F/A TERMINATIONS FOR ATTENDANCE

[eolesen]

Not all conditions covered by FMLA are covered by ADA, and v.v.

ADA is intended to protect individuals with disabilities affecting one or more major functions. In addition to dozens of physical disabilities (all of which should disqualify someone from being a flight attendant), the ADA added disorders like ADD and ADHD in 2009, along with conditions such as a colostomy or Crohns.

All AA had to do was make reasonable accommodation. If showing up to work was the problem, then there isn't much to try and accommodate...

On the very vague information provided, I'm skeptical that there is a valid claim. AA's got a pretty good legal and HR compliance staff. If it resulted in termination, they likely had all their ducks in a row. HR regularly overrode field managers on terminations when I was there.

 

[Bob Owens]

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 they do it all the time. Whats the penalty? Back pay less wages earned in between?

 

[care2purchasefood?]

Yes they do it all the time. Whats the penalty? Back pay less wages earned in between?

I spoke to my friend today and she was informed my APFA that her case to get her job back is solid. It seems AA forgot to do a few things before they terminated her. It seems AA violated an article in the CBA. Plus the ADA issue is solid as well for her case.

What she will get is her job back, full back pay and reinstatement of full seniority.

 

[eolesen]

I saw a movie once where the accused murderer's lawyer said he had a solid case and would get off.

He didn't. He was found guilty.

Believe it when she actually gets her job back. If the company really wants her gone due to attendance, her win could be short lived...

 

[Kev3188]

I spoke to my friend today and she was informed my APFA that her case to get her job back is solid. It seems AA forgot to do a few things before they terminated her. It seems AA violated an article in the CBA. Plus the ADA issue is solid as well for her case.

What she will get is her job back, full back pay and reinstatement of full seniority.

E's right; for your friend's sake, I hope that a "solid case" translates into being able to come back. It doesn't always work that way. If they do make it back to the line, I also would hope that they would seek advice from the EEOC or others (not just APFA) on how to effectively manage their condition as it relates to work, so they don't have to go through this again.

 

[Bob Owens]

I spoke to my friend today and she was informed my APFA that her case to get her job back is solid. It seems AA forgot to do a few things before they terminated her. It seems AA violated an article in the CBA. Plus the ADA issue is solid as well for her case.

What she will get is her job back, full back pay and reinstatement of full seniority.

Its still a win for the company. Most terminations are for effect on other workers. Even with full backpay (which doesnt normally happen) most would rather not go through the ordeal. One reason why full backpay is rarely awarded is because Arbitrators are employed by both parties, if they dont want to get fired they split the baby.

 

[PhatSappy]

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.

Do you think the firing manager consulted AA's legal department first? Has AA suddenly gotten smart somehow?

 

[IORFA]

I have an opinion on this. My good friend got fired for attendance a few years ago. After he/she got fired his/her manager forgot to tell anyone that his/her last occurrence, the one that finally got him/her fired, was recoded as family leave a week after he/she was let go. Around a year later, he/she got his/her job back, no back pay. The union said an arbitrator would be brought in if he/she went that route, and that his/her "record" was not that pretty. He/She decided to go the "get his/her job back now route" and didn't bother trying for back pay. After being back on the line, he/she was gone again within a year to never come back again. He/She was very surprised during the original firing meeting how detailed the company was. When he/she was let go the second time, it was for a different reason. Something legitimate, yet something that would only be noticed, if they were watching him/her like a hawk. So, like everyone else says, AA isn't that stupid most of the time in these cases. Also, if she wins her job back, she should always be on the up and up and looking over her shoulder for big brother.

 

[737823]

Its still a win for the company. Most terminations are for effect on other workers. Even with full backpay (which doesnt normally happen) most would rather not go through the ordeal. One reason why full backpay is rarely awarded is because Arbitrators are employed by both parties, if they dont want to get fired they split the baby.

Perhaps it's a win for the company but not for that reason. Remember the litigation, scheduling complications and associated staff time cost the company money. The only thing the company may gain is that employees are more cognizant of their attendance. Rumors and talk within work groups (ie this thread) instill fear and help make attendance a priority. It's very difficult for AA to terminate an employee with cause, let alone a union employee. Depending on where the subject FA is based additional protection maybe in place.

Josh

 

[700UW]

You have no idea of what your talking about, its not difficult to fire a unionized employee.

 

[737823]

You have no idea of what your talking about, its not difficult to fire a unionized employee.

Well if that's the case than it speaks to the ineffectiveness of the union. It sure seems to me many unions, especially public sector unions do a very good job protecting incompetent and unfit workers.

Josh

 

[IORFA]

Well if that's the case than it speaks to the ineffectiveness of the union. It sure seems to me many unions, especially public sector unions do a very good job protecting incompetent and unfit workers.

Josh

Just a myth passed along by the jealous.

 

[eolesen]

You have no idea of what your talking about, its not difficult to fire a unionized employee.

It's not a easy as firing an at-will employee, in that it usually requires a few more hoops to jump thru, which I'd say is more of a deterrent than a difficulty....

 

[jimntx]

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 th f/a can do all the functions of the f/a job, a case could be made that the ADA does not apply at all. The ADA kicks in when a covered disability requires accommodation by the company. That without this accommodation the employee would be unable to do one or more parts of the job. As E pointed out, if the only problem is the employee not coming to work, what accommodation needs to be made? Giving additional time off to a represented employee that other represented employees do not get is probably a violation of the CBA.

As to the other post that the APFA assured the employee that they would get their job back, let's all reserve judgement until the arbitrator actually rules. Remember, there were people who thought the McCain-Palin ticket was a sure thing.

 

[AAStew]

You have no idea of what your talking about, its not difficult to fire a unionized employee.

I don't know what world you are living in, but it is difficult to fire a union employee. In over 20 years I can count on two hands those that have been fired. Of those at least half of them got there jobs back, a few with back pay. There termination reasons, were stealing, violence against another employee, attendance and drug use. Drug use no longer gets you fired on the first offense...and the other reasons were all fought succesfully. It would not happen in a nonunion group.