Hi, my name is Angela and I have worked at a dine-in pizza restaurant for a little over 2 years now. My current posisition is Shift Manager and I had been getting roughly 30 hours a week, give or take a few each week. I am also 36 weeks pregnant as of today, and have been working throughout my entire pregnancy. Up until about a month or so ago, I had been working mostly the night shift, closing the restaurant, as we were on a 3 manager rotation. We gained another manager (every local store in this franchise has 4) and I was relieved of many of my closing shifts and put on days. I would say I have been working approx 4-5 days a week and 1 closing shift, sometimes with only one day off. A couple of weeks ago at my Dr. Appt I was given the restriction to be on day shift only and I brought the note into the General Manager and the Lead Assistant, who writes the schedule. I then saw my hours drop drastically. The schedule immediately after given my restriction (for this week) I was dropped down to 13 hours, 2 days that week. And then last night I see the schedule for this upcoming week and I work 8 hours, 1 day. The supposed reasoning behind my drop in hours was "we just dont have enough day time hours because sales are bad" I understand losing hours because of a lack of sales but this just seems drastic, considering I was working mostly days now anyway, and both of my GM's minor children (ages 16 and 17) are working the day shifts that I believe should have been mine. I would hate to burn bridges and cause a problem with this company, as I have been there for 2 years now, and had planned on returning after having the baby, but I just do not understand why the GM's kids have these hours, still living at home, while I have rent, electricity, etc, and supposedly there are not enough hours for me. Am I on to something here, I feel like I am being discriminated against and would like to know my options before proceeding further. Thank You.

It sounds fishy to me. Your managers may think they are doing you a favor by cutting your hours. I would talk to them a little bit more aggressively and say something like "I hope my hours aren't being cut due to my pregnancy because you are aware that is against employment laws?" Just let them know you are no dummy. If anything they will wise up. They won't fire you for saying that because they will know you could turn around and say you were fired because you were pregnant.

If you can't get anywhere I'd call the EEOC and see if they can help. Is their corporate office? If so I would recommend reaching out to HR there and seeing what they think.

Hello By:

They ARE discriminating against you, however you are not a member of a protected class so it's perfecly legal for them to do so. Have your baby, and go to work for someone else.

excon

Um, excon... what makes you think she's not covered under the Pregnancy Act; part of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964?

Facts About Pregnancy Discrimination

To OP: call the EEOC, they are required to investigate.

Hello again, jillian, my favorite foe:

I really don't know too much about that Act, and being pregnant, she probably IS covered...

However, it would be my guess, having never read the Act, that it allows for leave, compensation, and a guarantee of a job after birth. But, I'll bet it doesn't say anything about how many hours a manager must or mustn't give to a pregnant person.

Now, I'm going to go look at the fac you brought above, and it might tell me that I'm full of ka ka. S'ok. I been full of ka ka before.

excon

PS> (edited) K, I read it. I didn't find anything that says anything about the OP's problem.

Oh don't be so dramatic. I'm not your foe! :)

From the link I provided:

Quote:

---

If an employee is temporarily unable to perform her job due to pregnancy, the employer must treat her the same as any other temporarily disabled employee; for example, by providing modified tasks, alternative assignments, disability leave or leave without pay.

---

Quote:

---

Pregnant employees must be permitted to work as long as they are able to perform their jobs.

---

OP said her doctor required her to work days because of her "disability", which her employer must conform to. Her doctor did not tell her she was unable to work at all. Note she mentions she was working 4-5 days a week including one night. She is now down to two days or one day. Assuming the other managers are receiving 30+ hours (yes, I assumed), and she is receiving 8, it is fair to assume (damn that word!) she's being given restricted hours because of her pregnancy. The key here is "modified tasks" and "alternative assignments". OP probably took this job with the promise of 30+ hours a week, the employer cannot just decide to only giver her 8 when he promised her 30. That's employment contract law... And don't argue he's giving her leave without pay, because the employer doesn't get to decide who gets LWOP and when. Now, if EVERYONE in the store is receiving significantly shortened hours, OP has no case. But since there's no indication one way or another in her post, I'm going to assume (damn it!) everyone else is working as usual, and she's the only one getting less hours.

The Act DOES allow for leave and employment after birth (after a year of employment, which my link doesn't mention. It sort of sucks... ), but it also protects women while they are pregnant. An employer cannot fire a pregnant woman because she is pregnant; an employer cannot treat a pregnant woman differently than other employees because she is pregnant. Sadly, many employers do such things (a friend of mine was laid off two days after announcing her pregnancy) and that's what the EEOC is for. OP can contact them, explain the situation, and they will send her a nifty little packet to fill out. Once they receive it back, they will determine if there is an indication of a violation and if so, they will investigate further. If not, they will tell her the employer did nothing wrong, and she has no legal standing. It's worth a shot since she feels she is being discriminated against, and will give her closure one way or the other once she gets an answer.

Hello all!

I think a large part of this equation is if ByStarlight is considered a full-time employee. If the employer has proof that each week, the hours given to her have changed, that prior to the doctor's note the GM had hired his children to work the day shift, it is going to be an uphill battle to prove discrimination. His children are on summer vacation and looking to earn money before going back to school. The GM is allowed to hire anyone he wants to, including his own children. Giving them additional hours to allow them to earn more money may be nepotism, but it isn't illegal or considered a discrimatory practice against others, even if it cuts someone's hours down who was on an ever changing hourly schedule. There also may be a method to his seeming madness. Since we don't know what kind of training is required for employees, he may be giving them the additional hours to train them properly. He may be relying on his children to pick up the slack while you are gone and their hours will be cut back as soon as you return.

ByStarlight, it appears they have given you an answer so any other questioning about what they are doing no matter how nicely you put it, is going to cause friction. A huge consideration here, that could make or break a case for you is whether your job will be available to you when you return from pregnancy leave. If you suddenly find that there is no job for you upon your return, that is definitely a discrimination case. Since you are so far along in your pregnancy that you will be leaving any day to give birth, I would wait to see what the outcome is when you try to return. I know you need to pay bills, but if his kids are working for a few weeks so that the GM is ensuring coverage while you are on leave, and his plan is to give you back normal hours when you return, the temporary loss of wages for a few weeks isn't worth a lawsuit at this point in time. I would wait to see how everything shakes out when you return. If at that time, he either doesn't give you your job back or gives you so few hours as to force you to look for another job, you have a much more solid case to sue for discrimination.

If her schedule is based on being a shift manager, then her restriction would indeed limit her hours. But if she is resigned back to the regular worker pool, the she is clearly being discriminated against. We would have to examine her pay rate and responsibilities to make better assumptions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RubyPitbull

Hello all!

I think a large part of this equation is if ByStarlight is considered a full-time employee. If the employer has proof that each week, the hours given to her have changed, that prior to the doctor's note the GM had hired his children to work the day shift, it is going to be an uphill battle to prove discrimination. His children are on summer vacation and looking to earn money before going back to school. The GM is allowed to hire anyone he wants to, including his own children. Giving them additional hours to allow them to earn more money may be nepotism, but it isn't illegal or considered a discrimatory practice against others, even if it cuts someone's hours down who was on an ever changing hourly schedule. There also may be a method to his seeming madness. Since we don't know what kind of training is required for employees, he may be giving them the additional hours to train them properly. He may be relying on his children to pick up the slack while you are gone and their hours will be cut back as soon as you return.

ByStarlight, it appears they have given you an answer so any other questioning about what they are doing no matter how nicely you put it, is going to cause friction. A huge consideration here, that could make or break a case for you is whether or not your job will be available to you when you return from pregnancy leave. If you suddenly find that there is no job for you upon your return, that is definitely a discrimination case. Since you are so far along in your pregnancy that you will be leaving any day to give birth, I would wait to see what the outcome is when you try to return. I know you need to pay bills, but if his kids are working for a few weeks so that the GM is ensuring coverage while you are on leave, and his plan is to give you back normal hours when you return, the temporary loss of wages for a few weeks isn't worth a lawsuit at this point in time. I would wait to see how everything shakes out when you return. If at that time, he either doesn't give you your job back or gives you so few hours as to force you to look for another job, you have a much more solid case to sue for discrimination.

---

Excellent points, Ruby. There is too much we don't know about OP's situation, and there's too much to ask/tell because employment discrimination is quite complicated. A quick call to the EEOC will give her a better idea of her options, and will be in line with all the facts and the law. Unless someone here is a member of the EEOC or trained in employment law, there's only so much we can say. More investigation is required, which is beyond the scope of this site.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jillianleab

Oh don't be so dramatic. I'm not your foe! :)

The Act DOES allow for leave and employment after birth (after a year of employment, which my link doesn't mention. It sort of sucks...), but it also protects women while they are pregnant.

---

Hello again, jillian:

Yes, you are my foe. But, that's not bad. I LOVE to argue, and you argue gooood.

And, you must be Washington lawyer, too... I read the same stuff you did. I'm just not sure it applies.

IF her hours were reduced because she's pregnant, you're right, he can't do that. However, if her hours were reduced for other reasons, then I don't think you're right. Unless, of course, having a pregnant employee removes ALL the rights of the employer, and I don't think the Act does that.

A very liiiiiberal person might argue that it does. You're not that person, are you?

excon

Our main goal is to give advice on whether Angela has a solid case at this point in time. Too many suppositions and variables exist for it to be considered a valid case of discrimination. I would hate to see her put herself in a position where she gears herself up for a lawsuit that would be tough to win. I think waiting is the smartest thing she can do for herself at the moment.

Hello again, Angela:

It's true. The law and what a person should do about it are two different things. Sometimes we get caught up in the legal distinctions. Good for Ruby for bringing it back to where it matters - on the ground.

I go back to my original advice. Have your baby and find another job.

I said so, for three reasons: 1) Being a mother is a better job than managing a pizza shop. After giving birth, your perspective will most likely change. Therefore, starting a lawsuit that you might not care if you win, isn't a good idea, In my opinion.

2) Filing a complaint is going to be very expensive (if you really want to win), and very stressful. Those are things an expectant mother shouldn't put herself through.

And, 3) I don't wish to denigrate the management of a pizza parlor. It's good honest work. But, there's a ton of it out there. It's not like you're making jillions and can't get another job like the one you have.

Yes, I brought my own baggage into my answer. I always do.

excon

Quote:

---

I LOVE to argue, and you argue gooood.

---

You flatter me so! :D

Quote:

---

I'm just not sure it applies.

---

I'm not sure it applies, either. That's why if she's really that concerned she should call the EEOC. A call to them is not a complaint, it's not a lawsuit, it's someone with the full knowledge of the law and the situation giving her advice instead of a bunch of schmucks on the interwebs trying to figure out the entire situation. She may have a case, she may not. If she wants to pursure it, she needs to call. It's also important to note that in many of these cases the result is reinstatement and possible back pay, not billions of dollars. As you pointed out, this does not appear to be a job that pays OP jillions of dollars and can't be found elsewhere. If she wants to have her baby and go work somewhere else (better option, in my opinion) she should have her baby and go work somewhere else. This doesn't sound like a clearbut case; her GM didn't say, "You are getting fewer hours because you are pregnant and I hate pregnant women." That would be quite a different situation!

And yes, thanks to Ruby for bringing the focus back to the OP, her question and her situation. excon and I must be in the mood to bicker today and you've snapped us back in line! Shame on us and good on you! :D

Another point about the GM's minor children---and their age-- in some states, children under the age 18 must no work after certain times. So the children might not legally be able to work the "closing" shift.

And with four "Shift Managers" plus a general manager- it just might be that there aren't enough "day shift management" hours available for everyone.

I go with the "wait and see" contingent---

How long do you plan to be home after having the baby?