U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > New York > New York City
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 03-19-2012, 11:53 AM
 
270 posts, read 380,272 times
Reputation: 90

Advertisements

Thanks for all your input...I won the case !and I am relieved
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 03-20-2012, 02:55 AM
 
99,907 posts, read 99,476,386 times
Reputation: 74044
just curious what your employers reasoning was?
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-20-2012, 07:27 AM
 
Location: Manhattan
24,939 posts, read 35,092,196 times
Reputation: 12425
Most employers when faced with even the possibility of getting benefits denied will lie about the cause of dismissal. It will stop only when penalties are applied to fraudulent employers. Merely granting the employee UC when the employee wins is NOT enough of a dissincentive to force an employer to behave honorably. When an empoyer LOSES such a case, he should be fined an amount EQUAL to the total employment conpensation the state needs to fork out, or perhaps double or treble that amouunt, That single regualtion would cut down the frivolous denials by employers to ZERO overnight.

This is not unlike landlords overcharging EVERY tenant newly renting a rent-regulated apartment. If the only penalty is the reinstatement of the LEGAL rent, there is no disincentive to landlord fraud.

If criminal behavior is not punished, it is in the criminals best financial interests to behave criminally. It's almost a truism.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-24-2012, 10:19 PM
 
270 posts, read 380,272 times
Reputation: 90
Quote:
Originally Posted by mathjak107 View Post
just curious what your employers reasoning was?
They claimed that i missed 3 days of work and i "just didnt show up". They also lied about the dates that I was out from work . I was stunned to say the least at the amount of lies But I had all my documentation and I proved them wrong but it was very hurtful that this same employer who i had previously worked for would turn out to be so heartless.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-25-2012, 05:04 AM
 
99,907 posts, read 99,476,386 times
Reputation: 74044
thats why as i said earlier its important for employers to really do much better jobs spelling out greater detail on what sick days are, how they can be used and what the penaltys are for lying.

they need to require notes as to why you were out so it documents things on both sides.

one of the things my son does as an attorney is re-write corporate manuals and the most problematic area he says is sick days as they are spelled out in manuals . since they arent benefits that have be offered there are no rules so companies botch how they handle them all the time.

they just dont tie in to the family medical leave act well at all most of the time and leave the employer either breaking the law, trying to lie to cover their butts or defenseless in court.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-25-2012, 09:56 AM
 
Location: Manhattan
24,939 posts, read 35,092,196 times
Reputation: 12425
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzyj19 View Post
They claimed that i missed 3 days of work and i "just didnt show up". They also lied about the dates that I was out from work . I was stunned to say the least at the amount of lies But I had all my documentation and I proved them wrong but it was very hurtful that this same employer who i had previously worked for would turn out to be so heartless.


jazzy,
Good for you. It worked just as I thought it would, even with the employers typical and shoddy "excuse." "My employee QUIT without notice!"

Did it go as far as an administrative judge?

Isn't it a shame that there is nonprovision for penalizing the lying sleazeball?

A lesson I learned: follow up ALL phone calls with a confirmatory e-mail starting with "As I told you in my phone call of this morning, March 25, blah, blah, blah."
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-26-2012, 10:47 AM
 
270 posts, read 380,272 times
Reputation: 90
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kefir King View Post
jazzy,
Good for you. It worked just as I thought it would, even with the employers typical and shoddy "excuse." "My employee QUIT without notice!"

Did it go as far as an administrative judge?

Isn't it a shame that there is nonprovision for penalizing the lying sleazeball?

A lesson I learned: follow up ALL phone calls with a confirmatory e-mail starting with "As I told you in my phone call of this morning, March 25, blah, blah, blah."
No it didn't go as far as an administrative judge. I'm glad it didn't go that far but it wouldn't have gone well either had they tried that because they LIED and they would have been found out either way. It's sad that they stooped that low but it opened my eyes to who exactly I had been working for all those years. I'm glad that I kept all my paper work !
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-26-2012, 03:38 PM
 
12,119 posts, read 32,452,423 times
Reputation: 3852
kefir king could you explain about the above stuff about employers lying and getting fined. i didn't read the whole thread. sounds like news to me. do you mean an employer will lie about the circumstances in which the employee was terminated to make it look the employee engaged in misconduct so they won't get benefits? never heard of the employer getting fined part of it
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-26-2012, 03:43 PM
 
Location: Long Island, NY
7,844 posts, read 12,706,466 times
Reputation: 9245
Quote:
Originally Posted by mathjak107 View Post
thats why as i said earlier its important for employers to really do much better jobs spelling out greater detail on what sick days are, how they can be used and what the penaltys are for lying.

they need to require notes as to why you were out so it documents things on both sides.

one of the things my son does as an attorney is re-write corporate manuals and the most problematic area he says is sick days as they are spelled out in manuals . since they arent benefits that have be offered there are no rules so companies botch how they handle them all the time.

they just dont tie in to the family medical leave act well at all most of the time and leave the employer either breaking the law, trying to lie to cover their butts or defenseless in court.
Regarding the bolded, that may vary on a state to state basis and possibly company basis. I work for a very large global bank and I can tell you, the company does not require it but a manager may "ask" for it. Medical leave is very private and no one has the right to ask other than if you are going out on disability or compensation. The only person who can ask details of the illness is the comp or disability company. I had an issue with an employee regarding sick time and doctor appointments. HR made it extremely clear that it's none of my or even my manager's business. If I call in sick, I technically do not need to give the details of my illness other than I am sick.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-26-2012, 04:27 PM
 
99,907 posts, read 99,476,386 times
Reputation: 74044
there are lots of buts to the above. . ada vs sick day notes is very complex and is one of the reasons employee manuals and policies have to be written by experts in that area.

the landmark case making sick day notes questionable in ny in 2003 was the basis for a lower court ruling in ohio. the lower court in ohio sided with ny.

a federal court in ohio reversed the lower court decision last year..

in 2003 a ny trial court ruling in connroy vs the dept of corrections said anything exposing disabilities in a worker if it didnt effect the job is a no no.

a similiar case in a lower court in ohio adopted the same view.


in 2011 a federal court dis-agreed and threw out the ohio lower court decsion.

im no lawyer but to me i see that that can make future cases here in ny very complex and slippery as no one knows what a federal court that sits over ny will decide since a sister federal court basically threw out the ny verdict by overturning its brother in ohio,....


very interesting reading on the topic

Jackson Lewis LLP | Workplace Resource Center | City May Require Doctor’s Note from Workers Returning from Sick Leave, Federal Court Rules

Last edited by mathjak107; 03-26-2012 at 04:49 PM..
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:



Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > New York > New York City
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2023, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top