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.
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.
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.
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!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.