by the U.S. Department of Labor. For example, The Wage and Hour Division released a fact sheet - Break Time for Nursing Mothers under the FLSA . For more information on FMLA, contact the nearest office of the Wage and Hour Division, U.S. Department of Labor. The Wage and Hour Division can be reached at:

202-693-0051 (voice),
202-693-7755 (TTY), or
US Department of Labor - Wage and Hour Division
Pregnancy, Maternity & Parental Leave
Under Federal law, if an employee is temporarily unable to perform her job due to pregnancy or childbirth, the employer must treat her the same as any other temporarily disabled employee. For example, if the employer allows temporarily disabled employees to modify tasks, perform alternative assignments or take disability leave or leave without pay, the employer also must allow an employee who is temporarily disabled due to pregnancy to do the same.

If an employer provides personal leave for other reasons, e.g., to take courses or other training, then the employer must grant personal leave for care of a new child.

An employer may not single out pregnancy-related conditions for special procedures to determine an employee's ability to work. However, if an employer requires its employees to submit a doctor's statement concerning their ability to work before granting leave or paying sick benefits, the employer may require employees affected by pregnancy-related conditions to submit such statements.

Further, under the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) of 1993, a new parent (including foster and adoptive parents) may be eligible for 12 weeks of leave (unpaid or paid if the employee has earned or accrued it) that may be used for care of the new child. To be eligible, the employee must have worked for the employer for 12 months prior to taking the leave and the employer must have a specified number of employees.

(See http://www.dol.gov/dol/allcfr/ESA/Title ... 25.110.htm.)
 
BTW,
If this guy is dumb enough to make that statement, he's dumb enough to retaliate once he's under the bus.

I'd go to the superintendent and make it crystal clear this guy needs some manager training before he gets them sued.
 
"Sluggo" said:
BTW,
If this guy is dumb enough to make that statement, he's dumb enough to retaliate once he's under the bus.

I'd go to the superintendent and make it crystal clear this guy needs some manager training before he gets them sued.
Click to expand...

That is what my wife is worried about. She'll go out of her way not to make any waves with anyone, but this is total BS. I've mentioned going to the school board and the superintendent to her, so we'll see. The school has been a total CF since day one with him. Most of the time, the vp was doing all the work.
 
Sorry to hear what your wife is going through. It's not isolated to the local levels. While I was in the military my wife started her career as a federal employee. It was great because of her position she could transfer when I did, even with other agencies. During one transfer she was pregnant. The Corps of Engineers had an open position due to the employee being gone for her pregnancy. When my wife interviewed with them they told her no. She was pregnant and filling a position open due to pregnancy. They refused her transfer and she ended up getting on with Customs instead. Illegal? Absolutely!
 
Is she union? This is exactly what they are for.

Any retaliation he may take after she complains is equally illegal and I have seen it result in demotion and or termination.

Mel

Sent from my Droid using Tapatalk
 
"guruatbol" said:
Is she union? This is exactly what they are for.

Any retaliation he may take after she complains is equally illegal and I have seen it result in demotion and or termination.

Mel

Sent from my Droid using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Negative. Teachers are non-union here. And honesty, he isn't smart enough to run the floor buffer, much less run the school itself.

This is one of the few times I agree with unions.

Edit: Oh, just talked with the wife again. Apparently, this is not the first time he has told her this. He said it last Wednesday as well.
 
There are federal laws in place for both the pregnancy and retaliation issues.

No offense to Union members but you don't need Union protection.

The EEOC will tear him and the district a new rectum. He is personally responsible and the district, if they choose to continue to overlook his idiocy are also liable.

You have the trump card either way. If she complains about it, whether she gets the job or not, she is protected from retaliation.
 
He has nothing to stand on. When the school was under a different principle, they had a MS studies teacher go through maternity leave at the same time as my wife will have. They just got someone to fill in then. No difference now, except this guy is an ass. She's not going to press the issue with him, but is taking it up with higher ups.
And when the school district's attorney finds out, dude will be walking funny for a while.
She's just scared of what will happen if it gets ugly. I've already told her that he shot himself in the foot on this one, and he really can't punish her or his screwup. And being 5mo preggers, stressed because state testing is about to start and the end of the year, she doesn't need this kind of crap right now.
 
"Sluggo" said:
BTW,
If this guy is dumb enough to make that statement, he's dumb enough to retaliate once he's under the bus.

I'd go to the superintendent and make it crystal clear this guy needs some manager training before he gets them sued.
Click to expand...

Agreed not a very good situation. I think simply mentioning the need to be supportive of pregnant women could stir him in the right direction. Go to the superintendent only if your looking for muscle and willing to leverage her way in.
 
"Sluggo" said:
There are federal laws in place for both the pregnancy and retaliation issues.

No offense to Union members but you don't need Union protection.

The EEOC will tear him and the district a new rectum. He is personally responsible and the district, if they choose to continue to overlook his idiocy are also liable.

You have the trump card either way. If she complains about it, whether she gets the job or not, she is protected from retaliation.
Click to expand...

x's 1

I couldn't agree more.

I always tell my boys they are not encouraged to fight but to stand up to bullies. Amazing how many bullies you can find in a work place.

My boys had a run in with their coach's kid last week....I don't know why the wife was afraid to confront it but I told her if coach tried to retaliate I'd have him suspended in a NY second. We confronted it and it's resolved.

For whatever reason, women are always afraid of retaliation and tend to avoid conflict, etc.

Fact is the guy is just dead wrong as noted above and I'd probably go over his head since he is obviously an idiot. But for what it's worth, he will likely lie and say he didn't say she couldn't have the job due to being pregnant. You may want to find out if anyone else was around to hear him say that.
 
You can probably guess my feelings on such matters, but at this point I would urge deliberation and fact finding first before confrontation and accusations. Having defended management many times in discrimination cases, I can tell you the claimant is almost always at a disadvantage. The claimant has to demonstrate convincingly that there were no other possible legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for the decision made. First thing is to determine what is school policy on such matters and what has past history been.

I'm not sure I'm following what the principal told your wife. He wouldn't consider her for the history job, because of the difficulty of getting someone to fill in for history during her maternity leave? That doesn't make sense (there's too many of us history majors.) Would it be difficult to replace her as a spec ed teacher, if he gave her the history slot? If that's the case, that could be a legitimate reason?
 
I agree with Jack, but also want to say that this is one time that I believe a union would be good.

She could merely go to the union and file an informal grievance and get his informal response. Additionally she would have the right to have someone present during any discussions so she would have a witness.

Well, she has that right anyway, but it is much easier to resolve these issues with a group behind you and insure that reprisals are not taken.

I think if she would sit down with this guy and have a witness in with her he would be smart enough to keep himself to the PC side of things and make up a reason why she didn't get it, than reveal what he told her. It becomes a he said she said issue.

In Utah they favor the employee and the employer has to prove he didn't say it.

Maybe you should find out where the burden of proof is.

Just a few thoughts. Oh, we need not get into a union vs nonunion discussion here to solve your issue though, and for the record I really don't like unions for the most part.

Mel
 
No it wouldn't be hard to fill her sped position. She isn't working with severe case kids, or anything like that. How MS classifies sped is kinda messed up. A very poor performing kid can get tested into sped, even if that kid is just a lazy punk. Nothing wrong with them, other than they refuse to listen. Hard knock(not so great home lives, some have arrest records, etc) kids is who she teaches. The job is basically is being an all subject tutor. Just about anyone could do the job, preferably someone who can project authority.
The lead Sped teacher position is likely to come open next year as well, so he might try to force her into that job, which she is unqualified to do in the first place. Seriously, this guy has no idea who can do what job.
Of the 6 teachers in the history dept, only one is qualified to teach this slot. And she doesn't want it, and has already made it clear to him that she would rather not move. She's the one who recommended my wife. But it seems he's hellbent and determined to make the most boneheaded decision.


And there's a strong possibility that the senior English teacher overheard their conversation.
 
Is there a formal application process? written policy on filling positions internally? or does management expect its actions not to be questioned. In front of a decider/trier of fact, and in the absence of any type of smoking gun evidence, you would need plausible reasoning why he doesn't want a pregnant history teacher, while he just has to come up with any non-discriminatory reason--actual truth/untruth doesn't seem to matter.

Go slow, document, educate yourself and if it really bothers you, put everything together, organize it, and spend a couple hundred bucks and get advice of an attorney.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top