A few weeks ago the bank I was working for announced that they would be reducing their hours. Right away rumors of layoffs started flying. The disctrict manager insisted that no one had anything to worry about if he had not talked to them already. A few days later several people had received phone calls from him telling them that their position was safe and they had nothig to worry about. From supervisors in other disctricts I found out that the DM's were calling all the employees in management positions that were going to be keeping their jobs and simply ignoring those that were going to be laid off.
Last Friday, qfter 4 weeks, as I was expecting I received a phone call telling me that my position was eliminated due to cut hours. I was told that it was not "you personally" but the "position" that was being cut. Fair enough right? No. Shortly later I found out my counterpart (there were two Assistant Branch Managers at each branch) was also laid off and told the same thing. The next day two new people were brought in to work at our branch. One of the two has a VERY similar job but a different title, but the other is an Assistant Manager.
We were also told that the people that were cut were chosen based on tenure, skill set, and production. However, I have come to find out that all of us laid off have different criteria (ie. 7 years of tenure, good production, good skills; 1 year tenure, excellent production, good skills; 2 years tenure, excellent production, excellent skills; etc.)The only common link I have been able to put together is that we are all born in foreign countries. I also know of those in the same position (Assistant Managers in other branches) that were American born, less that one year tenure, no or little production that were kept on board even though hours and positions were cut across the board at 280 branch locations. (some people were shifted around in order to keep them employed).
Based on the information above, do we have a case? Is it worth contacting an attorney? Would one take our case based on contingency??
Thanks for your help.
Last Friday, qfter 4 weeks, as I was expecting I received a phone call telling me that my position was eliminated due to cut hours. I was told that it was not "you personally" but the "position" that was being cut. Fair enough right? No. Shortly later I found out my counterpart (there were two Assistant Branch Managers at each branch) was also laid off and told the same thing. The next day two new people were brought in to work at our branch. One of the two has a VERY similar job but a different title, but the other is an Assistant Manager.
We were also told that the people that were cut were chosen based on tenure, skill set, and production. However, I have come to find out that all of us laid off have different criteria (ie. 7 years of tenure, good production, good skills; 1 year tenure, excellent production, good skills; 2 years tenure, excellent production, excellent skills; etc.)The only common link I have been able to put together is that we are all born in foreign countries. I also know of those in the same position (Assistant Managers in other branches) that were American born, less that one year tenure, no or little production that were kept on board even though hours and positions were cut across the board at 280 branch locations. (some people were shifted around in order to keep them employed).
Based on the information above, do we have a case? Is it worth contacting an attorney? Would one take our case based on contingency??
Thanks for your help.
