amtrak conductor uniform policy

[mikerd5522]

I was under the impression that if a business that had three employees posted a job listing that explicitly said they were going to only hire someone if they happened to be of a particular race, that business would be in trouble. On the other hand, if the fourth person they hired happened to be the fourth non-minority person working there, the principles of statistics say that it's quite possible that that four person business was making decisions that have nothing to do with race that just so happened to result in that set of people working there.

I was a little off on the numbers, but here's the law (from eeoc.gov):

What laws does the EEOC enforce and do they apply to my business?

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII) prohibits race, color, religion, sex, and national origin discrimination. Title VII applies to:

employers with fifteen (15) or more employees

Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA) prohibits age discrimination against individuals who are forty (40) years of age or older. The ADEA applies to: employers with twenty (20) or more employees

Title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA) prohibits employment discrimination against qualified individuals with disabilities. The ADA applies to: employers with fifteen (15) or more employees

Equal Pay Act of 1963 (EPA) prohibits wage discrimination between men and women in substantially equal jobs within the same establishment. The EPA applies to: most employers with one or more employees

However, I'm not sure discrimination would be the only class of wrong this could fall under. Jimmy apparently was fired for wearing something that he'd previously been told he could wear. I'd be surprised if it's actually OK to fire someone for a stated reason that turns out to be an unreasonable reason. And the photographs Jimmy's lawyer requested seem to be intended to demonstrate that Amtrak isn't consistently enforcing the rule that they're claiming Jimmy violated.

Oh, I agree completely. An overview of an organization's selection process, coupled with the training process, is actually a good way, of the many, to judge the effectiveness of the organization. I'm not up to-date on wrongful termination claims, but based on common knowledge...sounds like that may have occurred.

What my line of thinking is here, which may or may not be correct and is best determined by a lawyer, is this:

Amtrak doesn't provide Jimmy w/ proper uniform b/c they lack the proper size > Amtrak tells Jimmy two different things about what to do > Amtrak fires/dismisses Jimmy b/c he did not wear the proper apparel which they could not provide > Amtrak fails to accommodate Jimmy

The debate on whether this is a discriminatory act is much better suited between lawyers and a judge, but it quite obvious that Amtrak screwed up, based on the information we have.

 

[Jimmy]

To be more specific. i was let go dec.of 96 that's 17 months ago. or about $62000 in lost wages. i dont care about the money i just want my job back with the seniority. my lawyer will take the case getting a percentage of the money if and when he wins. iam also on disabilty for my weight. i went back to work on a trial run. i found i could do this job just like everyone else could. this was my opportunity to get off of social security. the guy that fired me no longer workes for amtrak. the man taking my case from the dispute resolutions office says i have a very strong case and the only reason they took the case was based on my disability. so if they cant get this done i have to hire the lawyer. like i said i would not put up a stink if i was wrong but iam not. plus once i get back and do my 4 days iam in the union and its very hard to get let go then. we will see what happens next week.

 

[Amtrak OBS Gone Freight]

Well Jimmy,

You might have a good case. But the most important little tidbit is YOU WERE in your 90 days!!! I have been in the railroad business for a long time, now! They do not need a reason to let you go during that 90 days! This is why Amtrak will most likely win in your case! I will be very surprised if it is otherwise. Everything else aside, that 90 days probation situation will be very tough to beat!

I have one additional question for ya....

To be more specific. i was let go dec.of 96 that's 17 months ago. or about $62000 in lost wages. i dont care about the money i just want my job back with the seniority.

So were you "fired" or just "released with the employment offer rescinded?" See my last posting as I posted that question to you there.

Anyway, good luck with this situation cuz it doesn't look very promising from my angle based on the info here!

OBS gone freight...

 

[Jimmy]

employment offer rescinded. when i ask why i didnt get a answer for months. yes i was in the 90 day probation. and they can rescinded my offer of employment for any reason except discrimanation. thats the key word. it then becomes wrongful termanation case. and since iam on disability for my weight it becomes a whole nother issue.

 

[Amtrak OBS Gone Freight]

employment offer rescinded.

I hate to tell you this, but that's not good for your case as well as the time that has elapsed since you were released. On the other hand it is good being you were not fired. Therefore, you have a clean record as far as Amtrak is concerned, and it shouldn't affect you negatively on your further seach for work. In other words it is the same as if they had decided not to hire you after they initially interviewed you. I wrote you a more detailed reply in a PM as some of those details do not need to be public. So good luck to you and take care.

OBS gone freight...

 

[Green Maned Lion]

Companies, in probationary situations, have the right to "Employment At Will", so they can fire you for good reason, bad reason, or no reason at all. I'm sure the honest reason is not related to anything we are currently talking about. Were there things that you would do in your job that you needed any assistance in because of your weight? I'm talking things as simple as picking up paper off the floor here.

I understand your problem- I'm pretty overweight myself. Not THAT overweight, and I am pretty athletic, but I am familiar with the problems brought on through being overweight. How fast can you walk? Can you walk the consist of the train quickly for tests, moves, inspections? Does pain in your lower leg joints limit your movement towards the end of a day or work?

You can't call it unfair discrimination if you are hiring me as a track runner and I'm missing a leg, certain people's ability with prosthetics notwithstanding. It might not be fair to consider it unfair discrimination based on weight, if you are doing a job that requires you to do things that are difficult for you to do.

Robert: When typing on the board, if I find myself incensed by something, I walk away for a while before typing my response to it, or don't respond to it at all. Its really easy to hide ones temper over the internet, especially in less than real-time conversations. I have a lot more control over it than I used to 99% of the time, but I go through times where I have a hair trigger. As for abrasive, I make Whooz look congenial, even on this board!

 

[mikerd5522]

Look what just happened today in a US Appeals Court - it shows I'm not making this stuff up as I go along!

US court: Paper money discriminates against blind - from the Miami Harold

A federal appeals court says paper money discriminates against blind people.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit has upheld a ruling that could force the U.S. to redesign its money so blind people can distinguish between values.

Such changes could include making bills different sizes, including raised markings or printing oversized numbers for people who see poorly.

The appeals court ruled 2-1 on Tuesday that the U.S. didn't explain why such changes would be an unreasonable burden, especially since many other countries have done so.

You can't call it unfair discrimination if you are hiring me as a track runner and I'm missing a leg, certain people's ability with prosthetics notwithstanding. It might not be fair to consider it unfair discrimination based on weight, if you are doing a job that requires you to do things that are difficult for you to do.

Very true - the runner situation you speak of is what we call a BFOQ, Bona Fide Occupational Qualifiaction. These are specific qualifications that companies can use to determine hiring elegibitiy, which would typically be frowned upon or illegal. Think of a movie actor for a male role or a bathroom attendent for a female bathroom. These are instances when the type of sex is critical to the position and thus not considered dicsrimination. In fact, in one of the most interesting cases, Hooters just won a law suit, as the court determined it was a BFOQ to be a female to be a server - it was key to their organizational goals and mission.

The only problem I have with the "well if you can't do that job because of weight, you shouldn't work there" is that an Amtrak employee typically goes through a pre-employment physical or screening. These are designed to ensure that the employee is physically capable of performing the job at hand. If Jimmy got through this process ok, I would tend to think his situation is protected by a bit of a precedent. That is to say - how can an organization fire you for a weight problem when their medical staff cleared you to work?

OBS brings up a good point about the length of time which has passed, which in fact a year may be too long for a discrimination case or wrongful termination suit. I'm not positive on what the statute of limitations are on cases like this - a lawyer or the EEOC would know best! And if Jimmy's lawyer is proceeding, he obviously knows somethings about the law that we dont!

 

[p&sr]

That is to say - how can an organization fire you for a weight problem when their medical staff cleared you to work?

The medical staff would be more concerned about whether the work involved would pose a hazard to the employee's health. They would not really be in a position to judge the worker's ability to actually undertake the work. That would have to be observed on the job, by the supervisor.