Fired because the job description changed while I was already employed

[Falcon53]

This is in Maryland. I have been in my current position for 2 years. Recently, an individual has been rewriting a lot of the job descriptions to include a higher level of education as a requirement. This person has openly admitted that they were "chasing us out of here" and "trying to get rid of us" by doing this. Can I be fired for suddenly not being qualified to do the job that ive been doing for years once these new job descriptions are made? No changes to responsibilities are being made. I would still be doing the same thing that i've been doing these past 2 years.

 

[Zigner]

This is in Maryland. I have been in my current position for 2 years. Recently, an individual has been rewriting a lot of the job descriptions to include a higher level of education as a requirement. This person has openly admitted that they were "chasing us out of here" and "trying to get rid of us" by doing this. Can I be fired for suddenly not being qualified to do the job that ive been doing for years once these new job descriptions are made? No changes to responsibilities are being made. I would still be doing the same thing that i've been doing these past 2 years.

Yes, this is legal. You would almost definitely be approved for unemployment while you look for a new job.

 

[swalsh411]

Perfectly legal unless you are being targeted due to membership in a protected class. File for unemployment while you look for a new job.

 

[cbg]

I have a different take on this question. If the job would *generally* require this level of education it may pass muster. But there is landmark case law from SCOTUS that is over 40 years old that says requiring a higher level of education than is actually needed for the job can create an adverse impact on minority groups.

Now, if we're talking about requiring a doctorate where only a masters is needed, the above probably doesn't apply. But it very well might if we're talking about needing a college degree when only a high school diploma is actually needed.

 

[TinkerBelleLuvr]

I have a different take on this question. If the job would *generally* require this level of education it may pass muster. But there is landmark case law from SCOTUS that is over 40 years old that says requiring a higher level of education than is actually needed for the job can create an adverse impact on minority groups.

Now, if we're talking about requiring a doctorate where only a masters is needed, the above probably doesn't apply. But it very well might if we're talking about needing a college degree when only a high school diploma is actually needed.

Case in point is that the OP has performed the job in question for TWO years without need of the higher education.

 

[cbg]

Precisely. Which seems to imply that the higher level of education is NOT needed.

The question is whether or not the EEOC will agree that there is adverse impact here. But there is nothing at all for the OP to lose by investigating the possibility.

 

[You Are Guilty]

With all due respect (especially since you are technically correct), the EEOC sees disparate impact everywhere. That doesn't mean they are correct.

Take this recent example regarding criminal history:
http://www.eeoc.gov/laws/guidance/qa_arrest_conviction.cfm

Resulted in: http://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=20b88752-45eb-4c75-a4fc-1b867580664d

(Actual decision here: http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=18154734556398116908&hl=en&as_sdt=6&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr and worth the read for the smackdown laid on the EEOC).

 

[swalsh411]

EEOC is not a Court of Law last time I checked. Although I am humble enough to admit I may be wrong here.

 

[commentator]

Question is, 'Can they do this?' Answer is yes. In the absence of a union or a contract of some kind, they certainly can. Can they do it legally? Well, if you want to, after they've done it to you, file a complaint with the EEOC and let them take a look at the situation. The question is, as you say, they are trying to "chase you out of here," and you speak as if they are chasing out a fair number of people besides you. Who are these people? Is it people that are older, green people, left handed Moravians? If it is those of a protected class, that's much more likely to seem like illegal discrimination to the EEOC when they investigate. I have also seen illegal discrimination called in a case where the people who were former employees of a company that had been bought out were being targeted for dismissal, and it was because these employees tended to be older workers.

But continue to do the job you are doing to the best of your abilities. DO NOT QUIT THIS JOB unless you have found another very good job to replace it. Let them fire you if they want to do this. In many cases, companies think they are being clever when they do this sort of thing, without considering the repercussions. Whoever thought of this is pretty much an idiot. They could give you a "lack of work" separation notice and have you out without taking any sort of risk of doing a thing that is discriminatory or illegal if they want to get rid of you so badly.

Either way, as soon as you are given this separation because you no longer qualify for the job you have been doing for two years because they changed the job description, file immediately for unemployment insurance benefits. You will not be terminated for a valid job related misconduct reason, and your chances of being approved for benefits, even though you have been terminated, are excellent. Then immediately, contact the EEOC and file a claim about the possible discrimination involved. The two things, EEOC complaints and unemployment benefits are not related, and you'll need to do both. EEOC issues usually take a while to resolve, and unemployment benefits are a much more immediate source of assistance.

 

[cbg]

Criminal history has nothing to do with the OP's situation.

And I already said that depending on the exact details, the SCOTUS case from 1970 may be irrelevant. But I sure don't see the harm in the OP checking into it. Do you?

 

[BigMouthWino]

EEOC is not a Court of Law last time I checked. Although I am humble enough to admit I may be wrong here.

Oh, no you're right. But as a business owner I'd rather be sued by an employee in a court of law than investigated by the EEOC.

 

[Falcon53]

Thank you for all of the advice. I will definately look into all of that if they decide to let me go because of this. I figured that unemployment would be an option in this case but thought that maybe they wouldnt be able to fire me for that reason considering none of the daily tasks or responsibilities were changed at all.

Just to clarify a bit, when I say they are trying to get ride of US, I mean a handfull of people. However, there arent really any common traits between us that would point to a certain type of descrimination. There's a pretty large age range. Im 25 and I think it ranges to above 50. Different sexes, races and religions. I know that another person here that is in the same situation has been here for over 10 years continuously (more than 20 off and on). It just didnt seem right to me that someone that has been doing their job competently for 2 (or 20) years can be suddenly let go because of their education with no reason for a higher education to be needed.

Thank you for the help again. It's really appreciated.

 

[Zigner]

Thank you for all of the advice. I will definately look into all of that if they decide to let me go because of this. I figured that unemployment would be an option in this case but thought that maybe they wouldnt be able to fire me for that reason considering none of the daily tasks or responsibilities were changed at all.

Just to clarify a bit, when I say they are trying to get ride of US, I mean a handfull of people. However, there arent really any common traits between us that would point to a certain type of descrimination. There's a pretty large age range. Im 25 and I think it ranges to above 50. Different sexes, races and religions. I know that another person here that is in the same situation has been here for over 10 years continuously (more than 20 off and on). It just didnt seem right to me that someone that has been doing their job competently for 2 (or 20) years can be suddenly let go because of their education with no reason for a higher education to be needed.

Thank you for the help again. It's really appreciated.

Based on the additional information, it is even more apparent to me that this is a legal policy change.

 

[cbg]

I would have to agree. Consult with an attorney if you like; there's no harm. But based on the additional information, I would say there is little to no chance that this will prove to be a viable case.