Lost Job Due To Pregnancy?

[judgediatl]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? = OHIO

My wife was a 1st grade teacher on a year to year salary contract for a private catholic school. The contract runs from July-July. This past year she signed on for the current here in July 2012 that would normally have ran through July 2013.

She got pregnant and had the baby in December of 2012. Her schedule maternity leave was for two months, returning in March. However, after being home with the baby she realized she did not want to return to work on a full time basis as it would be to much for her. She had a meeting with the board and request returning on a part-time basis either in her current position with the current substitute, or a new position. They considered it but after several days got back to her and let her know they couldn't accommodate that schedule. She let them know she didn't want to leave her position but because of them not being able to accommodate her, she'd be forced to resign.

Since she did not want to leave but was essentially forced out, would this be considered a type of being laid-off where she could file for some kind of unemployment?

 

[Zigner]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? = OHIO

My wife was a 1st grade teacher on a year to year salary contract for a private catholic school. The contract runs from July-July. This past year she signed on for the current here in July 2012 that would normally have ran through July 2013.

She got pregnant and had the baby in December of 2012. Her schedule maternity leave was for two months, returning in March. However, after being home with the baby she realized she did not want to return to work on a full time basis as it would be to much for her. She had a meeting with the board and request returning on a part-time basis either in her current position with the current substitute, or a new position. They considered it but after several days got back to her and let her know they couldn't accommodate that schedule. She let them know she didn't want to leave her position but because of them not being able to accommodate her, she'd be forced to resign.

Since she did not want to leave but was essentially forced out, would this be considered a type of being laid-off where she could file for some kind of unemployment?

She was a full time worker and she wanted to change to a part-time schedule based solely on it being more convenient for her. No, the employer doesn't have to allow that based solely on the convenience of the worker. She was in no way "forced out."

 

[eerelations]

Accommodating an employee's special needs become a legal issue for employers if the employee's special needs are caused by a medical disability as defined by the ADA. You haven't provided any indication that your wife has a medical disability that only allows her to work part time.

 

[Antigone*]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? = OHIO

My wife was a 1st grade teacher on a year to year salary contract for a private catholic school. The contract runs from July-July. This past year she signed on for the current here in July 2012 that would normally have ran through July 2013.

She got pregnant and had the baby in December of 2012. Her schedule maternity leave was for two months, returning in March. However, after being home with the baby she realized she did not want to return to work on a full time basis as it would be to much for her. She had a meeting with the board and request returning on a part-time basis either in her current position with the current substitute, or a new position. They considered it but after several days got back to her and let her know they couldn't accommodate that schedule. She let them know she didn't want to leave her position but because of them not being able to accommodate her, she'd be forced to resign.

Since she did not want to leave but was essentially forced out, would this be considered a type of being laid-off where she could file for some kind of unemployment?

Look at it this way - she ESSENTIALLY told them that she didn't want to leave her baby, so she quit. No one forced her hand, in fact she forced theirs.

 

[ecmst12]

Your subject line is highly inaccurate. She did not lose a job because of pregnancy. She chose not to return to her previous position after having the baby. 100% her choice. I have no idea why she thought they would be willing to create a new position just for her, while paying someone else to do her old job. I guess it never hurts to ask, but they are absolutely not required to do as she asked. She can go back to her old job, or she can stay home with the baby and look for something part time elsewhere. And she would not qualify for unemployment since she voluntarily turned down work.

 

[swalsh411]

She would also likely not qualify due to her choice to not be available full time for a job.

 

[ecmst12]

Well, it's not March yet. She still has a chance to change her mind.