Star saleswoman, facing health crisis, axed
And here:
Zales Fires Top Earning Saleswoman Because She Needs Surgery
Can they DO that? Wouldn’t they be opening themselves up to a MAJOR lawsuit? And either way, what kind of assholes would do such a thing in the first place, then FIGHT her over the insurance?
What kind of fucking cuntmaggot would even do something like this?
A stupid, shortsighted one? Shouldn’t rule one for managers be “don’t shoot the goose that lays the golden eggs”?
I am not a lawyer, but wouldn’t she be entitled to twelve weeks of unpaid leave under the Family and Medical Leave Act?
By the way, the consumerist.com article linked to above includes a link to the company’s Code of Business Conduct and Ethics, which includes this common-sense test: “If you would be embarrassed for your supervisor or co-workers to read about your conduct on the front page of tomorrow morning’s newspaper or if the conduct is potentially harmful to the company … Don’t Do It”
There are a couple of reasons she might not be covered by FMLA. One would be if she didn’t work enough hours in the past year–1,250. The other would be if Zales doesn’t have 50 employees within a 75-mile radius. With 50 stores in NY, that doesn’t seem too likely, though.
Some states extend FMLA-like requirements to smaller employers.
Since the health condition, it sounds like, is expected to be cured by the surgery, the ADA is unlikely to apply.
Hmm. On its face, it does seem like a potential FMLA case. I wonder if we’re missing some information, or if the manager was just a complete idiot about this?
I wouldn’t judge it until I heard the employer’s side of the story. There’s a pretty good chance this woman’s job ended for reasons completely unrelated to he request for medical leave.
There’s an even better chance the manager was a total horse’s ass just trying to cut costs by firing an employee whose health care expenses might raise their insurance rates.
Bull.
From the linked articles.
I agree with Boyo Jim. Taking so long to start her COBRA coverage is inexcusable, in this day of high speed communications and computerized everything, it shouldn’t take so long. As it didn’t when one of the papers contacted Zales corporate office and it was done that afternoon.
Perhaps “an unlikely chance” would be a better phrasing. This article in the Middlebury, NY Times Record-Herald appears to be the source for this story. You’ll note that Zales refused to comment.
I suppose it’s possible that Zales habitually fires high earners so that they can replace them with minimum wage drones, a la Circuit City, or perhaps they were tired of rewarding her with diamonds, but I find either unlikely. Given that she had $1,000,000 in sales in 2008 and was terminated one week after asking for time off for surgery, I know what my judgement is.
Sorry, Guin, I didn’t noticed you’d already linked to the original article. In that case brazil84 has even less excuse for not excercising his common sense.
It’s also possible that she had already exhausted her FMLA leave for the year, or that she failed to provide documentation of her medical condition when requested, or somesuch.
I doubt brazil84 is right- chances are that Zales are just being dicks- but I wouldn’t condemn them on the basis of one or two badly-written articles.
Anyway, Zales is closing a buttload of stores this year, so it’s possible that she wouldn’t have had a job to come back to in any case.
A pretty good chance?
I don’t believe too much in coincidences. Especially when it comes to an American corporation attempting to save money.
If you’re familiar with brazil84, then you perhaps forgot that he really doesn’t have much common sense to exercise.
My job puts me into contact with a lot of unemployed people. I can assure you I have heard dozens of stories like this and usually they turn out to be false or wildly exaggerated.
And by the way, I’m not saying it’s uncommon for large employers to break the law, for example by firing employees who assert FMLA rights. It happens all the time, but big employers are typically more subtle about it when they do it. For example, they could wait until the employee has been back on the job for a few months and watch her register records until she gives her employee discount to her brother-in-law. Then, bam, she’s fired with essentially no legal recourse.
I realize that you have no reason to trust what some random dude is saying over the internet, but there it is. Anyway, you have no reason to trust what this woman is saying about her job and how it ended.
And the ultimate source appears to be this woman and her son. If you simply accept the self-serving and uncorroborated claim of some random person without any skepticism, then you are an idiot.
Of course they didn’t comment. It’s very common for big employers to decline comment on personnel matters.
It seems to me that common sense requires skepticism in this situation.
So naturally, you trust the corporation over the person who was fired.
Not at all. The employer hasn’t said anything at all, as far as I can tell. However, if the employer stated – for example – that this woman was fired because of a poor sales record, I would be skeptical of that too.
I learned long ago that there are two sides to every story.
In this case, there’s no point in the employer doing what you suggest. The point of firing her would be to avoid having to hold her job open for 12 weeks.
Not necessarily. For example, the employer might anticipate that she will have more absences in the future. Or that she will be more of a burden on company health insurance. Or they could (in effect) replace her immediately after she leaves but wait to actually fire her. From a cost/benefit point of view, paying a couple months’ extra wages is probably worth it to defeat an FMLA claim.
It’s a good illustration of how America’s completely screwed up health care industry affects lots of other things.
The real scandal here is that the women’s ability to have life saving surgery is so completely tied to her employment.
Now you’re just making guesses. It’s an aortic aneurysm. There’s not much risk of a recurrence.
Zales has over 2,000 stores, and at least 10,000 employees in their retail operations alone. One insurance claim is going to make zero difference to their insurance costs.
From a cost/benefit point of view, it would make much more sense to hire some minimum-wage kid to fill in for her and then fire or transfer the replacement.