Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:He knew you were being laid off and didn't want a pregnancy-related lawsuit. Seems you've never been a great employee so they don't want to invest in you.

+1

Did you read OP's post? She says she got her first negative review only after her first pregnancy. Before that, all reviews were good.

OP said they received "average" performance reviews. To me that means "satisfactory" or something similar. Many (if not most) places "satisfactory" means "shitty."

As a fed if I started to get "meets expectations" as opposed to "exceeds expectations" or "outstanding" I'd start getting my shit together because if I ever wanted to change jobs every employer in the world knows that "meets expectations" in the fed world means "I can't fire the guy, but I sure as shit wouldn't keep him around if I had a choice."

I'm a fed and 99% of the people at my agency get meets expectations. You'd need to walk on water to get a 5/5. Senior lawyer won a huge case in court for the government and still only got 4.5/5. Upper management looks at our scores and our supervisors get dinged if we have too many 5's.

Same here. Fed attorney. It's super tough to get a 5 average. They lump the rest of us at average of 3s or 4s. The ones in the bottom 20 percent and the top 10 percent can and often both end up with an average of 3 in my division, especially depending on the supervisor you get. So frustrating and demoralizing for the high performers like myself.

Anonymous wrote:Is there any foul play here?


History:
Been with the company for 10 years. 8 consecutive years received average performance reviews. 9th year requested maternity leave and was away for a few months. That year received my first below average performance review and placed on a pip. 10th year boss knew I will be away for my second maternity leave and he suggested to wait a day or so before submitting the request. At that time, did not think anything of it. Next day was informed I was being laid off. Just was wondering if anything is there, whatever it may be.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:He knew you were being laid off and didn't want a pregnancy-related lawsuit. Seems you've never been a great employee so they don't want to invest in you.

+1

Did you read OP's post? She says she got her first negative review only after her first pregnancy. Before that, all reviews were good.

OP said they received "average" performance reviews. To me that means "satisfactory" or something similar. Many (if not most) places "satisfactory" means "shitty."

As a fed if I started to get "meets expectations" as opposed to "exceeds expectations" or "outstanding" I'd start getting my shit together because if I ever wanted to change jobs every employer in the world knows that "meets expectations" in the fed world means "I can't fire the guy, but I sure as shit wouldn't keep him around if I had a choice."

I'm a fed and 99% of the people at my agency get meets expectations. You'd need to walk on water to get a 5/5. Senior lawyer won a huge case in court for the government and still only got 4.5/5. Upper management looks at our scores and our supervisors get dinged if we have too many 5's.

Same here. Fed attorney. It's super tough to get a 5 average. They lump the rest of us at average of 3s or 4s. The ones in the bottom 20 percent and the top 10 percent can and often both end up with an average of 3 in my division, especially depending on the supervisor you get. So frustrating and demoralizing for the high performers like myself.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:He knew you were being laid off and didn't want a pregnancy-related lawsuit. Seems you've never been a great employee so they don't want to invest in you.

+1

Did you read OP's post? She says she got her first negative review only after her first pregnancy. Before that, all reviews were good.

OP said they received "average" performance reviews. To me that means "satisfactory" or something similar. Many (if not most) places "satisfactory" means "shitty."

As a fed if I started to get "meets expectations" as opposed to "exceeds expectations" or "outstanding" I'd start getting my shit together because if I ever wanted to change jobs every employer in the world knows that "meets expectations" in the fed world means "I can't fire the guy, but I sure as shit wouldn't keep him around if I had a choice."

I'm a fed and 99% of the people at my agency get meets expectations. You'd need to walk on water to get a 5/5. Senior lawyer won a huge case in court for the government and still only got 4.5/5. Upper management looks at our scores and our supervisors get dinged if we have too many 5's.

Anonymous wrote:It sounds like, for whatever reason, your performance declined after you had your child and they put you on a PIP. The sleepless nights can be really hard and I wouldn't be surprised if your performance dropped. If you've been on a PIP for about six months and your performance didn't improve it makes sense they would be working on firing you. It sounds like they just sped their plans to get rid of you.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Are you in a "right to work state?" Are you an "at will" employee?

Right-to-work laws only apply if she is in a union. They outlaw union security clauses.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:He knew you were being laid off and didn't want a pregnancy-related lawsuit. Seems you've never been a great employee so they don't want to invest in you.

+1

Did you read OP's post? She says she got her first negative review only after her first pregnancy. Before that, all reviews were good.

OP said they received "average" performance reviews. To me that means "satisfactory" or something similar. Many (if not most) places "satisfactory" means "shitty."

As a fed if I started to get "meets expectations" as opposed to "exceeds expectations" or "outstanding" I'd start getting my shit together because if I ever wanted to change jobs every employer in the world knows that "meets expectations" in the fed world means "I can't fire the guy, but I sure as shit wouldn't keep him around if I had a choice."

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I would sue. Absolutely.

Is anything in writing?

Sue for what?

pregnancy discrimination. Gender discrimination.

She was obviously a less-than-stellar performer whose termination seemed to be in the works before she informed her manager of her leave. I handle employment cases and wouldn't take this one unless OP was willing to pay my hourly rate and I suspect she'd come out behind when this was all said and done.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I would sue. Absolutely.

Is anything in writing?

Sue for what?

pregnancy discrimination. Gender discrimination.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I would sue. Absolutely.

Is anything in writing?

Sue for what?

Anonymous wrote:Are you in a "right to work state?" Are you an "at will" employee?

Anonymous wrote:I would sue. Absolutely.

Is anything in writing?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:1. Lawyer up
2. Hit the gym
3. Delete your facebook

Deleting your Facebook is terrible advice, absent instruction of your attorney (who also shouldn't be giving you that advice). First of all, you're not going to be able to delete all of it from the front end and don't know what Facebook will retain for how long. Second, it's straight up failure to preserve evidence, which isn't going to help you. Look up Allied Concrete v. Lester for a cautionary tale.

The lawyer up, hit the gym, delete facebook is a standard response when people are going through a divorce. This isn't intended to be taken seriously as advice in this situation.