Wrongful Term. for surgery

[goducks80]

What is the name of your state? Oregon

I was wrongfully fired due to illness. I had to have surgery and when I returned to work, not fully recovered, I was told I was being let go. I was given no notice. I was told that they needed someone who would be there. I then stated that I didn't plan on getting sick or having surgery which she then replied that wasn't the issue, that they were going in a different direction. I know that I was fired for missing work which was a little over a week. I called them every day and gave them an update on what was going on. Isn't that discrimination? They never even gave me a chance to provide doctors notes or anything. I have filed for unemployment and was given it but it is a consideral drop in wages, almost $250 less a week.

 

[cbg]

Thank you for sharing your story. Did you perhaps have a question?

When you post back with your question, please also include the length of time you have worked for the company, the number of employees at your location and the number of employees overall.

 

[goducks80]

Yes, sorry for not being more clear. I want to know if the company had the right to fire me for missing work due to illness/surgery without warning or notice. I was with the company for 6 months and given a great review just 1 month earlier. The company is quite large, maybe 300 people. I worked for a branch of about 20-30 people.

 

[cbg]

Since you had been with the company only six months, FMLA did not apply. Unless Oregon has a state mandated leave that goes into effect with less than six months employment (which is highly unlikely and I can check when I get to my office this afternoon) no laws were broken.

Somehow or other it has gotten into the public mainstream that it is illegal to fire someone who has been absent due to legitimate medical reasons. That is not true. An employer may legally fire someone for even legitimate, medically documented absences, if the employee is either not eligible for or has already used up all Federally- and state-mandated leave time. In your case it would appear that you are not yet eligible for any legally mandated medical leave, which would make it quite legal to term you for any extended absence, no matter how legitimate.

 

[goducks80]

Thank you

Thank you for taking the time to respond to my question. It answered the question that has been weighing heavily on my mind since my termination. I'm not exactly happy to hear it but it's good to know one way or the other. Thanks again.

 

[cbg]

It appears that Oregon does have a statute that MAY affect you.

If you have been on the job for AT LEAST 180 days AND you have worked AT LEAST 25 hours a week during that time AND your condition qualifies under OFLA, you may eligible for up to 12 weeks of state-mandated leave. IF you meet these qualifications, then they MAY NOT fire you BECAUSE you took this medical leave. However, if they can show that you would have been fired regardless of whether you took leave or not, then it is still legal. (The burden of proof is on them, not you, to show that the termination is unrelated to the medical leave.)

If you do not meet these qualifications, then the termination is still legal.

It's rare for a state to impose a lesser standard of employment - at least in my region even in those states which offer a greater benefit than the Federal, they mostly still require a year's employment (with a couple of exceptions that are strictly for maternity). But you appear to be in one of the few states that has lowered the eligibility requirement.