Recall after a layoff??

Previous | Next
 rated by 0 users
Latest post 07-13-2009 7:39 AM by SingleMomInTampa. 22 replies.
  • 07-08-2009 9:38 PM

    Recall after a layoff??

    I am 12 year PHR who was laid off from a Risk Management position in March 2009 due to loss of government contracts.  The company that laid me off is now looking to fill a HR position in a lower level capacity that I am qualified to do but it is basically a job that pays not even half what I was previously making.  I had considered filing an EEOC claim because I was the only female in my Risk department yet more qualified than others in the HR department.

    A-should they have contacted me and/or others who are also qualified about the newly opened position? 

    B-if I apply and don't get the position, could I take legal action? 

    C-should I still file the EEOC claim despite this open position?

  • 07-08-2009 10:07 PM In reply to

    Re: Recall after a layoff??

    "should they have contacted me and/or others who are also qualified about the newly opened position?"

    Only if you are in a union that requires they contact you and the others who are qualified as part of a CBA that calls for it or you had a contract that stipulated in the recall that stated so.  If not then no, they were not required to notify you or anyone else. 

    "if I apply and don't get the position, could I take legal action?"

    Only if you can prove that they used an illegal criteria in denying you the job.

    "should I still file the EEOC claim despite this open position?"

    You would have to prove they laid you off BECAUSE you were female.  Laying you off despite the fact that others were less qualilfed is not illegal discrimination.

    "That's just my opinion, then again I might be wrong."  Dennis Miller

     

  • 07-09-2009 9:37 AM In reply to

    Re: Recall after a layoff??

    They have no obligation to contact you for the HR position or anyone else who they have laid off.  Having a PHR doesn't automatically make you qualified for the position and it appears it's been quite some time since you've worked in HR (no offense meant, but if you had you'd know the answers to the questions you're asking.)

    Your employer is undoubtedly looking for someone who is likely to stay in the position for the long-term.  From their viewpoint, if they bring you back for a position at less than half your former salary, you're very likely to jump ship as soon as you can find a job elsewhere that pays better. (Who wouldn't?)  This is just a basic business decision, pure and simple.

    I don't see any form of prohibited discrimination here nor any basis to file a claim with the EEOC. 

  • 07-09-2009 1:04 PM In reply to

    Re: Recall after a layoff??

    Wow...no need to be insulting.  I've been mostly in a risk role that over laps with HR issues for the last five years.  I assumed that my credentials would be more valuable to a company rather than lower level administrative employees. 

     

  • 07-09-2009 1:19 PM In reply to

    Re: Recall after a layoff??

    A-should they have contacted me and/or others who are also qualified about the newly opened position? 

    --They have no obligation to do so

    B-if I apply and don't get the position, could I take legal action?

    -- You can always sue but there's no legal basis for you to do so. 

    C-should I still file the EEOC claim despite this open position?

    __Yes

  • 07-09-2009 1:20 PM In reply to

    That was uncalled for

    The truth is, if you were a well informed HR person you would know the answers to these questions. The fact that you do not is enough reason not to hire you.

  • 07-09-2009 1:49 PM In reply to

    Re: That was uncalled for

    Yes, I came here for answers, but not condescending attitudes.  I may not be as educated as an attorney, but there is a reason why all professionals, including lawyers, keep reference books in their offices.  Not everyone can recall each bit of information spewed in college and other courses. 

    As I previously stated, I was not laid off for my attitude, but rather because the military was putting holds on their shipbuilding contracts.  This created a job loss situation for my company and it trickled down.  I have a very good reference from my previous boss, thank you very much.

  • 07-09-2009 2:43 PM In reply to

    Re: That was uncalled for

    You don't know me or my previous situation, nor have you "helped."  My company laid off quite a few people and they (including myself) were not troublemakers.  Due to my hard work, I saved my company thousands of dollars when it came to insurance renewal time.  From what it seems, each department was tasked with laying off a percentage of people rather than looking at job functions and ROI.  It also might help you to know that the other two employees remaining were older men with Naval pensions and happen to be best friends.  Sound fair now? 

  • 07-09-2009 2:44 PM In reply to

    • cbg
      Consumer
    • Top 25 Contributor
    • Joined on 12-21-2000
    • MA
    • Posts 6,786

    Re: That was uncalled for

    The bottom line is that nothing in the law gives you automatic recall rights unless you have a legally binding and enforceable contract or CBA that specifically says you do.

    Many employers do not like hiring people who are overqualified as they are less likely to be satisfied with the position or the pay, and are more likely to leave as soon as they find something better. This is a legal and valid reason to hire someone else instead of you and does not in any way create a discriminatory situation or violate any of your rights under the law.

    And for what it's worth, that IS HR101.

  • 07-09-2009 2:52 PM In reply to

    Re: That was uncalled for

    This has gotten unnecessarily contentious.  Singlemom, I did not mean to insult or antagonize you.  Your original questions were pretty basic "HR 101" questions though.

    Your employer did not have to take in job performance, ROI, skills, knowledge or any other appropriate business criteria into consideration when deciding who to layoff, no matter how poor their decisions were.  If the let you go in favor of retaining these two older employes, that was legal.  If they let you go in favor of retaining two veterans, that is also legal.  The fact that you happen to be female does not make this sex discrimination.  And as I said in my original response, offering you a position that pays less than half your former salary is likely not an attractive proposition to your employer as you aren't likely to stay with them for very long.

    Good luck to you. 

  • 07-09-2009 3:02 PM In reply to

    Re: That was uncalled for

    Yes, this has gotten unnecessarily contentious.  You did insult me.  I asked simple questions expecting professional, not cutting, answers.... Knowing how to handle a layoff is not basic "HR 101."   

    I much appreciate the second paragraph.  That is the kind of response I was expecting.

    Good luck to you too. 

  • 07-09-2009 3:17 PM In reply to

    Re: That was uncalled for

    Which does not give you an excuse to insult responders here.  Your comment to cbg was appalling and rude beyond belief.

    BTW, not only did I not intend to insult you, I didn't.  Working through the legal basics of a layoff is indeed HR 101. 

  • 07-09-2009 3:32 PM In reply to

    Re: That was uncalled for

    You're the one who said you had PHR and that you should be offered the HR job as you were qualified for the position.

    You owe a huge apology to cbg. 

  • 07-09-2009 3:33 PM In reply to

    • cbg
      Consumer
    • Top 25 Contributor
    • Joined on 12-21-2000
    • MA
    • Posts 6,786

    Re: That was uncalled for

    A 12 year PHR doesn't know basic layoff rules? How did you get (or keep) your certificate without that?

    Your "I've never been through it so I don't know" excuse might have been believable if you hadn't been so explicit about how qualified an HR person you are.

    Your inappropriately rude comment has been reported to the moderators.

     

  • 07-09-2009 4:12 PM In reply to

    Kath21-

    Your reply is abrasive. No need to challenge "why."

    Those who reply to messages need to be sensitive to the fact that those posting questions are typically upset, emotional or frustrated for some reason. Those who reply can help keep the message threads on an even looking beyond any emotional statements and sticking to the issue.

    Thanks.

    Denise

Page 1 of 2 (23 items) 1 2 Next > | RSS

My Community

Community Membership New Users: Search Community