Need HR Help - Employee taking away my heath coverage because I'm pregnant?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I suspect HR was quite clear on what the rules were (and no one ever accumulates 6 weeks of vacation in the first year of work - two weeks? Maybe but only after serving a requisite no. of months). Even in the very finest law firms I worked in, professionals got two weeks only after serving a full year. Never six weeks. OP's story just doesn't hang together. OP wants to have her cake but eat it too. If I were management, I would want to show her the door and fast. I don't like employees who try to buck the system. For awhile I believed that an HR rep. may have told her incorrect information By page 4 I am starting to think she is actively misrepresenting that initial meeting. I hope it is not too late to transfer her and the baby to husband's policy. Cobra is fine but VERY expensive and of course, ends.

HR professional again.

Her loss of benefits through her current employer will trigger a "Qualifying Life Event" for her and her spouse, meaning her can immediately add her to his insurance, as long as they are married and depending on the policies of his employer. I'm not sure why she would need COBRA unless her husband has terrible benefits or they are not really married.

THIS. And 16:00. Just resign, get your paid leave, and go on your husband's insurance. Or elect Cobra coverage. I have a feeling that all this frustration is just to save maybe $200 in additional expense for the employer's portion of your health insurance you'd have to pay with COBRA coverage for the month of august. maybe for 2 months if you include september so say $400. Don't be a penny wise and a dollar short. Do you really want to leave any more of a bad taste in your employer's mouth than you already have by taking a new job and then immediately getting pregnant and planning an exit strategy with the company paying for you to deliver and take a month off? geez!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OP, if they told you that you could take leave and then changed their mind, is that a crappy thing to do? Yes. Is it illegal? Probably not.

But I don't thinks he is giving us the full story. I think HR explained it to her and either she didn't get it or heard only what she wanted to hear. I doubt HR "changed their mind" just as I doubt she is married.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OP - haven't read all of the posts but why do you have to resign just b/c you haven't qualified for FMLA? FMLA is just the minimum that's required by law. If your company wants you to stay, they can let you take unpaid leave even though they are not required by law to do so. Also - are you in DC? If so look into what DC law requires - it may be more protective than FMLA. either way, agree with the PPs who recommended saving your leave for after the baby is born. if you are having a healthy pregnancy there's no reason you can't work up until the day or so before you give birth. Just about every woman in my office worked up until her due date unless she was on bed rest or something. I did for my pregnancies and it was fine - plenty of time on the weekends to prepare. The hard part is after the baby is born -getting ready for a baby is not that much work. A month is a really long time to get ready - i think you will be very bored.

+1 - all FMLA entitles you is 12 weeks unpaid without being fired. If you or your company was trying to "stretch" to reach FMLA status then what that means is your company currently does not want to keep your position for you for 12 weeks (because if they wanted to, they could at any time, they just don't LEGALLY have to). They may have their own internal policy as well, but if they aren't willing to work with you on that then they do not se you as someone they want to keep around. I assume is why you are resigning?

Anyway, as far as leave, what about if you spaced out some leave over the next 2 months - like take every Friday off (using your built up leave) - and use those long weekends to prepare for your baby? Your work might be more conducive to that type of agreement instead of an entire month at once. Then maybe take a week in early Sept and of course after your baby is born (using your remaining leave and then unpaid).

[Anonymous]

PP, I don't think that will work because, despite OP's implication to the contrary, it sounds like she is getting fired 100% without question and without consideration. This implies to me that her employer does not like her work and will not in any way try to keep her.

She is not protected by FMLA because she has not been with her employer for a year. And in DC, FMLA is 16 weeks for family leave.

And OP, you are a ridiculous person. The only people I know who had to take a month or more (!) off prior to having a child were on bedrest or had serious complications. Because they were not just lazy people who needed a month to "prepare" for a baby, they all had jobs when they came back.

Good luck with your newborn. You sound like you're really going to need it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I suspect HR was quite clear on what the rules were (and no one ever accumulates 6 weeks of vacation in the first year of work - two weeks? Maybe but only after serving a requisite no. of months). Even in the very finest law firms I worked in, professionals got two weeks only after serving a full year. Never six weeks. OP's story just doesn't hang together. OP wants to have her cake but eat it too. If I were management, I would want to show her the door and fast. I don't like employees who try to buck the system. For awhile I believed that an HR rep. may have told her incorrect information By page 4 I am starting to think she is actively misrepresenting that initial meeting. I hope it is not too late to transfer her and the baby to husband's policy. Cobra is fine but VERY expensive and of course, ends.

I work at a large consulting company and everyone gets 25 days (5 weeks) vacation from day 1. We accrue it at 9 hours per pay period and there is no vesting period - you can use it as you earn it. You also continue to earn it while on maternity leave which is paid for 6 weeks (8 with a Drs note for C section or other complication). If OP worked for my company, this story could make sense, but I don't know anyone who takes leave before the baby. Everyone saves it up to make it a paid 10-12 weeks (maternity + PTO). Most people save in advance and take 4 months off. Hard to understand how OP didn't take ANY leave for OB appointments though to have saved enough PTO for a month off after 9 months.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I suspect HR was quite clear on what the rules were (and no one ever accumulates 6 weeks of vacation in the first year of work - two weeks? Maybe but only after serving a requisite no. of months). Even in the very finest law firms I worked in, professionals got two weeks only after serving a full year. Never six weeks. OP's story just doesn't hang together. OP wants to have her cake but eat it too. If I were management, I would want to show her the door and fast. I don't like employees who try to buck the system. For awhile I believed that an HR rep. may have told her incorrect information By page 4 I am starting to think she is actively misrepresenting that initial meeting. I hope it is not too late to transfer her and the baby to husband's policy. Cobra is fine but VERY expensive and of course, ends.

I work at a large consulting company and everyone gets 25 days (5 weeks) vacation from day 1. We accrue it at 9 hours per pay period and there is no vesting period - you can use it as you earn it. You also continue to earn it while on maternity leave which is paid for 6 weeks (8 with a Drs note for C section or other complication). If OP worked for my company, this story could make sense, but I don't know anyone who takes leave before the baby. Everyone saves it up to make it a paid 10-12 weeks (maternity + PTO). Most people save in advance and take 4 months off. Hard to understand how OP didn't take ANY leave for OB appointments though to have saved enough PTO for a month off after 9 months.

Your post is confusing. Do you get 25 days of PTO or 25 days of vacation? They are very different.

25 days of vacation would mean you also earn sick leave. 25 days PTO means you must use your PTO for sick OR vacation time.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I can see them wanting you to pay for the entire cost of your coverage if you're out on unpaid leave, but not canceling your coverage.

Some companies will drop you from insurance if you aren't working for a period of time (vacation or not), for like two weeks, just for an example. OP, we do not know your employees health coverage and rules. However, you haven't worked their for a full year, so you may not even be eligible for certain benefits. Also, you taking off a month before the baby isn't medically necessary. It's basically a vacation and your employees has the right to not approve it, considering you don't have a doctors note. I'm basically saying, you may not have to go all attorney on them and instead, talk to HR again and ask them what you can do to have that month off and still have coverage of health insurance. I wouldn't piss them off. They too have the right to just fire you.

Hmm, no they can't just fire her. Ha, that's a law suit in the making.

Who are these people who respond? Sheesh! TERRIBLE advise!

Uh actually yes, they can just fire her. It's call "at-will employment". She needs to look at her offer letter before taking any actions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The answer is probably yes, they can take away your health insurance. Whatever happens though, you need a new employer, that's for sure.

FOS- Troll!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I can see them wanting you to pay for the entire cost of your coverage if you're out on unpaid leave, but not canceling your coverage.

Some companies will drop you from insurance if you aren't working for a period of time (vacation or not), for like two weeks, just for an example. OP, we do not know your employees health coverage and rules. However, you haven't worked their for a full year, so you may not even be eligible for certain benefits. Also, you taking off a month before the baby isn't medically necessary. It's basically a vacation and your employees has the right to not approve it, considering you don't have a doctors note. I'm basically saying, you may not have to go all attorney on them and instead, talk to HR again and ask them what you can do to have that month off and still have coverage of health insurance. I wouldn't piss them off. They too have the right to just fire you.

Hmm, no they can't just fire her. Ha, that's a law suit in the making.

Who are these people who respond? Sheesh! TERRIBLE advise!

Uh actually yes, they can just fire her. It's call "at-will employment". She needs to look at her offer letter before taking any actions.

Not if its because of the pregancy- OR I guess they can they will just have to pay.

[Anonymous]

Where did you get the ideas that they were firing her? OP has made it clear she intends to resign. And they aren't taking her vacation away bc she is pregnant but because she is not working and will be resigning.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I can see them wanting you to pay for the entire cost of your coverage if you're out on unpaid leave, but not canceling your coverage.

Some companies will drop you from insurance if you aren't working for a period of time (vacation or not), for like two weeks, just for an example. OP, we do not know your employees health coverage and rules. However, you haven't worked their for a full year, so you may not even be eligible for certain benefits. Also, you taking off a month before the baby isn't medically necessary. It's basically a vacation and your employees has the right to not approve it, considering you don't have a doctors note. I'm basically saying, you may not have to go all attorney on them and instead, talk to HR again and ask them what you can do to have that month off and still have coverage of health insurance. I wouldn't piss them off. They too have the right to just fire you.

Hmm, no they can't just fire her. Ha, that's a law suit in the making.

Who are these people who respond? Sheesh! TERRIBLE advise!

Uh actually yes, they can just fire her. It's call "at-will employment". She needs to look at her offer letter before taking any actions.

Not if its because of the pregancy- OR I guess they can they will just have to pay.

But it's not because of the pregnancy. It's for her exhausting her leave and not coming back to work, or taking unapproved leave. I can 100% promise you this is permissible, since she is not covered by FMLA.