• FreeAdvice has a new Terms of Service and Privacy Policy, effective May 25, 2018.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our Terms of Service and use of cookies.

Discrimination

Accident - Bankruptcy - Criminal Law / DUI - Business - Consumer - Employment - Family - Immigration - Real Estate - Tax - Traffic - Wills   Please click a topic or scroll down for more.

S

Starfleet007

Guest
What is the name of your state? NEW YORK

I was working and 1 week before I reached 6 month , they gave me laid off. I was not the only one , a few of use got laid off.
The company hired new people to replace us so, they don't have to pay us benefit. Then after a couple of month for the new people they will get laid off , and then they will call me back again to work. They do this because, if I work six month straight they will have to let me stay permenent.

I will like to know if this is llegal ? or if I can do something about it with out them knowing that I have done it.

Thank you !
 
Last edited:


Beth3

Senior Member
That depends. When you say "they don't have to pay use benefit," what benefit are you talking about?
 
S

Starfleet007

Guest
sorry I meant "us" .

alot of us that were working with me are in the same position as I am.
 

Beth3

Senior Member
Thanks but I still don't know what benefit you believe the employer is avoiding by using these rotating layoff tactics. Nobody can answer your question without knowing that.

Do you mean unemployment? Health insurance? Participation in their retirement plan?
 
S

Starfleet007

Guest
Health insurance , maximum pay, holiday and vacation pay.
sorry again.
 
C

cryingdiamond

Guest
Its not leageal to lay workers off for the simple fact that they do not want to pay benifits. I am sure you can start a case against your place of employment but i am sure you are going to need some other workers and proff to back you up. I highly doubt if word of mouth will fly
 

cbg

I'm a Northern Girl
If it is indeed true that the only reason you are being laid off is to avoid offering you benefits, that is highly questionable.

However, it would be cheaper, easier and legal for them to simply not offer benefits in the first place. The only state that requires that health insurance benefits be offered is Hawaii (and there are exceptions even there) and no state mandates that holiday or vacation pay be offered. As long as they are paying minimum wage or higher, there is no legal obligation for them to pay more.

Of course, a company that didn't offer any benefits and paid nothing more than minimum wage wouldn't have any employees very soon. But it sounds as if that's the direction they're headed anyway.
 

Beth3

Senior Member
cbg, you're right - it would be cheaper and easier for the employer just not to offer benefits but I would imagine they have a core group of employees in various classes they want to maintain and are unable to rule out offering benefits to this "rotating layoff group" in their plan doc's without adversely impacting their permanent workforce.

I'm completely guessing here but if this is what is going on, it's a violation of federal ERISA regulations. It is a violation of federal regs/guidelines that govern employer benefit plans to classify employees in a manner FOR THE PURPOSE OF avoiding offering certain benefits (primarily group health and retirement benefits.)

Starfleet007, the entity to contact to pursue this is the federal Department of Labor.
 

Find the Right Lawyer for Your Legal Issue!

Fast, Free, and Confidential
data-ad-format="auto">
Top