Laid Off During Illness

[bluebug938]

I was laid off in December of '09 while I was out sick for a serious but temporary illness. This illness was caused by the long days and stress of my job, although I realize that this would be almost impossible to prove. I had missed a full week of work (M-F) according to my doctor's suggestion and was planning on returning to work the following Monday, but my boss called me at 9pm on Friday and told me I was let go. I was always an exemplary employee, was given promotions and a raise every year. One of my friends recently suggested I may be able to sue because it seems that I was let go because of my illness, as that would have been the only thing I had done "wrong" in my 3 years with this company. So does it sound like I could have a case? Thanks for any advice!!

 

[Patricia_Young]

Even if you were on FMLA leave during this period, that would not mean you could not be laid off. Even FMLA does not protect your job against an action that would have been taken anyway.

WERE you on FMLA leave and, if so, do you have any credible proof that your "lay-off" would not have occurred had you not taken FMLA leave?

 

[army judge]

In the Great Depression of the 21st Century, millions of jobs have been (and will yet be) lost.

I'm sorry you lost yours.

Unfortunately, I don't see a nefarious nexus between your lay off and your illness.

I hope you get well soon and are gainfully employed, if that is what you seek.

At least you should be able to get some unemployment funds.

 

[Patricia_Young]

While I don't necessarily disagree with ArmyJudge, OP, the answers to my questions are necessary for a valid response.

 

[bluebug938]

No, I was not on FMLA leave. I was only out for 5 days. But like I said this time off was the only thing I can attribute my lay off to. Others were laid off at the same time, but I believe less capable employees in similar positions to mine were kept. Sick time was strongly frowned upon at my company. Taking 5 days off in a row was almost unheard of, but was necessary in my situation. I believe they would have interpreted my time off as a lack of commitment to my position. Do you think I would have a case?

 

[army judge]

No, I was not on FMLA leave. I was only out for 5 days. But like I said this time off was the only thing I can attribute my lay off to. Others were laid off at the same time, but I believe less capable employees in similar positions to mine were kept. Sick time was strongly frowned upon at my company. Taking 5 days off in a row was almost unheard of, but was necessary in my situation. I believe they would have interpreted my time off as a lack of commitment to my position. Do you think I would have a case?

It isn't what you believe that makes a case.

It's what you can prove.

I'm sure that is why they laid you off.

But, they are too smart to say that.

That is why you can't prove it.

That is why you have no case that you can win.

 

[Patricia_Young]

All other requirements being met, being out "only" 5 days does not preclude the absence from being FMLA-qualified.