Your opinions please--discrimination

[Trigg]

I just want some other opinions here that don't come from family members or my husband. In other words completely unbiased. This happened to me at work.

I work at a hosp. as a PRN person another of our receptionists is also PRN. A part-time position came up and we both expressed interest in it. We've both worked for this hospital the same number of years (6).

My supervisor told me that the reason I wasn't being considered for the position is because I have young children and the other women does not. So therefor she is able to be more flexibile with her hours....I had already told them I could work any hours when we talked about my taking the position.

I think this is complete bull. Since the whole point of PRN is that I work when necessary and I've been doing this for a number of years with no complaints. They would like me to stay on as PRN since they "really like the way I work and don't want to loose me". PLEASE YOUR OPINIONS.

 

[Mr. P]

I don’t think children should have been mentioned , but that aside…

You can’t be twins, what is different about you two?
Years as RN, past experience, areas worked etc.
Do you both currently work the same hours per week?
How about age (an illegal question). But it’s something they already know.

 

[dmp]

Yeah - that's iffy. You having children is none of their business.

 

[Trigg]

I don’t think children should have been mentioned , but that aside…

You can’t be twins, what is different about you two?
Years as RN, past experience, areas worked etc.
Do you both currently work the same hours per week?
How about age (an illegal question). But it’s something they already know.

She's older maybe in her 50's with her children out of the house entirely.

We both started out with the same amount of part-time hours, I went PRN 4 years ago....I started working every Sat..... with the birth of my youngest and have been asking for more hours for the past year. She changed to PRN about a year ago...and I picked up her hours which amounted to 2 days a week.... because she wanted to tryout another position inside the same hospital. Since it was in the hosp. it was a job transfer and she didn't loose any seniority.

As far as past experience goes, I'm not sure what hers was. I worked as a transcriptionist for years, but I had taken off 5 years to raise the kids and this was my first job after coming back to work.

She is good friends with my supervisor which probably has a lot to do with things. It still makes me mad that she mentioned my kids twice in the conversation. I've never taken time off because my kids were sick and only taken 2 days for myself being sick, so I don't even know why they were mentioned they've never been an issue in the past.

 

[Mr. P]

The children part would be illegal if it was a interview for a new job, already working there and it being a comment....I donno..

http://hr.albany.edu/content/legalqtn.asp

 

[Trigg]

Yeah - that's iffy. You having children is none of their business.

I know, I'm not sure why they were even brought up.

I could understand this better if in the 6 years I've been working there my yearly evaluations had been questionable, but they haven't been.

So what is it?? They're friends socially and that's the only difference?? It was stupid to mention my kids since it looks like discrimination. Nothing else was said except that I have a laid back personality. Oh, I do a good job and my work is always done, they don't want to loose me and they want me to stay PRN, but she's more type A than I am.

 

[fuzzykitten99]

I know, I'm not sure why they were even brought up.

I could understand this better if in the 6 years I've been working there my yearly evaluations had been questionable, but they haven't been.

So what is it?? They're friends socially and that's the only difference?? It was stupid to mention my kids since it looks like discrimination. Nothing else was said except that I have a laid back personality. Oh, I do a good job and my work is always done, they don't want to loose me and they want me to stay PRN, but she's more type A than I am.

call a few of the local employment attorneys near you and ask. a good way to find one is www.findlaw.com . You can also find more info on this situation there. I found this for you, so it may help.

Executive Order 13152, also amending Executive Order 11478, was signed on May 2, 2000, to provide for a uniform policy for the federal government to prohibit discrimination based on an individual's status as a parent. Executive Order 11478 section 1 now reads:

It is the policy of the government of the United States to provide equal opportunity in federal employment for all persons, to prohibit discrimination in employment because of race, color, religion, sex, national origin, handicap, age, sexual orientation or status as a parent, and to promote the full realization of equal employment opportunity through a continuing affirmative program in each executive department and agency. This policy of equal opportunity applies to and must be an integral part of every aspect of personnel policy and practice in the employment, development, advancement, and treatment of civilian employees of the federal government, to the extent permitted by law.
Executive Order 13152 states that "status as a parent" refers to the status of an individual who, with respect to an individual who is under the age of 18 or who is 18 or older but is incapable of self-care because of a physical or mental disability, is:

a biological parent;
an adoptive parent;
a foster parent;
a stepparent;
a custodian of a legal ward;
in loco parentis over such an individual; or
actively seeking legal custody or adoption of such an individual.

link to rest:
http://employment.findlaw.com/emplo...t-employee-other-discrimination-facts(2).html

 

[fuzzykitten99]

I know, I'm not sure why they were even brought up.

I could understand this better if in the 6 years I've been working there my yearly evaluations had been questionable, but they haven't been.

So what is it?? They're friends socially and that's the only difference?? It was stupid to mention my kids since it looks like discrimination. Nothing else was said except that I have a laid back personality. Oh, I do a good job and my work is always done, they don't want to loose me and they want me to stay PRN, but she's more type A than I am.

Did they vebally give you the reason, or was it in writing? Also, are there any witnesses to these conversations? Maybe secretly record the conversation with a recorder in your pocket if that is legal in your state...some states allow for recording of conversation without the consent of the other party.

 

[archangel]

She's older maybe in her 50's with her children out of the house entirely.

We both started out with the same amount of part-time hours, I went PRN 4 years ago....I started working every Sat..... with the birth of my youngest and have been asking for more hours for the past year. She changed to PRN about a year ago...and I picked up her hours which amounted to 2 days a week.... because she wanted to tryout another position inside the same hospital. Since it was in the hosp. it was a job transfer and she didn't loose any seniority.

As far as past experience goes, I'm not sure what hers was. I worked as a transcriptionist for years, but I had taken off 5 years to raise the kids and this was my first job after coming back to work.

She is good friends with my supervisor which probably has a lot to do with things. It still makes me mad that she mentioned my kids twice in the conversation. I've never taken time off because my kids were sick and only taken 2 days for myself being sick, so I don't even know why they were mentioned they've never been an issue in the past.

Not knowing both of your entire backgrounds I can only assess the problem from being a former NTEU rep...You stated here that this was your first job after returning from a 5 year hiatus...to raise your kids...so this being the case the other employee probably has the senority...albeit the supervisor probably should not have used the children issue as to why he/she made his/her decision...You really have no case...this appears as if they are happy with your work(as you stated)...so making waves at this point is not really a good idea...imo

 

[Mr. P]

Did they vebally give you the reason, or was it in writing? Also, are there any witnesses to these conversations? Maybe secretly record the conversation with a recorder in your pocket if that is legal in your state...some states allow for recording of conversation without the consent of the other party.

Most do.....

Federal law allows recording of phone calls and other electronic communications with the consent of at least one party to the call. A majority of the states and territories have adopted wiretapping statutes based on the federal law, although most also have extended the law to cover in-person conversations. Thirty-eight states and the District of Columbia permit individuals to record conversations to which they are a party without informing the other parties that they are doing so. These laws are referred to as "one-party consent" statutes, and as long as you are a party to the conversation, it is legal for you to record it. (Nevada also has a one-party consent statute, but the state Supreme Court has interpreted it as an all-party rule.)

Twelve states require, under most circumstances, the consent of all parties to a conversation. Those jurisdictions are California, Connecticut, Florida, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania and Washington. Be aware that you will sometimes hear these referred to inaccurately as "two-party consent" laws. If there are more than two people involved in the conversation, all must consent to the taping.
http://www.rcfp.org/taping/

 

[Trigg]

Did they vebally give you the reason, or was it in writing? Also, are there any witnesses to these conversations? Maybe secretly record the conversation with a recorder in your pocket if that is legal in your state...some states allow for recording of conversation without the consent of the other party.

This conversation was between her and I only, no one else in the room at the time. So I understand I have no proof that it was even said.

 

[Trigg]

Not knowing both of your entire backgrounds I can only assess the problem from being a former NTEU rep...You stated here that this was your first job after returning from a 5 year hiatus...to raise your kids...so this being the case the other employee probably has the senority...albeit the supervisor probably should not have used the children issue as to why he/she made his/her decision...You really have no case...this appears as if they are happy with your work(as you stated)...so making waves at this point is not really a good idea...imo

She only worked at this hospital 1 week longer than me, yes that's seniority but not much.

As far as making waves or not. This isn't the only hospital in the area and At this point I don't care if I burn a few bridges. The principle of the thing and all that.

 

[dilloduck]

I would chalk it up to the "shit happens" category and move on. Your energy and money could be better used elsewhere. Was the decision "fair" or based soley on skills ? Probably not .

 

[archangel]

She only worked at this hospital 1 week longer than me, yes that's seniority but not much.

As far as making waves or not. This isn't the only hospital in the area and At this point I don't care if I burn a few bridges. The principle of the thing and all that.

then kick ass hun...been there and done that...not always the results I wanted...but hey the principal rocks...if ya can afford it...I'm with ya! Wanna dance?

 

[Mr. P]

I would chalk it up to the "shit happens" category and move on. Your energy and money could be better used elsewhere. Was the decision "fair" or based soley on skills ? Probably not .

Dillo is right. I've been a part of an EEOC suite and it's not something you want to do based on what you've posted..It would be a nightmare.

 

[Trigg]

then kick ass hun...been there and done that...not always the results I wanted...but hey the principal rocks...if ya can afford it...I'm with ya! Wanna dance?

Well for the fun of it I thought I'd contact the EEOC and see what they have to say. If they say I don't have a case than so be it, at least I've voiced my ticked off opinion and maybe caused them some grief.


don't mess with ticked off moms!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[archangel]

Well for the fun of it I thought I'd contact the EEOC and see what they have to say. If they say I don't have a case than so be it, at least I've voiced my ticked off opinion and maybe caused them some grief.


don't mess with ticked off moms!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Gotta love ya...hug hug...kiss kiss...hey and what is wrong with a innocent dance? Not like I asked ya to marry me...LOL I felt your pain and just asked for the 'Last Dance'..............

 

[jillian]

Sounds like you might have gotten mommy-tracked. Or maybe past history showed the other woman to actually have been more flexible. Or.... perhaps that other assignment in the hospital made her a more attractive candidate.

But I wouldn't look to the EEOC.... doesn't have any teeth anymore..... And forget about Federal Court since they just said retaliation is okay against a whistleblower.

I'd let it go and see what happens with the next available position. Might also be a good idea to get friendly with the higher-ups like the other gal did.

 

[dilloduck]

Sounds like you might have gotten mommy-tracked. Or maybe past history showed the other woman to actually have been more flexible. Or.... perhaps that other assignment in the hospital made her a more attractive candidate.

But I wouldn't look to the EEOC.... doesn't have any teeth anymore..... And forget about Federal Court since they just said retaliation is okay against a whistleblower.

I'd let it go and see what happens with the next available position. Might also be a good idea to get friendly with the higher-ups like the other gal did.

Go drinking and golfing with em !!!

 

[Mr. P]

Sounds like you might have gotten mommy-tracked. Or maybe past history showed the other woman to actually have been more flexible. Or.... perhaps that other assignment in the hospital made her a more attractive candidate.

But I wouldn't look to the EEOC.... doesn't have any teeth anymore..... And forget about Federal Court since they just said retaliation is okay against a whistleblower.

I'd let it go and see what happens with the next available position. Might also be a good idea to get friendly with the higher-ups like the other gal did.

Really? Missed that. When what?

EDIT: on the other hand this isn't a whistleblower case.