supervisor is harrassing me

[lins0919]

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

I work as a physical therapist in a skilled nursing facility and have been there for 9 months, my supervisor was previously my co-worker and was promoted about 6 months ago. Since her promotion I have consistantly been the most productive therapist in the dept which equals made the most money for the company. ever since she became management she began making rude comments to me and criticizing every aspect of my work only later to come back and apologize saying that I had misunderstood her intention behind statements. She also took off most of the summer leaving me most of the burden of taking care of my job duties as well as her own, and upon returning had nothing but negative remarks about how they had been completed. Despite numerous conversations initiated by myself to resolve these matters no change occured and she maintained that I was creating the problem. She accused me of giving another emtployee time off and when the vacation request was found she had signed it herself but offered no apology to me for the accusation.

Two weeks ago while she was not at work I was written up for a situation involving another staff member that they failed to investigate, which point of fact I was actually written up for the other employees actions. I am currently in the process of appealing this. During my formal disciplinary meeting my supervisor refused to let me state my own case, or defend myself and instead told me I was only to admit to what I had done wrong and tell them how I would change my actions. Two days following she gave me my annual performance review. I requested an advocate to be present which she tried to deny me but after speaking with HR had to allow. My review was unfair at best rating me uneffective in almost all categories.

What are my options? What can I do to fight this, I have surgery scheduled in a couple of months and need to stick it out here for the STD benefit, but it seems like the administration is trying to push me out before they have to pay? Do I have any recourse?

 

[Hot Topic]

It's not illegal to be a jerk.

People are entitled to take vacations even if doing so inconveniences others.

She wasn't even there when you were written up. Unless there's something in writing that says you can't defend your conduct at a formal disciplinary hearing, you should have said something on your own behalf.

I hope you have a paper trail of your accomplishments at the facility.

 

[UCLawyer]

Hot Topic says "It's not illegal to be a jerk." I say, it's not illegal (or even unreasonable) to want a fair workplace. A workplace where you don't work for jerks.

And you can have it -- using the same laws that everyone else on this forum will tell you don't apply to you. Or, don't protect you.

For instance, you have surgery scheduled, and you want to hang on for the STD benefit. Does your ex-coworker/current supervisor know about your upcoming surgery? Even if you haven't told her... has she found out?

It could very well be that she wants to look good in her first supervisor role by running you out before you cost the company a bunch of money!

Have you applied for FMLA leave to cover your time off during surgery? If not, DO IT NOW. Like, get the paperwork filled out by your doctor on Tuesday (call in sick if you have to), and then turn that FMLA paperwork in on Wednesday.

That's it. You're protected. After you turn in the FMLA papers, document every tiny negative thing anyone says or does to you. All of it is retaliation for filing for FMLA leave. And that's illegal.

You CAN punch back against these jerks if you just know how. They don't want you to grasp that legal knowledge truly is power.

-The Undercover Lawyer

 

[You Are Guilty]

Have you applied for FMLA leave to cover your time off during surgery? If not, DO IT NOW. Like, get the paperwork filled out by your doctor on Tuesday (call in sick if you have to), and then turn that FMLA paperwork in on Wednesday.

That's it. You're protected. After you turn in the FMLA papers, document every tiny negative thing anyone says or does to you. All of it is retaliation for filing for FMLA leave. And that's illegal.

Oh really? And you know that OP qualifies for FMLA how, exactly? Oh wait, that's right, she doesn't. Whoops.

(If you're going to pretend to be a lawyer, you can at least try to do a good job of it.)

 

[lins0919]

Actually I do qualify for FMLA, I have only been full time at the facility for 9 months but I have worked there for over a year on a part-time basis which under FMLA qualifies me as long as I have worked 1250 hours which I have completed.

 

[seniorjudge]

Employees are eligible for leave if they have worked for their employer at least 12 months, at least 1,250 hours over the past 12 months, and work at a location where the company employs 50 or more employees within 75 miles. Whether an employee has worked the minimum 1,250 hours of service is determined according to FLSA principles for determining compensable hours or work.

U.S. Department of Labor - Find It By Topic - Leave Benefits - FMLA

 

[Hot Topic]

{Quote}It could very well be that she wants to look good in her first supervisor role by running you out before you cost the company a bunch of money!{Unquote}

What the OP needs is proof that the supervisor's behavior has been motivated by her knowledge that the OP is going on leave. She hasn't alluded to any remarks made by the supervisor or anyone at the formal disciplinary meeting that would indicate a bias toward her because of the leave.

 

[You Are Guilty]

Actually I do qualify for FMLA, I have only been full time at the facility for 9 months but I have worked there for over a year on a part-time basis which under FMLA qualifies me as long as I have worked 1250 hours which I have completed.

That's just part of the equation. How many employees does your employer have total? How many within a 75 mile radius?

 

[UCLawyer]

Lins,

I hope you do work for a company w 50+ employees, because then you've got yourself into a protected class and you're on your way.

If that's no the case, though, don't give up. Get yourself into SOME protected class, like using the ADA, complaining of Age Discrimination, or filing a Work Comp claim.

The anti-employee folks on this board will screech about how you need "direct evidence" that your supervisor is motivated to treat you bad "because of" your FMLA use (or Work Comp, or ADA, ADEA, etc).

That's hogwash.

All you need is close proximity in time. Because based on timing, the law allows a jury to INFER that your supervisor was motivated to treat you bad "because of" FMLA use.

You don't have to get a written confession or anything. Just enough that a judge would say "you know, it's possible that a jury COULD infer that Lins' supervisor treated her bad because of her protected status." THAT is the hurdle to worry about.

I'll leave it to the others to explain why that is the hurdle that means so much more than having enough evidence to PROVE your case.

-Undercover Lawyer

p.s. Hey "You Are Guilty", as a senior member of this forum it seems like you would have know that the terms of service prohibit anyone from using the word lawyer in their username unless they actually are a lawyer. Your username cracks me up. It all but says "Hello, My Name Is MISANTHROPE"

 

[ShyCat]

I think UndercoverLawyer would have more credibility if his profile did not include a link to his for-profit website. Trolling for customers, eh?

 

[mlane58]

Have you applied for FMLA leave to cover your time off during surgery? If not, DO IT NOW.

The OP can't apply for something they don't qualify for.

If not, DO IT NOW. Like, get the paperwork filled out by your doctor on Tuesday (call in sick if you have to), and then turn that FMLA paperwork in on Wednesday. That's it. You're protected. After you turn in the FMLA papers, document every tiny negative thing anyone says or does to you. All of it is retaliation for filing for FMLA leave. And that's illegal.

Again, the OP doesn't qualify for FMLA yet. Op has only been there 9 months.

The one link to a book for sale is, however, for people like you who desperately need to invest in their employment law education.

Maybe you should read your own material or head back to law school and brush up on employment law as everyone falls into at least three protected classes already.

 

[las365]

Just enough that a judge would say "you know, it's possible that a jury COULD infer that Lins' supervisor treated her bad because of her protected status." THAT is the hurdle to worry about.
I'll leave it to the others to explain why that is the hurdle that means so much more than having enough evidence to PROVE your case.

I think YOU should explain to the OP why you think she doesn't need to be able to meet the burden of proof ("more likely than not," NOT "it's possible it could be inferred").

I understand the strategy you are trying to promote to OP, but if there isn't evidence of illegal discrimination, she's getting nowhere fast. Trying to turn ordinary jackassery into illegal discrimination isn't the easy task you seem to think it is.

 

[UCLawyer]

Las365,

You make good points. I'll take your advice and explain a bit more. Also, I agree that re-characterizing jackassery (nice phrase, by the way!) into illegal discrimination isn't easy. I don't want lin0919 to think that.

But, I do want lin0919 to know that there are many options besides getting run out of your job or staying put and being miserable.

So, to address Las365's good points:

1) The "burden of proof" I'm talking about is the standard for summary judgment, not for a jury verdict. For 90+% of all cases, the standard of proof a jury applies during deliberations is irrelevant, because 90+% of all cases never get to a jury.

2) Summary judgment is, basically, where the employer says "Hey judge, even if you believe everything the employee says about us, the employee doesn't have even a tiny bit of evidence for each element of their claim. So, judge, no need to send this case to a jury. Please throw the case out." If the judge does not agree, then the employee gets to go to trial. Usually, but always, the employers will settle the case instead of going to trial.

Now, for your purposes, if you can make your employer think there is a chance you will get to trial, long before you even file your case, then they will most likely treat you better.

Finally, you don't have to have much evidence of discrimination. Just something more than a scintilla. And timing is enough. Timing is a huge factor that you can use to your advantage.

Undercover Lawyer

 

[You Are Guilty]

Ah, now it becomes clear. Ambulance chasing has led you into the employment law field. Promoting dishonesty and downright lying. Classy.

I did find your website with a link to your e-book. Before I order it though, can you confirm whether I get the 20 minute phone call with you, as well as whether the 105% money back guaranty is still in effect? Thanks!

 

[UCLawyer]

I wont comment on your previous post, because doing so would probably result in this post being deleted. Since I can't refer to that stuff myself, thanks for the nice commercial friend!

"You Are Guilty" , you only like people who sneer at the folks who post questions on this board, since I don't sneer, you don't like me and call me names.

If you look deeper into my background you'll find your assumptions about my professional past (and present) are 180 degrees wrong.