Was anyone else approved or in process of a telecommuting accommodation and then got laid off?
21 replies (most recent on top)
HY actively searches for employees like this. Maximum suffering is the objective.
That’s what happened to me.
@az+1m6382h84 Just more evidence that WF Managers don't care about the quality of work or cohesion of their teams, only that their own workload is light & free of "headaches".
@az if you remember once upon a time they had it plastered all over teamworks diversity and inclusion.
I guess having a disability and needing to have a permanent arrangement to work from doesn't count.
@f7 I would beg to differ they should be complying with Ada act if 1990 and 2008. Further if remote work was allowed once and worked, everyone in agreement and backed with a dr note, it would be unreasonable for the company to limit its use. In a way by limiting (distance, hub location strategy) its circumventing the law.
It's really a wonderful how they've gotten away with it for so long with the sheer number of people affected.
Even with those cases in the news, they are still laying off.
@f7 being included in a layoff pool is proof enough and intentional without further questioning from manager or HR working with the affected employee. The powers that be don't or won't engage in these type conversations is proof as well they are singling people out.
I wish
Billesdon v Wells Fargo
If your position is eliminated, accomodations are immaterial. The job is gone, so any special arrangement needed to perform the work no longer matters.
Having an accommodation does NOT give you any protected status. The only violation would be of you were singled out based solely on your medical condition or disability.
@ds hope they at least spoke with EOCC about it. Like I did. Let them know the location strategy Ada etc.
@cw I had a wfh accommodation in Winston but the new location was in cic.
There came a time where either I had to decline or accept an offer.
I was told that you have to live within 50 miles of a hub to use it.
And they'll only approve it for x amount of times even if it is valid.
After a certain point they deny anyway.
Yeah they somehow found a way to supersede a federal act of 1990, 2008.
Theyre supposed to provided you have a dr note, allow wfh as a reasonable accommodation. As covid proved that (we wfh for an extended time).
There's no cost or undue hardship so it's baloney.
I had a coworker out on leave for cancer treatment and they laid her off.
WF does not give one iota if you have an approved workplace accommodation. Remember...WF is an at-will employer. If they want to get rid of you, they will find or, if necessary, create a way to do so.
I had an approved workplace accommodation, but it wasn't approved until after I had agreed to relocate...which I didn't. In their view, the timing of everything was probably kind of fishy. So be it. My VA doctor, the Department of Veterans Affairs, the state that I live in and I know what my medical conditions are and my handicap status.
Although WF displaced me I'm actually glad that they did. The pressure is off. My only regret is that I didn't have enough time for any last-minute data transfers to immediate teammates nor to say goodbye to my teammates and manager in Enterprise Patching Governance, some of who I have worked with for nearly 10 years.
An accommodation shouldn't cause paperwork for the manager. MetLife is doing a super swell job of handling accommodations and leaves (sarcasm font). They sc--wed up my leave so badly that I didn't really get much of one - because I was calling them constantly trying to get them to do their job. It didn't matter much. I was fired for poor performance after being back for 3 days. They didn't even have my badge reinstated. Saved time for someone and a whole lot of severance (almost 14 years) to go towards Charlie's bonus.
Were you under the false illusion that a remote accomodation protected you from a layoff?
@bb which in all cases speaking in general, anyone with a certified medical note should be top priority and be exempt. Forever. I'm talking about chronic life long folks that an ailment never goes away. Not simply because of some annoyance.
There shouldn't even be any discussion or stipulations on accommodations think about how that sounds in the grande scheme of things
@bm it’s “less than meets”, not “not meets”.
@az "I know someone who got an IM at mid-year despite being a top performer on their team" Then they aren't a top performer. Everyone here always says "I'm the greatest but I got rated an IM". BS that everyone is always a 5-star employee. There isn't IM any way. It's Meets/Not Meets.
My understanding is that if you or your location were already selected, an accommodation will not prevent it. It doesn't guarantee the job, just the accommodation while in effect. I also understand that one on leave can also be displaced.
yes
The only person with an active accommodation I know who got laid off was on a team that was entirely eliminated. However 1) I don't know a ton of people at work anyway, and 2) even with that being the case, I know someone who got an IM at mid-year despite being a top performer on their team, and the only thing that was going on was that they had applied for an accommodation. Which they soon dropped before it was decided, in hopes of not becoming unemployed. How common is that kind of thing? No idea. But with managers under pressure to find some reason to give someone less than Meets, I'm sure a fair number of them are eyeing their reports with accommodations, which cause paperwork for them. WF had never given a rip about disabilities, for all the lip service they give it, and these layoffs are an opportunity to get rid of employees who are 'headaches'.