this post was submitted on 01 Aug 2024
552 points (98.8% liked)
Work Reform
9970 readers
6 users here now
A place to discuss positive changes that can make work more equitable, and to vent about current practices. We are NOT against work; we just want the fruits of our labor to be recognized better.
Our Philosophies:
- All workers must be paid a living wage for their labor.
- Income inequality is the main cause of lower living standards.
- Workers must join together and fight back for what is rightfully theirs.
- We must not be divided and conquered. Workers gain the most when they focus on unifying issues.
Our Goals
- Higher wages for underpaid workers.
- Better worker representation, including but not limited to unions.
- Better and fewer working hours.
- Stimulating a massive wave of worker organizing in the United States and beyond.
- Organizing and supporting political causes and campaigns that put workers first.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
There are two possibilities. Either:
The decision to lay the person off was made before the maternity leave was scheduled, in which case I'd argue she has a case for detrimental reliance, or
The decision to lay the person off was made after the maternity leave was scheduled, in which case a prima facie assumption is fair to make that the taking of leave obviously colored the supervisor's evaluation and contributed to the layoff, and the burden is on the employer to prove otherwise.
Or option 3: manager made sure not to discriminate against non-maternity-leave people by not overly firing them compared to people on maternity leave.
If they only fired people not on maternity leave, they could sue about being discriminated against.
Speaking to a lawyer? That'll be $400 an hour.