# You need time off for surgery? You're fired! **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [April 11, 2009, 4:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/you-need-time-off-for-surgery-youre-fired/492749 "2009-04-11T16:29:46Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 10
**Author:** ![running\_coach](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/running_coach/32/15836_2.png) [@running\_coach](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/running_coach)\ **Post date:** [May 2, 2009, 5:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/you-need-time-off-for-surgery-youre-fired/492749/181 "2009-05-02T17:45:23Z")
Zales has stated she was fired for misbehavior and tried to deny her unemployment benefits on that basis. From the New York Dept. of Labor [website](http://www.labor.state.ny.us/ui/claimantinfo/beforeyouapplyfaq.shtm). > [@](#): > > You were fired because your employer alleged that you violated a company policy, rule or procedure, such as absenteeism or insubordination; because of a disagreement or dispute with a boss or co-worker; or you were fired for any other reason. Zales would not or could not provide the required documentation to the NY DOL in support of their claim. After making the reason public, why not? From the [article](http://www.recordonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20090424/BIZ/904240370/-1/NEWS) I linked to before. > [@](#): > > Finally, Zales denied Camilleri’s unemployment benefits, claiming she was fired for misbehavior. > > “I talked to their attorney twice,” said Quartaro. “She claimed there was a record of Rose being written up. I requested copies of that, and I never received them.” > > Because Zale did not document its claim, Camilleri now collects unemployment. ---
**Author:** ![brazil84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8491ac/32.png) [@brazil84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brazil84)\ **Post date:** [May 2, 2009, 6:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/you-need-time-off-for-surgery-youre-fired/492749/182 "2009-05-02T18:53:43Z")
> [@runner pat](#): > > Zales has stated she was fired for misbehavior and tried to deny her unemployment benefits on that basis. All that means is that someone working for Zales (probably\* an employee of TALX) checked off “misconduct” on the notice of potential charges transmitted by the New York State Department of Labor. What would happen next is that a questionnaire would be generated and sent to Zale’s agent (probably\* TALX UC Services in St. Louis). If that questionnaire is not returned within a week or two, the claim would normally be determined in favor of the claimant based upon available information. It would appear that’s what happened here. Note that neither a Notice of Potential Charges nor a questionnaire would be a public document. Moreover, it’s very common for employers – particularly large retailers – to fail to return these questionnaires. For any number of non-nefarious reasons. The most common reason being that TALX handles hundreds, if not thousands of claims a week and many fall through the cracks. For example, if the TALX employee can’t track down and contact the claimant’s supervisor to get further information about the separation. Or if the case is flagged as having a potential for litigation, the employer’s legal department might decide not to contest the claim for unemployment insurance. > [@](#): > > Zales would not or could not provide the required documentation to the NY DOL in support of their claim. After making the reason public, why not? See above. The agency to whom Zales must respond is the EEOC (or the State Division of Human Rights). If Zales fails to provide information to those agencies, then yes, it may be reasonable to infer that they are in the wrong. \*when I use the word “probably,” I intend it in the normal English sense of the word, and not the **Fear Itself / Guinistasia** definition. ---
**Author:** ![Guinastasia](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/guinastasia/32/5751_2.png) [@Guinastasia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Guinastasia)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2009, 3:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/you-need-time-off-for-surgery-youre-fired/492749/183 "2009-05-03T03:16:29Z")
> [@brazil84](#): > > \*when I use the word “probably,” I intend it in the normal English sense of the word, and not the **Fear Itself / Guinistasia** definition. Your little schtick is no longer cute, and is quite tiresome. We get it already. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2009, 6:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/you-need-time-off-for-surgery-youre-fired/492749/184 "2009-05-03T06:20:33Z")
> [@brazil84](#): > > Sure at the time of the writeup. But down the road, after the employee’s job has ended, many employers will refuse to provide copies of this sort of stuff. > > Which is probably a pretty good strategy on the company’s part. You think so? Do you think that if a lawsuit proceeds the company would not have to present this information? There can be no claim of confidentiality, since they would have already given it to her. I was involved in a case, in another state, where it would have been very helpful to have been able to refuse to provide information. Maybe our lawyer was dumb, but it was not even presented as a possibility. She also has no record of any warnings or plans, or threw it away, or is lying to her attorney. Maybe, but not likely. > [@](#): > > I’ve seen it happen many times that an employee was discharged for legitimate reasons despite being a star performer or an employee of the month or something. There are plenty of reasons for immediate termination for cause which could happen even to star performers - but which clearly wasn’t happening here. I have a hard time imagining that a madwoman, as described by one of the posters in the comments, could sell a million bucks worth of jewelry. > [@](#): > > I’ve seen stuff like this happen many times too. Sometimes the official reason for discharge is a pretext. More often than not, it isn’t. With big employers, anyway. I’m surprised that Zales gave a reason. Usually they can refuse to give one to the press for reasons of confidentiality - but not to the person. > [@](#): > > Anyway, reading between the lines of the articles, it seems pretty clear that the employer here will be able to offer a legitimate reason for the discharge and it will be up to this woman to show that the reason is a pretext. I’d bet they’d settle. Unless she was shooting up in full view of customers or something, there is precious little that would justify firing someone with a critical heart problem. Zales would lose a lot more in business there than they would ever save from not paying her. Publicly the company stands as one, while negotiations are going on, but I bet the moron who fired her is not going to get a good review. In this case, since she worked in public, it should not be hard to get a bunch of her customers to testify what a nice person she is. One of the posters in the comments section did not have good things to say about the other workers. > [@](#): > > What’s suspsicious to me is that none of the articles contain this official reason. For example, the woman could have said “when they fired me, they told me it was for violating the employee discount policy, but I never did so.” Or something like that. Usually when that information is not disclosed, it’s damaging to the employee. (Of course here, it’s hard to tell if the reporter even asked that question.) I got the impression that she wasn’t given a reason. Zales I’m sure fires lots of people for very good reasons, and it boggles the mind that they don’t fully document legitimate causes. Not being able to document her firing - either to her or the DoL - stinks to high heavens. I see you agree. ---
**Author:** ![brazil84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8491ac/32.png) [@brazil84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brazil84)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2009, 12:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/you-need-time-off-for-surgery-youre-fired/492749/185 "2009-05-03T12:42:36Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > You think so? Absolutely. > [@](#): > > Do you think that if a lawsuit proceeds the company would not have to present this information? No, but there are a lot of advantages in delaying. For one thing, it’s helpful to keep the employee and her attorney in the dark when they prepare her EEOC charge. That way there is a better chance she will swear to something which is later contradicted by a document. Instead of being able to tailor her story. For another, if you are an attorney, you want your client to tell his or her story as few times as possible. Even an honest person’s story changes a bit from telling to telling. > [@](#): > > There can be no claim of confidentiality, since they would have already given it to her. I was involved in a case, in another state, where it would have been very helpful to have been able to refuse to provide information. Maybe our lawyer was dumb, but it was not even presented as a possibility. Was there a subpoena, a document request, or some other legal process requesting the information? Then yeah, you have to turn it over. But if it’s just a pissed off former employee asking for her file so she can explore the possibility of a lawsuit, a New York employer has no obligation to turn the information over. > [@](#): > > She also has no record of any warnings or plans, or threw it away, or is lying to her attorney. Maybe, but not likely. You gotta be kidding me. People lie about these all the time. I’ve lost count of the number of people who claimed to have a clean disciplinary record, only to have an employer pull out a stack of writeups. Besides, where in the article does this woman claim to have a clean disciplinary record? I don’t recall such a claim. Even if she did make such a claim, there is no reason to automatically believe her. Suppose she is saying she had a clean record. The employer is apparently saying that she did have a record. Why should we believe her and assume the employer is lying? > [@](#): > > There are plenty of reasons for immediate termination for cause which could happen even to star performers - but which clearly wasn’t happening here. I don’t see how you can reasonably say that having only heard this woman’s side of the story. > [@](#): > > I’m surprised that Zales gave a reason. Usually they can refuse to give one to the press for reasons of confidentiality - but not to the person. I’m not sure what your point is here. 95% of employers in New York give a reason at the time of discharge to an employee who is fired. Usually it’s done orally. > [@](#): > > I’d bet they’d settle. That may very well be, but it doesn’t necessarily mean they are in the wrong. > [@](#): > > Unless she was shooting up in full view of customers or something, there is precious little that would justify firing someone with a critical heart problem. That’s nonsense. Someone with a heart problem might be fired for any reason a healthy person might be fired. People get fired from jobs all the time. > [@](#): > > I got the impression that she wasn’t given a reason. What gives you that impression? The article doesn’t say, one way or another. As noted above, the vast majority of New York employers will give a reason at the time of discharge. Besides, the article could have quoted her as saying “and they didn’t give me any reason!!” But it didn’t. > [@](#): > > Zales I’m sure fires lots of people for very good reasons, and it boggles the mind that they don’t fully document legitimate causes. You don’t know yet if a legitimate reason was or wasn’t documented. As noted above, the (apparent) fact that such documentation was not provided to this woman or to the DOL doesn’t necessarily mean anything. The question is whether such documentation is presented to the EEOC (or to the State Division of Human Rights). > [@](#): > > I see you agree. No I do not. Please read my post above about unemployment insurance. ---
**Author:** ![brazil84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8491ac/32.png) [@brazil84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brazil84)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2009, 12:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/you-need-time-off-for-surgery-youre-fired/492749/186 "2009-05-03T12:51:10Z")
> [@Guinastasia](#): > > Your little schtick is no longer cute, and is quite tiresome. We get it already. Who is “we”? Are you saying that you now admit that I was correct and reasonable to state that for me, “X is probably true” has a different meaning from “X must be true”? Because if so, it would appear you owe me an apology. ---
**Author:** ![IvoryTowerDenizen](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ivorytowerdenizen/32/17937_2.png) [@IvoryTowerDenizen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/IvoryTowerDenizen)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2009, 1:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/you-need-time-off-for-surgery-youre-fired/492749/187 "2009-05-03T13:10:08Z")
> [@brazil84](#): > > Who is “we”? Don’t know about the rest of the world, but you can count me among the “we” and I don’t even care who is right and who is wrong. FWIW and I have no dog in this fight, it makes me want to skip over your posts. ---
**Author:** ![Polycarp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/82dd89/32.png) [@Polycarp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polycarp)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2009, 1:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/you-need-time-off-for-surgery-youre-fired/492749/188 "2009-05-03T13:23:04Z")
I knew a man once who maintained that nearly all teenage boys were violent hateful vindictive antisocial little bastards. And nothing I could say or do would shake his conviction, which he claimed was derived from sad experience with a lot of them. I finally found out what he did for a living – he was a guard at a juvenile correction facility. Just saying’ – ---
**Author:** ![brazil84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8491ac/32.png) [@brazil84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brazil84)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2009, 1:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/you-need-time-off-for-surgery-youre-fired/492749/189 "2009-05-03T13:34:34Z")
> [@IvoryTowerDenizen](#): > > Don’t know about the rest of the world, but you can count me among the “we” and I don’t even care who is right and who is wrong. > > FWIW and I have no dog in this fight, it makes me want to skip over your posts. I don’t understand your point, but if you think it’s reasonable to intentionally misinterpret my posts, then please, by all means, skip over them and do not respond. ---
**Author:** ![IvoryTowerDenizen](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ivorytowerdenizen/32/17937_2.png) [@IvoryTowerDenizen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/IvoryTowerDenizen)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2009, 1:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/you-need-time-off-for-surgery-youre-fired/492749/190 "2009-05-03T13:50:32Z")
> [@brazil84](#): > > I don’t understand your point, but if you think it’s reasonable to intentionally misinterpret my posts, then please, by all means, skip over them and do not respond. Excuse me? I’m not intentionally misinterpreting your posts??? I find it tiresome when someone beats a dead horse- which is what you seem to be doing. Even if you are right, jeez Louise enough already. Obviously you are making a point, but sometimes debating style can turn a person off, even when that person is right. All I’m saying is- you asked who the “we” are, and frankly I find your disclaimer dopey and juvenile at this point, which, frankly, lessens my interest in reading what you have to say. I’m sure the loss is mine. ---
**Author:** ![brazil84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8491ac/32.png) [@brazil84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brazil84)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2009, 1:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/you-need-time-off-for-surgery-youre-fired/492749/191 "2009-05-03T13:56:24Z")
> [@Polycarp](#): > > I knew a man once who maintained that nearly all teenage boys were violent hateful vindictive antisocial little bastards. And nothing I could say or do would shake his conviction, which he claimed was derived from sad experience with a lot of them. > > I finally found out what he did for a living – he was a guard at a juvenile correction facility. > > Just saying’ – That’s interesting. It reminds me of the story of a man who was quite credulous and trusting. He was an honest person and assumed other people were basically the same. Eventually, he took a position where his job was to help people who were the victims of various wrongs. Since he was a trusting man, he normally accepted the stories’ of those who came to him with grievances. But his job also involved follow up, so he had an opportunity to see the other side of the story, including the evidence supporting that other side. He eventually learned to be cautious and skeptical of peoples’ claims. He learned that most people (and corporations) will spin, exaggerate, or even lie when they tell their side of a dispute. Just sayin’. ---
**Author:** ![brazil84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8491ac/32.png) [@brazil84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brazil84)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2009, 2:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/you-need-time-off-for-surgery-youre-fired/492749/192 "2009-05-03T14:43:44Z")
> [@IvoryTowerDenizen](#): > > Excuse me? I’m not intentionally misinterpreting your posts??? I don’t understand this. > [@](#): > > I find it tiresome when someone beats a dead horse- which is what you seem to be doing. Even if you are right, jeez Louise enough already. Obviously you are making a point, but sometimes debating style can turn a person off, even when that person is right. I do you think you have a point here. However, you (and others) would go a lot further in convincing me that the horse is dead if you would actually concede that I was reasonable and correct in stating that for me, “probably” does not mean the same thing as “must be” In any event, my disclaimer has the added bonus of (I hope) deterring similar shenanigans. > [@](#): > > I find your disclaimer dopey and juvenile at this point, which, frankly, lessens my interest in reading what you have to say. I’m sure the loss is mine. Duly noted. ---
**Author:** ![Fear\_Itself](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fear_itself/32/19637_2.png) [@Fear\_Itself](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fear_Itself)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2009, 2:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/you-need-time-off-for-surgery-youre-fired/492749/193 "2009-05-03T14:53:07Z")
> [@brazil84](#): > > However, you (and others) would go a lot further in convincing me that the horse is dead if you would actually concede that I was reasonable and correct in stating that for me, “probably” does not mean the same thing as “must be” I will concede that your use of “probably” is a weasel word at best, specifically chosen so that you can claim vindication if the circumstances turn out to support you, but maintain deniability if they do not. ---
**Author:** ![ivn1188](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/e480ec/32.png) [@ivn1188](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ivn1188)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2009, 3:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/you-need-time-off-for-surgery-youre-fired/492749/194 "2009-05-03T15:30:43Z")
> [@Fear\_Itself](#): > > I will concede that your use of “probably” is a weasel word at best, specifically chosen so that you can claim vindication if the circumstances turn out to support you, but maintain deniability if they do not. Dude, at this point you need to just man up and admit you were wrong. **Brazil84** ’s whole point is that people shouldn’t be leaping to judgment about which party is in the wrong based on a single, one-sided news story. “Weasel words” doesn’t come into it. People who aren’t mental midgets acknowledge the ambiguity of the world; maybe it’s time for you to step up and do so as well. ---
**Author:** ![Guinastasia](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/guinastasia/32/5751_2.png) [@Guinastasia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Guinastasia)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2009, 3:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/you-need-time-off-for-surgery-youre-fired/492749/195 "2009-05-03T15:40:41Z")
> [@brazil84](#): > > Who is “we”? Are you saying that you now admit that I was correct and reasonable to state that for me, “X is probably true” has a different meaning from “X must be true”? > > Because if so, it would appear you owe me an apology. We are not amused. (Dear GOD, you are so pork stupid.) ---
**Author:** ![brazil84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8491ac/32.png) [@brazil84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brazil84)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2009, 6:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/you-need-time-off-for-surgery-youre-fired/492749/196 "2009-05-03T18:23:12Z")
> [@Fear\_Itself](#): > > I will concede that your use of “probably” is a weasel word at best, specifically chosen so that you can claim vindication if the circumstances turn out to support you, but maintain deniability if they do not. That’s not a concession at all. It’s an argument with “I concede” at the beginning, as far as I can tell. Your claim is that “probably X” means the same thing as “must be X” for purposes of message board debate. Until you concede that is wrong, it’s reasonable for me to tell people that when I use the word “probably,” I mean the normal English meaning of the word. As opposed to the meaning you wish to ascribe. Anyway, I’m comfortable admitting that I don’t know who’s right and who’s wrong in this story. I think that more likely than not, the (ex) employee is in the wrong, but I don’t know it. If you want to call that weaseling, fine. If it turns out Zales is wrong, I will concede that my best guess was incorrect. ---
**Author:** ![brazil84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8491ac/32.png) [@brazil84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brazil84)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2009, 6:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/you-need-time-off-for-surgery-youre-fired/492749/197 "2009-05-03T18:25:22Z")
> [@Guinastasia](#): > > We are not amused. Lol. I guess that means you won’t concede your horse is dead. ---
**Author:** ![IvoryTowerDenizen](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ivorytowerdenizen/32/17937_2.png) [@IvoryTowerDenizen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/IvoryTowerDenizen)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2009, 6:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/you-need-time-off-for-surgery-youre-fired/492749/198 "2009-05-03T18:38:27Z")
> [@brazil84](#): > > Until you concede that is wrong, it’s reasonable for me to tell people that when I use the word “probably,” I mean the normal English meaning of the word. As opposed to the meaning you wish to ascribe. Why? If your argument is their interpretation of the word is the outlier and you’re using it in the typical fashion, why do you feel the need to explain that? Why wouldn’t you assume that the rest of us know the definition? ---
**Author:** ![Guinastasia](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/guinastasia/32/5751_2.png) [@Guinastasia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Guinastasia)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2009, 6:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/you-need-time-off-for-surgery-youre-fired/492749/199 "2009-05-03T18:48:13Z")
Because he seems to prefer semantic nitpicking to defending his point, one supposes. As he wishes to use such tactic to weasel. Either way, it’s pointless arguing with him, as it’s just nothing more than the same old thing. And yes, we GET what you’re saying, **brazil**. It’s just that, we don’t give a shit. ---
**Author:** ![brazil84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8491ac/32.png) [@brazil84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brazil84)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2009, 7:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/you-need-time-off-for-surgery-youre-fired/492749/200 "2009-05-03T19:01:18Z")
> [@IvoryTowerDenizen](#): > > Why? If your argument is their interpretation of the word is the outlier and you’re using it in the typical fashion, why do you feel the need to explain that? To make myself clearer; to heap well-deserved scorn on **Fear Itself** and **Guinistasia** , and to deter others from similar shenanigans. > [@](#): > > Why wouldn’t you assume that the rest of us know the definition? Why should I? Numerous people in this thread have exhibited a strange lack of knowledge of the English language in interpreting “probably” and “pretty good chance.” Probably\* they do know the definition but are ignoring it in their minds for rhetorical purposes. \*See my note about “probably” above. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/you-need-time-off-for-surgery-youre-fired/492749.md?page=9) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/you-need-time-off-for-surgery-youre-fired/492749.md?page=11)