F/A TERMINATIONS FOR ATTENDANCE

[care2purchasefood?]

It seems AA is on the rampage firing flight attendants for attendance over the past few months. Two flight attendants I know were terminated and one of them has a medical condition. The one I know who has the medical condition, had FMLA and exhausted their days. They still needed additional days and had to call in sick. Well, they reached 9 points last month and were terminated. I know both have filed a grievance and are waiting to get their jobs back. AA has opened a can of worms with the one who has the medical condition. Their condition is under the American Disabilities Act and it states that when the company knows of your health condition, they're required to accommodate you to reduce your absenteeism. They filed for a hardship to be based at home, so they could get regular care and cut their sick time. It was DENIED!! Even with 2 letters from two different doctors, tons of medical documents to back it up, a letter from their FSM and base manager to support them!

Do I smell lawsuit???

 

[Maark767]

It seems AA is on the rampage firing flight attendants for attendance over the past few months. Two flight attendants I know were terminated and one of them has a medical condition. The one I know who has the medical condition, had FMLA and exhausted their days. They still needed additional days and had to call in sick. Well, they reached 9 points last month and were terminated. I know both have filed a grievance and are waiting to get their jobs back. AA has opened a can of worms with the one who has the medical condition. Their condition is under the American Disabilities Act and it states that when the company knows of your health condition, they're required to accommodate you to reduce your absenteeism. They filed for a hardship to be based at home, so they could get regular care and cut their sick time. It was DENIED!! Even with 2 letters from two different doctors, tons of medical documents to back it up, a letter from their FSM and base manager to support them!

Do I smell lawsuit???

I see what you are saying to a degree but do you really think AA's legal team would f**k with the ADA ???? Leaving themselves open to a huge lawsuit ? Two things you dont get your job back for are stealing and attendance. I wish them luck and hope to see them back on the line very soon.

 

[care2purchasefood?]

I see what you are saying to a degree but do you really think AA's legal team would f**k with the ADA ???? Leaving themselves open to a huge lawsuit ? Two things you dont get your job back for are stealing and attendance. I wish them luck and hope to see them back on the line very soon.

The condition they have wasn't under the ADA until January 2009. So, AA may not know about it. F/A's do get their jobs back for attendance. Its illegal to fire an employee for being sick, especially when they have doctors certification to back it up. This one is going to be good!!

BTW... Yes, I do think AA would **** with the ADA. They like to push the limits so to speak.

 

[bigjets]

It seems AA is on the rampage firing flight attendants for attendance over the past few months. Two flight attendants I know were terminated and one of them has a medical condition. The one I know who has the medical condition, had FMLA and exhausted their days. They still needed additional days and had to call in sick. Well, they reached 9 points last month and were terminated. I know both have filed a grievance and are waiting to get their jobs back. AA has opened a can of worms with the one who has the medical condition. Their condition is under the American Disabilities Act and it states that when the company knows of your health condition, they're required to accommodate you to reduce your absenteeism. They filed for a hardship to be based at home, so they could get regular care and cut their sick time. It was DENIED!! Even with 2 letters from two different doctors, tons of medical documents to back it up, a letter from their FSM and base manager to support them!

Do I smell lawsuit???

I'm sorry to say that I've read arbitration cases where the company has fired an employee for continiously being sick, and the arbitrator upheld the company's position. The arbitatrator said that the company shouldn't be heald responsible for the employee being sickly. I don't remember the date of the case though, I would say at least 8 years ago.

As far as being based at home, I think AA bends over backwards for commutors, a commutor won't get a mistrip for not getting on a flight, but will give a locally based person a mistrip for getting stuck in traffic, or give an A1 pass to a commutor as long as they have tried to get on 2 flights.

 

[care2purchasefood?]

I'm sorry to say that I've read arbitration cases where the company has fired an employee for continiously being sick, and the arbitrator upheld the company's position. The arbitatrator said that the company shouldn't be heald responsible for the employee being sickly. I don't remember the date of the case though, I would say at least 8 years ago.

As far as being based at home, I think AA bends over backwards for commutors, a commutor won't get a mistrip for not getting on a flight, but will give a locally based person a mistrip for getting stuck in traffic, or give an A1 pass to a commutor as long as they have tried to get on 2 flights.

So an arbitrator would go against the American Disabilities Act and uphold the companies decision? I don't think that would go over well in a court of law. California has very pro-employee laws and even AA can't get around them.

 

[Maark767]

So an arbitrator would go against the American Disabilities Act and uphold the companies decision? I don't think that would go over well in a court of law. California has very pro-employee laws and even AA can't get around them.

Well good luck! AA is ruthless when they want to be... We all know that.... And when it comes to attendance , the arbitrator most always sides with the company. The documentation is black and white . I have a close friend that lost his job for good b/c of attendance.

 

[furp]

I see what you are saying to a degree but do you really think AA's legal team would f**k with the ADA ???? Leaving themselves open to a huge lawsuit ? Two things you dont get your job back for are stealing and attendance. I wish them luck and hope to see them back on the line very soon.

Yes! Absolutely yes!!!

 

[jimntx]

It seems AA is on the rampage firing flight attendants for attendance over the past few months. Two flight attendants I know were terminated and one of them has a medical condition. The one I know who has the medical condition, had FMLA and exhausted their days. They still needed additional days and had to call in sick. Well, they reached 9 points last month and were terminated. I know both have filed a grievance and are waiting to get their jobs back. AA has opened a can of worms with the one who has the medical condition. Their condition is under the American Disabilities Act and it states that when the company knows of your health condition, they're required to accommodate you to reduce your absenteeism. They filed for a hardship to be based at home, so they could get regular care and cut their sick time. It was DENIED!! Even with 2 letters from two different doctors, tons of medical documents to back it up, a letter from their FSM and base manager to support them!

Do I smell lawsuit???

First off, the company is not the final say on hardship transfers. The APFA is. If a hardship transfer was denied, it was the union that denied it. The company doesn't much care as long as it is not a base that is being closed or is seriously overstaffed. But, even with overstaffing, if the APFA approves it, the company goes along with it.


In response to your later post...firing someone for illness is not illegal. I don't know where that fairy tale came from, but the only Federal requirement is that if the company is subject to the FMLA, an employee must be granted up to 12 weeks of unpaid leave per calendar year before they can be terminated for absenteeism. Once those 12 weeks are exhausted, the company may if it wishes terminate anyone for absenteeism. The ADA requires the company to make whatever adjustments are necessary for the person to be able to do their job--such as, install ramps for employees who are wheelchair bound. If they are not coming to work, no accommodation is necessary. Oh, and Federal law almost always supercedes state law. It is a legal precedent that was set quite a number of decades ago.

Now, you can believe this or not, I don't much care. But, as Artemis Ward said back in the 1800's, "It ain't the things we know that get us in trouble. It's the things we know that ain't so."

 

[OgieJFK]

I see what you are saying to a degree but do you really think AA's legal team would f**k with the ADA ???? Leaving themselves open to a huge lawsuit ? Two things you dont get your job back for are stealing and attendance. I wish them luck and hope to see them back on the line very soon.

Why wouldn't AA and its legal team screw with the ADA. Arrogance knows no bounds. We had three lawsuits coming out of JFK cargo alone. One has been settled and the other two should be won soon. AA's policy, legal team and management made these three workers VERY rich.

http://www.legalmomentum.org/news-room/press-releases/eeoc-finds-american-airlines.html

 

[care2purchasefood?]

First off, the company is not the final say on hardship transfers. The APFA is. If a hardship transfer was denied, it was the union that denied it. The company doesn't much care as long as it is not a base that is being closed or is seriously overstaffed. But, even with overstaffing, if the APFA approves it, the company goes along with it.


In response to your later post...firing someone for illness is not illegal. I don't know where that fairy tale came from, but the only Federal requirement is that if the company is subject to the FMLA, an employee must be granted up to 12 weeks of unpaid leave per calendar year before they can be terminated for absenteeism. Once those 12 weeks are exhausted, the company may if it wishes terminate anyone for absenteeism. The ADA requires the company to make whatever adjustments are necessary for the person to be able to do their job--such as, install ramps for employees who are wheelchair bound. If they are not coming to work, no accommodation is necessary. Oh, and Federal law almost always supercedes state law. It is a legal precedent that was set quite a number of decades ago.

Now, you can believe this or not, I don't much care. But, as Artemis Ward said back in the 1800's, "It ain't the things we know that get us in trouble. It's the things we know that ain't so."

I hear what you are saying. But, for this f/a's medical condition it does state under the ADA: Once the employer is notified of (I wont say what this f/a has) the company must accommodate the employee as long as it doesn't cause undue financial hardship to help reduce the employees absenteeism. AA has known about this for over 1 year and have not done a thing to accommodate this f/a to reduce absenteeism.

 

[jersey777]

I hear what you are saying. But, for this f/a's medical condition it does state under the ADA: Once the employer is notified of (I wont say what this f/a has) the company must accommodate the employee as long as it doesn't cause undue financial hardship to help reduce the employees absenteeism. AA has known about this for over 1 year and have not done a thing to accommodate this f/a to reduce absenteeism.

I guess at some point you have to take short or long term disability and not continually call in sick. I have to agree with previous posters...getting your job back because of attendance is very very difficult.

 

[care2purchasefood?]

I guess at some point you have to take short or long term disability and not continually call in sick. I have to agree with previous posters...getting your job back because of attendance is very very difficult.

This will be a very interesting case if/when it gets to arbitration and/or court. I just hope my friend gets their job back.

 

[Kev3188]

The ADA requires the company to make whatever adjustments are necessary for the person to be able to do their job--such as, install ramps for employees who are wheelchair bound.

The key here is "reasonable accommodation."

The other thing to look into is whether or not AA has applied these same standards equally amongst the entire F/A group.

FMLA rules are a separate animal (though in this case somewhat intertwined). As Jim noted, there is a lot of misinformation about what an employer can/cannot do out there. I would highly encourage the OP to have their friends do some research on both programs (VERY easily available on the web), and if they still feel wronged contact the EEOC. There's time limits involved, so the sooner the better.

 

[care2purchasefood?]

The key here is "reasonable accommodation."

The other thing to look into is whether or not AA has applied these same standards equally amongst the entire F/A group.

FMLA rules are a separate animal (though in this case somewhat intertwined). As Jim noted, there is a lot of misinformation about what an employer can/cannot do out there. I would highly encourage the OP to have their friends do some research on both programs (VERY easily available on the web), and if they still feel wronged contact the EEOC. There's time limits involved, so the sooner the better.

This has nothing to do with a wheelchair, not walking or able to do the job. They can do all functions of the f/a job. If they have an issue with the medical condition, then they need to see their doctor. Its something they have and requires medication, regular doctor visits, etc... That's why they put in for the hardship. If they need to see the doctor and have to fly that same day, then they had to use FMLA or SK. If you put your trip in hiboard and then call in sick or use FMLA, its considered abusing the sick policy. No matter what this f/a did to make it work, AA continued to progress them and now they are on the street.

This also had nothing to do with commuting. This f/a always got to work when they commuted.

 

[jimntx]

I hear what you are saying. But, for this f/a's medical condition it does state under the ADA: Once the employer is notified of (I wont say what this f/a has) the company must accommodate the employee as long as it doesn't cause undue financial hardship to help reduce the employees absenteeism. AA has known about this for over 1 year and have not done a thing to accommodate this f/a to reduce absenteeism.

We (and that may include you) do not know the entire story. Large corporations (and that includes AMR) do not go out of their way to violate the major work-related legislation. There is just too much bad press associated with such actions. (Now, if they could do it without the public finding out, well, game on. )

One would need to know this f/a's attendance behavior prior to the current health condition. I'm not saying she did, but did she call in sick frequently to get out of trips she didn't want to work? Was she one of the accrue-a-day-take-a-day girls. I know f/as who view sick leave as supplemental vacation. I heard one f/a say, "I earned that sick leave. It is my right to use it any way I want." She found out otherwise. She is no longer with us. She was terminated for failing to come to work on a regular basis. Sick leave is not a right, it is a company benefit. Taking sick leave for any reason other than being sick is a termination offense. A lot of us don't realize that a great number of American workers today do not have paid sick leave. There is no Federal law (and never has been) that requires company's to provide paid sick leave. It was started as a company benefit to attract workers to companies. (Actually, if I remember correctly, it was unionized workers who first had paid sick leave. What a surprise!)

If a f/a accrued 400-500 hours of sick leave without taking much (or any) time off, then became seriously ill, I imagine the company might be more lenient that if a person developed a serious illness after a number of years with the company, and it turned out they went into the illness with 50 or so hours of available sick leave. Companies also look at what are referred to as "patterns of behavior."
If you have been sick every Thanksgiving and Christmas for several years because you don't have the seniority to hold off those holidays, your case is weakened when you ask for leniency. I use to have to deal with this stuff all the time when I was in the oil business. People couldn't believe that we were not granting them additional time off when they had never managed to accumulate even a whole week of sick leave. And, at the oil company I worked for, you accrued a whole day of leave for each month on the payroll, and as soon as you finished your 6-months of probation (no paid sick leave during), you were given a whole years' worth of leave (12 days) to give you a cushion; so, by the end of your first year, if you didn't call in sick, you had 18 days of leave accrued.

I noticed a couple of comments that the "arbitrators tend to side with the company." It's not so much that, it's just applying the law. I mean can you imagine an arbitrator asking a f/a, "did you understand that sick leave is to be used only for times you are sick?" And, the f/a replying, "I earned that leave. I can use it for anything I want." Or, "I don't like working weekends; so, I called in sick."