Labor Laws, Termination, Unemployment

I have a feeling you would be better served talking to a labor attorney than this motley crew.

East Ender......I love Motley Crue

I sure as hell would not want to go back to work somewhere that did not want me law or no law.

Bennett Chan would be an excellent attorney to speak with about this but I highly doubt there's anything "illegal" about it.

Bennett Chan would be an excellent attorney to speak with about this but I highly doubt there's anything "illegal" about it.

Is he on STX?

It sounds like they are within the law but running the scenario by an attorney would be the best bet. I think the person could ask for a re-determination hearing with Labour. http://www.vidol.gov/unemployment.php

i love motley crue too

Bennett Chan would be an excellent attorney to speak with about this but I highly doubt there's anything "illegal" about it.

Is he on STX?

He's on STT but even if this company is on STX the laws are the same and your friend could maybe arrange an initial telephone consult with him.

Its not that the person wants to go back to work there, she is just looking for some justice right now. Originally when she was laid off, she really felt it was because of lack of work as they said.

Now all of a sudden they are looking for more employees so it is pretty clear that they dont want her back. That also hints to that she was laid off for reasons other than lack of work.

Curiously she worked in a job with mostly men and they all acted like a bunch of men do. She had pointed out at one point that the comments they were making were innapropriate and a meeting was held with all staff to go over the sexual harrasment policy. One co-worker who she worked closely with every day was getting too comfortable texting her phone even outside of work hours about non work things. This person had alot of senority and more authority in the company. She told him not to text her anymore unless it was work related, and she was laid off about a week later.

So it looks like this is why she was let go. I mean there seems to be no other reason. I think if this could be proved it would be illegal, but it seems very difficult to prove.

I do not know anything about labor laws but perchance she should reapply for they job that she originally had and see what happens.....
whether or not she wishes to have the job back.

Maybe circumstances have changed? Was company going thru changes and challenges so maybe it's not sexism but just the changes in management, monetary inflow, etc. She must have made some friendships and or colleges there that she can reach out to in order to discern the climate. Would she even wish to return if they offered the job? I have no idea about which field.

I worked in male dominated fields most of my life and, while challenging at times, had no issues, as I was lucky enough with the majority of people that I worked with that they were helpful in giving me confidence and backing me up when needed as a young female who had moved in on their territory.

There are different ways of going about things. It doesn't mean you have to put up with any crap, however. That would have been stopped in a second!

The National Labor Relations Act exempts management and supervisory employees from coverage under the VI Wrongful Discharge Act. The real question starts with whether he was a supervisor or management employee by title only or by position.

The National Labor Relations Act exempts management and supervisory employees from coverage under the VI Wrongful Discharge Act. The real question starts with whether he was a supervisor or management employee by title only or by position.

Ok DOL said something about being management.

I have to check but I think she was only a supervisor by position, I don't think there was any formal designation. Will find out. What difference would that make?

It is my understanding that you can terminate anyone for any reason or without a reason before 6 months.

Sometimes that's a good ting.*-)

It is my understanding that you can terminate anyone for any reason or without a reason before 6 months.

godforbid they ever get rid of that... it should be 12 months.

Federal jobs are 12 months....

Employers are the ones paying the taxes and the employees, quit looking for ways to make their life harder, or if you are going to, get ready to move as the economy dives further.

Just call Lee Rohn already.

It is my understanding that you can terminate anyone for any reason or without a reason before 6 months.

godforbid they ever get rid of that... it should be 12 months.

Federal jobs are 12 months....

Employers are the ones paying the taxes and the employees, quit looking for ways to make their life harder, or if you are going to, get ready to move as the economy dives further.

That's funny. My father, who owned a dozen businesses including eight of which were on the islands, despite owning a house with a guest house and a pool and at least one new car a year, never claimed to the IRS to make more than $36k a year in his lifetime. If it matters, he drained my brother's and my trust fund given to us by our grandfather. When he died the IRS took their share first, the courts second, the banks third, and of course nothing was left for the lawyers, never mind his children. I know he only claimed that because my mother opted for an early retirement from Social Security under the widow clause, and saw the numbers.

By a long shot his employees paid more in taxes than he did.

You mentioned DOL but only where UC is concerned. Has your friend approached DOL to ask them whether she was in fact unlawfully dismissed? They have an app for that (!) and she should check with them first.

gringojj, did she call the company she worked for to find out why they didn't call her when the job opened?
I would be curious to hear what they had to say.

It is my understanding that you can terminate anyone for any reason or without a reason before 6 months.

This seems to be my understanding also....its just that if they wanted to fire her, why didn't they? They laid her off....

No she has not called to ask for her job back....I am curious too....

Will have to double check with DOL. I think that has been covered already though.

its just that if they wanted to fire her, why didn't they? They laid her off....

Collecting UC when one is fired can be a real hassle and, depending on the reason for the firing, can be impossible. Collecting UC because of a lay-off is no problem. In this respect she's definitely on the plus side.

I'm pretty sure nothing illegal. If she was eligible for unemployment they have an obligation to re-hire, but since she isn't, they don't.

I'm pretty sure nothing illegal. If she was eligible for unemployment they have an obligation to re-hire, but since she isn't, they don't.

According to the OP, "DOL has said they do not qualify for unemployment at this time, something about the quarters of the year. They said the person could try again in October." If she was laid off then she does qualify. Whether that mandates the employer to rehire her is another matter and best answered by someone knowledgeable about labor laws.

By a long shot his employees paid more in taxes than he did.

Psyco/sociopaths do exist in this world, but are not overly common, your situation is not a common one.

I am in a union, all I've ever seen unions do is protect sub-par employees, there has never been a positive union action in the 15 years of my career at the multiple sites I have worked at.

my caveat here is that I work for the federal government (which is one of the largest employers in the US) so perhaps my view point is a bit too myopic.