Work Reform

9964 readers

341 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

seeCseas@lemmy.world

tintory@lemm.ee

TinMod@lemmy.world

546

"My maternity leave was supposed to start next Monday and I got laid off today," former Bungie employee says (www.videogamer.com)

submitted 3 months ago by ByteOnBikes@slrpnk.net to c/workreform@lemmy.world

54 comments fedilink hide all child comments

That Bethesda Union looking even better now.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] Azzu@lemm.ee 38 points 3 months ago (2 children)

I'm not sure you have a case if the percentage of women on maternity leave in the fired group is roughly the same as in the non-fired group.

If it isn't illegal to fire people taking maternity leave specifically, which I don't think it is in the US, you're out of luck. The only illegal thing is firing people because of maternity leave. Since there was a mass layoff, it can easily be argued that the maternity leave was not the reason.

The US needs better labor laws, and thus unions. An individual can't do anything against it.

[–] grue@lemmy.world 27 points 3 months ago (2 children)

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.

[–] Azzu@lemm.ee 7 points 3 months ago

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.

[–] ArmokGoB@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 3 months ago

Speaking to a lawyer? That'll be $400 an hour.

[–] chiliedogg@lemmy.world 2 points 3 months ago

In fact, there's an argument to be made that they must terminate her, because Terminating everybody but those with scheduled maternity leave has a disparate impact on employees who are not pregnant.