New Mother's job in jeopardy after maternity/ revised leave

[nixzeus]

New Mother's job in jeopardy after maternity leave/ revised

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? Illinois
My wife and I had our first baby recently. She was allowed 3 months leave with 6 weeks paid. During this time her boss has allocated her typical responsibilities to other co-workers. Her boss has said that her old position, which was fulltime PR manager handling marketing and webpage design, has changed. She cannot come back fulltime and he will not discuss the terms of her coming back or what her position is in the company is, even after he requested these terms himself. I understand this sounds odd, but he asked us to put together some of our expectations which was; salary needed, hours worked, and benefits( exam:medical/ dental). We submitted it and he responded (via e-mail) we will discuss when you come back. During her maternity leave he has not taken one opportunity to call her. He is typically in the office 3-4 hours per week and travels constantly which makes face to face communication very difficult. The company is a International company which is divided into separate offices, my wife works for the USA office which has only 7-8 employees compared to the Germany office/ plant which has hundreds.
We are worried he is trying to push her out to save money. It was never our intent for my wife to become a parttime worker. We are a new family with a house and bills to pay and like everyone else these days, cannot afford to lose our jobs or most importantly medical insurance.
What can be done to resolve this issue?

 

[cbg]

Are you telling us that there are only 7-8 employees in the US? It matters to the answer, so I want to be sure I'm understanding you correctly.

 

[nixzeus]

There are only 8 employees to the USA office.

 

[cbg]

Then unfortunately, neither FMLA nor the Pregnancy Discrimination Act applies. Unless there is some kind of municipal statute that says otherwise, for which she would have to see a local attorney, there is nothing in the law prohibiting the employer from reducing her to part time, even if she could prove that the sole reason was her pregnancy. Neither would either of these laws apply if this is a change that would have happened regardless of her leave.

COBRA will not apply due to the small size of the company; however, IL has a state law that will allow her to retain her health insurance at her own expense for up to nine months, as long as she was covered for the full three months prior to her reduction in hours.

She is, of course, free to look for other work.

 

[nixzeus]

I really don't understand how the FPDA can exist to protect woman who work for companies with 15 or more employees and not cover woman no matter how large the company. Wrong is wrong, the fact that her boss is going about it the way he is could be evidence that he knows he can get away with it.
Why is it that it has to be at least 15 employees for it to apply?

Is it because the chances of it being a profitable enough venture for the lawyers is lessened? Or it may not make as big of a news story?
I understand that this is the law but it doesn't mean I agree with it, I'll bet if this law existed overseas it would probably cover any woman in any company.

 

[pattytx]

It is what it is. Getting into the political discussion of this, though, will not change the law. Of course, "overseas" you'd probably be paying up to 70% of your income in taxes to pay for all the additional social services.

 

[cbg]

Let me ask you a question.

Is your wife prepared to prove that the ONLY reason for her reduction in hours is her pregnancy? That if she had been on medical leave for a broken leg or pneumonia, she would still be working full time?

If not, then the PDA would not have applied to begin with.

 

[nixzeus]

To add more to this story, her boss did give many of her tasks to an employee who was ready to lose her job when he made cuts in their sales department. This employee was hired 1 year after my wife and her brother also remodeled the boss' entire house. I know this sounds like its just a good juicy story but it is the truth. Now if that doesn't scream clout then I guess I fully understand the term. But I guess that would have to be proven.
Based on more than just what I've said so far, if there is any possibility this could be enough to win a case, we would be willing to go that distance to win. This is a terrible way to do business and treat employees and it must be stopped.

 

[pattytx]

A case for what? No. Law. Has. Been. Violated.

I'm sorry you think there should be one. There just isn't. You can't sue for "unfair" if "unfair" is legal.

Now, if you're talking about a case for unemployment benefits, that's totally different.

 

[cbg]

No. Nothing you have said, or added, is enough to win any "case" unless it's a case to receive unemployment.

We have not even established yet that your wife's pregnancy was a factor in the decision. If it was not, then the size of the company is irrelevant. NO law protects her from a decision that would have happened anyway.

Smaller companies are exempted from some laws because the absence of one or more employees is more of a hardship on the employer than it is on a larger company. The law seeks to accomodate the rights of BOTH sides, not just one.

 

[nixzeus]

I can't say thank you to everyone for their advice but I will say thank you to you CBG for yours. You have made things clear for us and that was why I wrote into this website, so that I could get a professionals opinion.

Miss PattyTX or Mr. or whomever you are, I hope to god you aren't an actual lawyer because if you are you need to take a course on how to talk to people with a little more respect. Your advice on this matter was not helpful in fact it was downright insulting and alittle.. hmmm.. unfair. So next time your having a bad day or week or if your life just sucks, don't jump on a forum page and start talking down at people to make yourself feel better.
People come here to seek advice on subjects we obviously know nothing about not to get slammed by people like you. Try to have a good day... maybe start with a drink.
Or many

 

[eerelations]

pattytx was a little PO'd (as was I and many others here I'm sure) at your continued obstinate refusal to believe cbg's sage and true responses.

 

[nixzeus]

For the record I never said I didn't believe what CBG was saying and I did thank him for his advice on the matter. I agree that I may have been alittle stubborn, as you had said. This is only because what is happening to us is going to effect my family financially and it was hard for me to believe that, I couldn't do anything to stop it. Its never a good feeling to have.
When I added more information to the problem I thought it may change things, I didn't do it because I didn't believe the responses I was getting; I did it because sometimes a situation can change if you have more information to make that happen. But as it was said, this is the law and it is what it is no matter what. Patty could have been a bit more compassionate though. That was why I said what I said.

 

[cbg]

Just fyi, cbg is a she.

 

[pattytx]

And fyi, we all have our own issues to deal with. I'm sorry you thought I wasn't "compassionate" enough, but that's really not what we're here for.