Last March, six of us at work were promoted. We did the new job until September when the position we were promoted to was eliminated. When that happened, we were merged with another department, and that required some additional training.
Training took place in October/November for everyone else but me. I was not trained because I was “going out on maternity leave soon” and they didn’t want to have to train me and then train me again when I got back. I did my old job in the meantime. I was told many times that I’d be trained once I came back from maternity leave. I came back to work on March 31.
My supervisor told me on Friday that my training would start this week.
Today we had a meeting and were told that the department we were merged with has changed their function, and they would no longer need 6 people to do it, they would only need 2. They picked the two people they were keeping based on their job performance.
The rest of us go back to the (shitty) job we were in before getting promoted the first time. At least they let us keep our pay rate.
Can they do that? I don’t feel I got a fair shot at keeping the new position simply because I was never trained for it, so I could never have my performance compared to the rest of the team. They told me numerous times I wasn’t trained for it because I was going out on maternity leave. How is that fair? I feel I was penalized for going out on maternity leave, and possibly even discriminated against for being pregnant.
What do you guys think? Also, how do I find out the legality of it all? What would be my first step?
IANAL, etc. I would say no, because you were not singled out for demotion because of your pregnancy. Had there been just one promoted position eliminated and you were the one eliminated you’d have a case but the fact that two-thirds of the newly-promoted were demoted, coupled with the increase in salary, would lead me to think no illegal pregnancy-related discrimination happened. It is not IMHO a reasonable accomodation to require that the company train you for a position that you may or may not end up being able to do just because you missed out on the training the first time for going on leave. The company would surely argue that eliminating the four positions was a business necessity and that’s pretty much all they need to do to shut down your claim.
Here are the federal guidelines on pregnancy discrimination and this is a link to an EEOC fact sheet. At the bottom of the second link are some additional links through which, if you truly feel what the company did was illegal, you can learn how to file a complaint.
I’m not a lawyer either, but I’d agree this is not a case of discrimination. FMLA only says they have to put you in a comparable job when you return - not the exact same job. Thus, they might have not trained you for the new position because they weren’t sure if they would need you to return to the “new” position or if they would have to put you in a position at comparable pay and status.
As far as your not being able to compete for the new position since you weren’t trained for it, it probably didn’t make much difference. Let’s say you were trained for it and did the new job for a few weeks. Then you went out on maternity leave. Meanwhile everyone else has been doing the new job for months. Who do you think they are going to look at, based on performance, when they try to decide who to keep? The person who did the job for a few weeks 4 months ago or the people who have been doing the job for the entire 4 months?
But if you feel strongly about it, you might speak to HR as a start. If you can’t get any satisfaction, you could file an EEO complaint. But those take years to be resolved and you will probably not enjoy working there at all, nor will they enjoy having you, once they know you are suing them.
Six people are given a position.
Five people are trained for the position.
The sixth person is not trained for it because she is going out on maternity leave, and is told she’ll be trained when she comes back.
In the meantime, the position is cut from six people to two. The two who keep it are chosen based on their performance.
Therefore, it only makes sense that the four who get demoted are demoted due to their performance.
One of those four people never actually got a chance to perform because she was out on maternity leave.
I was told that my annual evaluation would be pushed back 3 months because there was nothing to evaluate me on during my leave. How can that same period of time be held against me in regard to being demoted? How in the world is that fair?
Well, IANAL either, but your promotion was to a job that was eliminated, not the position the 2 are in. After that, they were making a transfer to another department - probably considered a lateral, since you don’t mention if their pay changed again. That may mean it was not a promotion at all. You had a break due to circumstances of your own volition. As Bunny said, they just have to give you a comparable job. What is a comparable job? First thing they are going to look for is the pay. You said it is the same. Most would then say that met the first criteria of “comparable”. Heck, if you don’t have a no-layoff clause, they could have let you go. Twice. When the first job was eliminated, then when it was cut from 6 to 2. If positions are eliminated, they can let people go. If it was the first time, and they let all 6 go, you can’t claim they did it DUE to your pregnancy, unless the other 5 were also pregnant. Likewise when they went from 6 to 2.
You also don’t say how long the training was for, or how long you were out. If it was 2 days of training, and you weren’t leaving for 3 months, that’s one thing. If it was 3 weeks, and you were leaving in a month, that’s another. You were going to be trained this week, about 2 weeks after you came back. Sounds like good faith. Are they supposed to take a few weeks to train you, then let you get some experience in the job, then evaluate you? Keeping another job on the rolls the full time, or moving out one of the 2 doing it now? The first is basically adding a position, which I doubt is going to be considered a reasonable accomodation, and the second is unfair to someone who has proven themself, to be replaced by someone who hasn’t, even if it was because circumstances denied her an opportunity.
I’d say bad break, but not discrimination.
You might want to consider looking elsewhere, when you’re in a job you term shitty, and several positions have been getting eliminated, including yours once, and one you were intended to be placed in another time.
To continue the IANAL advice, as you are keeping the same pay rate, you may have a hard time proving that this has any material harm, even if you could make a case for discrimination.