She was given an ultimatum at her job San Juan Regional Medical Center here in Farmington New Mexico. She has been with that hospital for 32 years and has been outstanding in her job performance. I was not there in the room when they presented her with this letter but I did take pictures of it. It was not filled out completely and being a manager I would not stick this garbage in anyone's personnel file. This just seems like a "we want you out quietly!" situation.
It's real obvious to me that the DON (O.R. Manger and Upper Management) is looking to get rid of her. If you had a nurse making a lot of errors, along with written warnings they were also required to do some mandatory education to get more insight into the errors they were making and a chance to improve their performance. This is not the case here at all; she used up all her PTO. Here is what the write up states.
"Renee's resignation is being accepted because she has exhausted her Family Medical Leave (April 22, 2009 – June 18, 2009) for the year. She was granted a personal leave of absence from Oct 24th 2009 to November 24th 2009) As of today, December 21st 2009 she is still unable to return to work without restrictions.
Renee is eligible to apply for positions within the organization which can accommodate her restrictions."
She is eligible for rehire when she is released by her physician."
Note: They must have asked her 20 times to sign this, and her leave would be reinstated as of Jan 1st also how can they expect to fill that position tomorrow? She cannot lift over 10lbs with her right arm because she broke it, she is supposed to go back to the doc on the 9th to get released. Why is the letter so premeditated?
This DON doesn't sound like he's a very good manager. It's not enough for a manager to just tell you that you are doing something wrong. They should also help you set a goal and way to achieve it in correcting whatever you are doing wrong. I'd have a field day with this DON, but that's another story. Everyone else is just going to stand around watching the show relieved that they're not the one on the chopping block. You are branded and I don't know that you can ever rehabilitate your reputation with this facility right at this time. Honestly, most of your co-workers will want to distance themselves from you because they won't want to be known associates. Is this the way it should be?
The employer/institution has a right to allow only those that they choose to allow into any such meetings--unless of course you are under union contract or some contract that allows for outside representation on the inside. It's up to the employer, and they generally won't allow it--anyone from the outside, much less a lawyer, period. You are all on your own in those meetings under At-Will-Employment. They may allow you to bring someone with you that's already an employee--someone from the inside already. But of course that puts pressure on that person--employee. Whether it should or should not occur doesn't matter. It does, period, end of story. So even if you can find some employee from the inside that would; they have a genuine right to be very careful and nervous as to how this might impact upon them in their position. Whether it is right or not doesn't matter legally speaking from what I read. What matters is the basis under which you are employed or contracted versus At-Will-Employment, for example. From their legal perspective, it is their institution, and while on their turf, unless it is stated otherwise in contract, they will not allow someone from the outside to come into any meetings with you. You can pretty much take that to the bank. HR in most cases is the best you will get, and regardless, HR is the employee of the institution; however in this case the HR representative is questionable at best. What kind of HR rep begs you to sign the dotted line and says "you will most likely not qualify for other jobs here." Can you say personal gain or discrimination?
Any thoughts on this?
Twitch
P.S. She did not sign it
It's real obvious to me that the DON (O.R. Manger and Upper Management) is looking to get rid of her. If you had a nurse making a lot of errors, along with written warnings they were also required to do some mandatory education to get more insight into the errors they were making and a chance to improve their performance. This is not the case here at all; she used up all her PTO. Here is what the write up states.
"Renee's resignation is being accepted because she has exhausted her Family Medical Leave (April 22, 2009 – June 18, 2009) for the year. She was granted a personal leave of absence from Oct 24th 2009 to November 24th 2009) As of today, December 21st 2009 she is still unable to return to work without restrictions.
Renee is eligible to apply for positions within the organization which can accommodate her restrictions."
She is eligible for rehire when she is released by her physician."
Note: They must have asked her 20 times to sign this, and her leave would be reinstated as of Jan 1st also how can they expect to fill that position tomorrow? She cannot lift over 10lbs with her right arm because she broke it, she is supposed to go back to the doc on the 9th to get released. Why is the letter so premeditated?
This DON doesn't sound like he's a very good manager. It's not enough for a manager to just tell you that you are doing something wrong. They should also help you set a goal and way to achieve it in correcting whatever you are doing wrong. I'd have a field day with this DON, but that's another story. Everyone else is just going to stand around watching the show relieved that they're not the one on the chopping block. You are branded and I don't know that you can ever rehabilitate your reputation with this facility right at this time. Honestly, most of your co-workers will want to distance themselves from you because they won't want to be known associates. Is this the way it should be?
The employer/institution has a right to allow only those that they choose to allow into any such meetings--unless of course you are under union contract or some contract that allows for outside representation on the inside. It's up to the employer, and they generally won't allow it--anyone from the outside, much less a lawyer, period. You are all on your own in those meetings under At-Will-Employment. They may allow you to bring someone with you that's already an employee--someone from the inside already. But of course that puts pressure on that person--employee. Whether it should or should not occur doesn't matter. It does, period, end of story. So even if you can find some employee from the inside that would; they have a genuine right to be very careful and nervous as to how this might impact upon them in their position. Whether it is right or not doesn't matter legally speaking from what I read. What matters is the basis under which you are employed or contracted versus At-Will-Employment, for example. From their legal perspective, it is their institution, and while on their turf, unless it is stated otherwise in contract, they will not allow someone from the outside to come into any meetings with you. You can pretty much take that to the bank. HR in most cases is the best you will get, and regardless, HR is the employee of the institution; however in this case the HR representative is questionable at best. What kind of HR rep begs you to sign the dotted line and says "you will most likely not qualify for other jobs here." Can you say personal gain or discrimination?
Any thoughts on this?
Twitch
P.S. She did not sign it
Last edited:
