The state in question, Texas, is an "employment at will" state; there
is a law making it illegal to terminate an employee DUE TO an
on-the-job injury. But...can you extrapolate from that that it's
illegal to terminate the employee if they're unable to return to work
within X number of days BECAUSE OF the injury? Kindly read all the
facts before answering.
Here's my situation:
The company I work for has NEVER, and I've been there for 10+ years,
had a formal policy (written or verbal) regarding how long an employee
could continue receiving benefits such as health insurance if they're
off the job for ANY health-related reason. As long as the employee
paid their share of the premiums, they remained covered. I've
personally known several cases where employees--some of whom had only
worked long enough (3 months, I believe) to get on the group insurance
before taking time off for surgery--were allowed to continue their
insurance coverage for well over a year.
I suffered an on-the-job injury this summer that required surgery and,
now, physical therapy and have not yet returned to work. The owner,
who acquired the company earlier this year, has invented a new rule
aimed specifically at me. He e-mailed me that I'll be eligible for
benefits for "up to 90 days." As noted before, this has NEVER been the
company's policy, it does not appear in any company handbook (at least
as said handbook stood on the day of my injury), nor have I ever
signed or been given anything to this effect, such as an employment
agreement. It's important (at least in my, non-lawyer's opinion) to
note that the owner DOES NOT like me and we've butted heads since the
day he came along.
My worker's comp attorney sent my employer a letter asking for an
explanation on the "90 day" issue as well as clarification on several
other things he's trying to pull on me, such as vaporizing almost 100
hours of EARNED vacation pay; she also requested a copy of the
employee handbook as it stood at the time of my injury. After a month
with no response my attorney re-sent the letter this week, both via
fax and certified mail, and she's now waiting to see if we receive a
response. The 90 days the owner made up are rapidly running out, so
his stalling is obviously a strategic tactic on his part.
If I'm unable to return to work and am terminated after 90 days, is
this legal? Can an employer essentially MAKE UP a new rule aimed at a
specific employee [he doesn't like]? Does the fact that there's a
long history of the company allowing other employees to remain covered
set a precedent that will protect me?
Sorry for the length of this but I thought having all the facts was
important.

The state in question, Texas, is an "employment at will" state; there
is a
law making it illegal to terminate an employee DUE TO an on-the-job
injury.
But...can you extrapolate from that that it's illegal to terminate the
employee if they're unable to return to work within X number of days
BECAUSE
OF the injury? Kindly read all the facts before answering.

Here's my situation:
The company I work for has NEVER, and I've been there for 10+ years,
had a
formal policy (written or verbal) regarding how long an employee could
continue receiving benefits such as health insurance if they're off
the job
for ANY health-related reason. As long as the employee paid their
share of
the premiums, they remained covered. I've personally known several
cases
where employees--some of whom had only worked long enough (3 months, I
believe) to get on the group insurance before taking time off for
surgery--were allowed to continue their insurance coverage for well
over a
year.

I suffered an on-the-job injury this summer that required surgery and,
now,
physical therapy and have not yet returned to work. The owner, who
acquired
the company earlier this year, has invented a new rule aimed
specifically at
me. He e-mailed me that I'll be eligible for benefits for "up to 90
days."
As noted before, this has NEVER been the company's policy, it does not
appear in any company handbook (at least as said handbook stood on the
day
of my injury), nor have I ever signed or been given anything to this
effect,
such as an employment agreement. It's important (at least in my,
non-lawyer's opinion) to note that the owner DOES NOT like me and
we've
butted heads since the day he came along.

My worker's comp attorney sent my employer a letter asking for an
explanation on the "90 day" issue as well as clarification on several
other
things he's trying to pull on me, such as vaporizing almost 100 hours
of
EARNED vacation pay; she also requested a copy of the employee
handbook as
it stood at the time of my injury. After a month with no response my
attorney re-sent the letter this week, both via fax and certified
mail, and
she's now waiting to see if we receive a response. The 90 days the
owner
made up are rapidly running out, so his stalling is obviously a
strategic
tactic on his part.

If I'm unable to return to work and am terminated after 90 days, is
this
legal? Can an employer essentially MAKE UP a new rule aimed at a
specific
employee [he doesn't like]? Does the fact that there's a long history
of
the company allowing other employees to remain covered set a precedent
that
will protect me?

Sorry for the length of this but I thought having all the facts was
important.

ILoveQAF wrote:
If you are terminated at the end of the 90 days, then the owner is in clear
violation of the law.
What you should do, in my non legal opinion, is to prepare a lawsuit against
the owner.
Do not file until after the termination is confirmed.
You probably should also inform the attorney general's office and see if
they'll investigate the matter for possible prosecution.
Does the law speicify the differences between types of injuries on the job
or is it "carte blanche" "across the board"?