Generally, women who takeare entitled to return to their jobs under the or the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA). But that right has limits. Employers experiencing economic difficulties, for example, can cut positions if need be and not worry that it cost the job of an employee who was out on maternity leave.
But beware! If the decision to cut the employee was based on her having taken leave, she can sue.
Make sure you can show why the job was eliminated and why the employee on leave was the one who was terminated. Do that, for example, by showing that she was the last one hired and that you reasonably kept other employees who had worked for the company longer. That’s a legitimate employer policy based on seniority, not discrimination against new mothers.
Recent case: About a month after being hired as a full-time receptionist at a plastic surgery medical practice, Dayna became pregnant. She continued working until the day she gave birth. Then she went out on 12 weeks of maternity leave. Her employer had just 11 employees.
Apparently during the recession, fewer Californians decided to have plastic surgery. As a result, the practice concluded it had to cut staff. Because it already had a backup receptionist, it decided to eliminate Dayna’s job. The office manager told her that she was being cut because “economic times” had caused a “decline in the practice.” She was the last employee hired.
Dayna sued, alleging that she was entitled to reinstatement under FEHA. Her argument was that it was illegal for the practice to terminate her because her job wasn’t really eliminated. She said the duties had merely been shifted to someone else.
The court disagreed and dismissed her case. It reasoned that FEHA allows employers to cut employees on maternity leave for a number of reasons—including economic conditions—as long as the move isn’t related to pregnancy or leave. In this case, since Dayna was the last person hired and another employee could take over her position as a cost-cutting move, the practice was within its rights to terminate her. (Christine-Derry v. Renuance Aesthetic Care, et al., No. E053915, Court of Appeal of California, 4th Appellate District, 2012)
Like what you've read? ...Republish it and share great business tips!
Attention: Readers, Publishers, Editors, Bloggers, Media, Webmasters and more...
We believe great content should be read and passed around. After all, knowledge IS power. And good business can become great with the right information at their fingertips. If you'd like to share any of the insightful articles on BusinessManagementDaily.com, you may republish or syndicate it without charge.
The only thing we ask is that you keep the article exactly as it was written and formatted. You also need to include an attribution statement and link to the article.
" This information is proudly provided by Business Management Daily.com: http://www.businessmanagementdaily.com/32999/poor-economy-dictates-downsizing-you-can-fire-employee-who-takes-pregnancy-leave "
- When same manager hires and fires, it's unlikely to be discrimination
- Act fast on firing for misconduct, or risk being liable for unemployment compensation
- Goldsboro builder settles bias case with Adventists
- Fire away if severance demands are unreasonable
- Do workers read policy changes? Collect proof the right way