eerelations
Senior Member
It's true it's "bane." Just trying to be helpful, OK? I agree with you on much of the you-know-what that's going on here, but your spelling of one word? That needs to be addressed.bane
It's true it's "bane." Just trying to be helpful, OK? I agree with you on much of the you-know-what that's going on here, but your spelling of one word? That needs to be addressed.bane
Given she was terminated for attending to her sick child without any more clarification than that, I see nothing wrong with ensuring fmla isn’t applicable. It would be the Ginsu knife of defenses if it applies and does no harm if it doesn’t apply.Oh, no. Someone who already believed she had a wrongful termination claim when she first started and hears someone telling her that her employer maybe violated FMLA (on NO evidence whatsoever) is NEVER going to imagine that this means she has some kind of legal recourse. Of course not.
Hell, I don’t want to work on fridays myself, and I don’t. . Does that ruffle your feathers?I can't speak for commentator but I have a very short fuse for people that don't want to work on Friday and those with attendance issues in general. They are the bane of my existence.
It would if when you were hired you knew working M-F went with the job.Hell, I don’t want to work on fridays myself, and I don’t. . Does that ruffle your feathers?
It didIt would if when you were hired you knew working M-F went with the job.
If you are asking about the OP's original post, No.Do you think this was a wrongful termination? I suppose it wasn't.
I did work fridays. Now I don’t.It would if when you were hired you knew working M-F went with the job.