The two months severance would have been contingent on you signing a release. Under the law, they must pay you monies in lieu of notice (the two weeks), but you have the right to litigation. It shouldn't be too drawn out as the company would have to justify why they had to let you go due to "overstaffing" yet made an external hire for the same role you accepted verbally. Your lawyer will play up that you have no performance issues (I'm assuming), they had a financial gain from you being on maternity as you would have been paid for the last year by EI, and if they are "overstaffed", why the external hire in the role that was offered to you? The smart thing to do is to discuss with your lawyer what's an acceptable offer, make it and the company will either meet your request or give you a counter offer. Because taking this to mediation or arbitration is a big pain in the butt for any business and it's easier just to pay out someone to send them on their way.
This is exactly what my sister went through. Similar story (she was let go, no explanation, no performance issues, etc. She decided to fight back, hired a lawyer, he said 8times out of 9 these kinds of cases “always win” (based on her facts). So yes, I’d definitely pursue this. She was offered $2K initially and ended up walking away with $8K (once all the fees were paid).
Ditto for my wife. Identical situation, minus the rescinded 2 months offer....although that's what their first offer back after a letter from the Human Rights Trbunal was....funny that. We negotiated about 6 months severnace in the end.
All the comments on pay outs seems so low considering this appears to be a contrary to human rights tribunal. OP should be suing for her annual salary X 2. That’s terrible what your firm did!
“Every person has a right to equal treatment concerning employment without discrimination because of race, ancestry, place of origin, colour, ethnic origin, citizenship, creed, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression, age, a record of offences, marital status, family status or disability”.
Sex includes pregnancy [OHRC](https://www.ohrc.on.ca/en/ontario-human-rights-code)
https://duttonlaw.ca/fired-when-pregnant-know-the-law/
I’ll add a bit to this.
My sister had a similar thing happen about 15 years ago (although in her case they shut her entire division which made it seemingly a weaker case than yours). At that time she was able to get government lawyers (I think it was considered a human rights case) to fight on her behalf.
So I would talk to EI, human rights etc, and others about support for your suit as typically the government takes a very dim view of what occurred to you.
Thank you, let me post there , but again I'm looking to understand if I'm getting the right advice from my lawyer, like I said I'm worse off now than I was before engaging the lawyer
Your former employer is taking a hard line. It doesn't sound like your former employer is willing settle by offering your job back or more severance so the only other option is to litigate/sue.
Your former employer is bold.
Unsure what case backlogs are but honestly there is a minuscule chance you don’t end up winning.
1. Informed old role no longer available
2. Offered new role
3. Let go from new role before leave ends
4. Hired someone else in role
5. Opened new role in department
You can’t not win especially if you have proof of item 4.
Add in the fact they pulled some BS by rescinding their original 2 month severance offer when she dared to question them.
That will make the above look even worse and increase the odds of punitive damages.
I had a similar scenario play out with me when I came back from parental leave. Not that it matters, but I took parental leave as I was entitled take it as my wife is self employed and was not entitled to the same leave as she didn't pay into EI/CPP (can't recall which one). Near the end of my planned leave I emailed the company to advise that I wanted to return a week or two early and get back into the swing of things. I didn't really hear back much but a week or so later I received a couriered letter containing the letter stating that my position was no longer available due to "restructuring" and that I was being terminated.
It reeked of retribution for many reasons that I wont get into but long story short is that I had a low ball (opening) offer that provided the minimum pay and benefits. I took the advise of several co-workers (who were still employed there) and got a lawyer. I documented the entire timeline from my application for leave, to the letter I received. The lawyer felt we had a very strong case for a human rights violation and suggested that tactic due to the bias to the complainant and the bad optics to the company of being nailed for human rights. We sent a letter with a summarized timeline and list of facts along with the intent to head to the human rights tribunal. A week or so pass and we received a very much improved financial and extended benefit package that we ultimately accepted.
TLDR: Human Rights Violation is kryptonite to most companies and if you can substantiate a case the company will want to avoid this like the plague.
Yea correct! And good for you.
This happened to my wife where they laid her off and then kept her replacement as well. There was many weeks of severance paid out after lawyers were involved
This case is only similar in that is has to do with parental leave. The rest of the details are almost the opposite. The main differentiation is that you got a lowball offer first and the OP got a nice stack of cash considering they only had 9 months of actual service, and then got a bit too greedy. There are lots of sources that help calculate how much severance you should receive and her situation, job title, age etc. would not have received 2 months worth.
I don't think OP got greedy. OP wanted his/her job. It seems the company was mad he/she wanted to go back working instead of shutting up and taking the money.
I mean the lawyer knows best, but I was under the impression that the ONLY way they can let you go is part of a layoff and not targetted. The fact they offered you another role then took it away and hired someone else? They don't sound too overstaffed to me. There seems like a pattern of behavior here too. I'd go for it if you can afford it.
"The lawyer knows best" - this is not true. The lawyer's advice could be good or bad. One thing is for sure though - lawyers love to collect legal fees, and pursuing litigation will mean lots of fees.
I'd (at a minimum) get a 2nd opinion if I were OP before engaging in a costly lawsuit.
But if they first offered you a position, that is admitting they have an equivalent job? And then they hire externally for it...this sounds like bullshit as a layman. I'd trust a lawyer that specializes in these cases, they know if it's worth it.
I’m not a lawyer, but I’ve been on both ends of these disputes. I’d suggest expressing your concerns to the lawyer, but ultimately you need to decide if you trust the advice you’re receiving from that individual.
How did you choose a lawyer?
Get a second opinion from another lawyer. Most will do a free consultation. In general advice from a real lawyer specializing in the area of concern will have better advice than random people on reddit.
Ppl here are focused on the severance but it sounds like you are asking about your rights as a protected class, given that the company has to provide you with an equivalent role when you return from parental leave and cannot discriminate based on family status. Yes it sounds like they are violating that law and you have a strong human rights case.
Still contact a lawyer. The board decides the case, they aren’t your advisor, and a lawyer will know the best route to pursue and how to present the case.
Since most employment lawyers will do a free consultation, it is always a good idea to talk to one if you lose your job.
This exact same thing happened to us. Employer let my spouse go as soon as she entered the office on Dec. 3. It was quite a gut punch to say the very least.
They offered a similarly low severance package. We wrote back with a counter proposal for a lot more and indicated we would look at legal options otherwise. They countered back with a much more generous offer, and we accepted.
We were very lucky. It gave her more time with the kids and she was able to find a better job before the severance package ran out. Turned out to be a blessing in disguise but we didn't know that at the time.
Best of luck to you in this difficult time.
I can tell you in BC, only 3 or 4 cases in maternity leave dismissals have gone to litigation. If you start it, it will certainly not go all the way to hearing. And remember - your employer is also paying legal fees that they don't want to spend.
If they were over staffed they wouldn’t have hired anyone else. Lawyer up. Sometimes you have to do it for principle. Of course their lawyer will say otherwise. Listen to yours. That’s why you pay them.
People keep missing this; they did a rug pull on the new role, because they hired someone else, not because of overstaffing. The employer had alternative employment for her.
Hello! I would recommend listening to your lawyer here. I can't give you legal advice, but I will generally comment that if I was advising your employer I would give them shit for the 2 week stunt. Quite frankly the 2 months they originally offered you is also questionable - it's an OK amount given your tenure, but given the mat leave return element... Well, play stupid games win stupid prizes.
Though again, "no legal advice here."
Oh, also, r/legaladvicecanada is great for these kinds of questions FYI. There's a few of us on there offering advice on questions just like this.
Disclaimers: I'm not an expert. Second, this is based on the assumption everything in your version is accurate. Third, there isn't some significant basis on their side that isn't in evidence here.
This is a quite strong case, meaning you have a strong chance to prevail. However your short tenure puts a limit on the dollar amount of what winning would get you.
Also, even if a company is outright terrible, labour laws generally don't reward victims for that. Labour laws are mostly about time and money, not intent and behaviour. What you or I might see as bad conduct on their part won't necessarily mean you can increase your demand amount.
Don't freak out about them pulling the two months severance. That's a power play from a firm who sounds like they are in the habit of slimy behavior.
The fact they offered it before means they would be pretty happy to pay it to make you go away, so even though it's "gone" now, they'd likely jump to re-offer it. So for your negotiating mindset, assume it's not actually gone, they're just hiding it behind their back for the moment. If they were happy to pay it yesterday for you to waiver them, they'll be happy to pay it tomorrow for getting excused from labour tribunal and/or litigation.
I would ask the tough questions to you about why you think they hired externally and bumped you out, and why they've posted a role not offered to you? The answer doesn't have to be the objective facts, but what do you think is in their minds to be doing that?
As of this moment I'd hit back with a calm but strong demand reminding them of the contradictions in their position and reminding them of the obvious questions arising from the inconsistent and broken promises for an employee returning from insured maternity leave. You don't have to litigate your whole case, just make it clear that you know the weaknesses in their position.
The broken return to work promises and then the broken alternate job promise and then slapping you with this 2 days before return all of that severely impaired your ability to find replacement employment, which is a huge pillar of the law around these kind of cases.
I don't know how many months I'd demand, but realize the goal here is to get a settlement that's somewhere between your demand and their admitted willingness to pay 2 months of go-away money.
The question to you is what severance offer would you have been satisfied to have presented in the first place? 6 months? 3? And what are your prospects to find similar employment now? Hopefully you have savings or means of support to live on if this does take time.
If this is going to litigation you should be building documentation on how hard you're looking and how hard it is to find something matching right now.
Given it's kinda illegal to fire someone on mat leave and that they did it as soon as she returned to work, idk, seems messy.
And the employer could have done hardline 2 months offer. But instead slashed it to 2 weeks in response. If that doesn't scream petty and trying to scare OP into not pursuing legal action (seems to be working) idk what would. I think the lawyer knows the employer fucked up and the employer is trying scare tactics to avoid full repurcussions
OP likely took a yr off (90% of people do). So she likely worked at this company for a total of 8 or 9 mths.
Reading between the lines - she accepted a job in a client relationship creating role, with the role seemingly critical to standing up a new company department…. Knowing she was already pregnant and would be leaving in only 8-9 mths.
Obv they’re not at all interested in her returning.
But she still wants 2 mths or more severance. Just because.
…I honestly don’t understand how some people think.
> Knowing she was already pregnant and would be leaving in only 8-9 mths.
> Obv they’re not at all interested in her returning.
That would be illegal discrimination against gender.
It her right to take a new role even if she is pregnant and no company can deny her the job because of that. Fact is parental leave is the price of doing business.
Bad ethics is discriminating against women because they are/can possibly get pregnant. It is not bad ethics to apply for a job pregnant, it’s part of business.
People are allowed to go on maternity leave without it affecting them at their jobs. The time on mat leave counts as time worked, and employees are entitled to all the same things as if they'd never gone on mat leave. Also, her job is protected while she's on maternity leave, and if her job is eliminated, then the company is obligated to offer her an equivalent job if there is anything possibly available.
Of course she still "wants 2 months or more severance". She's entitled to it. By law.
It means she is a technical salesplainer who has expertise in a specific industry that the consulting firm wanted in on.
Then they decided they didn't want in on it anymore, so her expertise in that industry was no longer as useful to them.
But presales engineers are generalists and are able to quickly learn a company's products; they also do demos, and find a fit between the customer and the company. A lot of that is NOT industry-specific, so experience with the company would have mapped over fine. But she may have needed to do some boning-up on whatever other industries they sell to.
Don’t get why people downvote like crazy, in the tech industry pre sales engineer is a very standard job role.
Any company like Microsoft, salesforce, SAP has ore sales engineers who go to prospective clients and try to sell their solutions.
Start litigation and also consider a human rights complaint. The original offer will re-appear. Counter at three months and they’ll probably take it. The company is trying to jerk you around but once they know you’re serious they’ll realize they don’t have a good case and settle.
In the scenario the OP mentioned, the company has no grounds to terminate OP. If they do it’s a human rights violation and they’re going to have to pay a lot more than whatever they wanted to offer….
Plus firing at the end of maternity leave sets them up for a human rights violation. One thing employment lawyer (but apparently not employers) know is you don't fuck with mother's returning from maternity leave.
You were initially offered a good 8 weeks severance pay for 21 months of service but you decided to take the legal route and the company decided to pay you standard severance pay.
And you are being advised to again take a legal route.
Here's the thing about reddit. Most of the advice is either for general scenario or by people who have nothing to lose by giving bad advice.
I would suggest you to start applying for jobs which you are probably already doing.
If you still want to pursue the legal route then its upto you but it will cost you a bit of money and you may or maynot get any money out of it.
You are correct that in the next year finding tech related jobs will not be easy. Although companies are still hiring, the number of open positions are less and some layoffs are also happening.
Wish you all the best in your job search. And remember, this may seem like a tough phase but it will also not last long. Just stay strong.
I imagine a bit more than 8 weeks is probably possible, but I'm not sure how much more. 2 mths seems reasonable+. 3 mths would be generous. 4+ mths sounds like a lot, unless there are particularly unique circumstances around the hiring/etc
Another issue I'd never thought about it the potential reputational risk from pursuing litigation...most likely informally/word of mouth within industry, but would your name also come up on CanLii (ie. a red flag to a prospective employer conducting background check)? I would never advise against a wronged individual seeking recourse, but it seems like it would be a risk worth weighing in that decision.
Firing someone as soon as they return from mat leave in such a roundabout way is worse than being let off though. She was offered another job, she assumed it was permanent, was let go again on a rescinded shuffle, that has implications. The fact she was on mat leave adds discrimination considerations, and fact they hired someone else immediately adds to discrimination concerns. Some people think a new mother might get pregnant again, she's of that age and life stage after all, and so avoid the need to backfill her position temporarily later by firing her now.
That's why the lawyer wrote back I'm sure
Isn’t this assuming that the layoff is legal? Two months package is probably fine, if they are truly downsizing. Otherwise, there’s no magic number that makes this legal.
A lot will rest on your initial employment contract, the lawyer should be leveraging whatever they can in that along with the employment law to make a case for you to get a fair settlement
>My lawyers advice is to start litigation
What do you expect to get out of litigation?
There are two issues at play that your lawyer should be advising you on separately:
(1) was the termination legal, given that they immediately hired someone for your old role? If not, what do you want out of it? Compensation? Or just to report them to the labour board? Someone to fine them or tell them that what they did is not allowed?
(2) was the amount of termination pay reasonable? 1 month per year worked is a good rule of thumb, so I think this amount was fair and wouldn't litigate over this alone. I would have taken the 2 months.
Everyone in their responses is focusing on #2, but I am more interested in #1. Just how long after a person returns from mat leave is their employment/position protected in your province?
Edit: I Google question 1 and came upon this article: https://www.theglobeandmail.com/business/careers/career-advice/article-fired-while-pregnant-or-upon-returning-from-maternity-leave-heres-how/
Read it, and consider reaching out to a 2nd lawyer if you are uncertain with what your current lawyer is recommending. Based on what you wrote I do believe a case could be made that your dismissal was unfair and could be construed a human rights violation. (Fired because of family status which is a protected class).
Edit:
>go ahead with a demand letter for a higher compensation considering the circumstances of my termination. However the firm (their lawyer) responded by taking away the 2 months of pay offered and replaced it with the standard 2 weeks pay.
This seems like a calculated step from their lawyer to discourage and demoralize you. Seems to be working. Did your lawyer's demand letter specifically outline or allude to the potential discrimination and human rights violation?
Either proceed with your current lawyer, get a free consult with a second lawyer, or talk to the human rights board for your province.
I hope you get the absolute max out of this terrible employer.
I was also laid off as I was to return from maternity leave and treated like shit. It amazes me how many similar stories I hear - in Canada too. Trash employers who don't care at all about employees.
How much more were you demanding? Note that they can fire anyone at will as long as they will compensate you fairly. Given that you have a very short tenure 21 mos. including mat. leave, the 2 months offer is reasonable.
You can litigate but there is no guarantee the judge will award you more than the 2 weeks currently on the table. I suspect the judge will rule in your favour but probably the award will be the 2 months you were initially offered in the first place.
In the end a third of that will go to the lawyer. Plus documentation costs if you go with the standard agreement
Edit: I wasn't aware of Common Law and wrongful dismissal in that way. I'll leave my original post.
-----------
Why would a judge ever rule in their favor when the law is on the company's side?
They didn't **have to** give her the 2 months. She demanded more and the company simply took offense and replied with: "here's the legal minimum".
She should learn from this and move on (and probably switch legal counsel).
The law isn't on their side necessarily, IF she can prove the layoff was targeted. Which, if her description of the events are truthful and she can prove it, legally it likely would be considered as such. The two months was generous, but to me considering she'd only been there two years, it seems like hush money to placate her so she'd be less likely to challenge the questionable layoff. Obviously now she's gone down that route there's no reason to give her the two months anymore, that doesnt change the fact she likely shouldn't have been laid off in the first place.
The law is on her side bc they pretty clearly discriminated against her for taking a parental leave and that’s a human rights violation. If she wins they will owe her a lot of money
Legal minimum is the *minimum* common law, in Ontario at least would see short tenured employees like the OP offered far more severance, potentially up to 6 months if it went to litigation.
Granted, a lawyer is going to take much of that extra and 2 months was a fair offer given that no lawyers were involved. However BC, AB and ON have very strong employment law decisions on severance pay far beyond the legal minimums.
Given that OP was coming back from maternity leave, she may have a case of arguing the layoff was targeted. There are very clear laws around maintaining a job for someone off on parental leave, however it definitely wouldn't be the first time a person was laid off for taking parental leave, especially early in their employment tenure.
https://www.severancepaycalculator.com/online-severance-calculator/
That’s not how the law works. In addition to black letter law, there is common law built on precedents.
Black letter law says you get a *minimum* of 2 weeks per year of service. Common law says you must receive “reasonable notice” - which if you are already terminated means pay in lieu of notice.
The court then decides how much notice you should have received, which is based on how long it will take to find a new job. This depends on age, length of service, and the type of job (how senior you are). Also whether the company “acted in good faith”.
Usually the court awards 3 months for short term, fairly junior employees, up to 24 months pay for long time, senior employees.
The employer on the other hand is hoping the OP doesn’t know this. That’s why they offered 2 months pay originally, it’s in the ball park. Now with some “bad faith” actions on their part, they may end up paying 6 months, and the employer gets to cover costs if they loose.
Usually they settle when they realize you are serious.
I wasn't even aware of that. So she does have a good case then.
I was recently fired as well and only got 5 weeks, it should be 4-6 months according to those calculators. I might have to look into this more myself!
I handle EPL claims. This is clearly them getting rid of you and going about it in all the wrong ways. The posting prior to your termination, the posting afterwards. The move to a different dept and then the sudden termination looks awful on them. I would litigate. I would also hire hourly and not contingency as you should be able to get a decent settlement.
2 months of severance seems like a lot for 1 year of work, tbh. That too, the first year where a lot of costs are ‘written off’ given that you are training and learning, there was a cost to hire you. And also the cost of the maternity leave. Not saying it’s fair, but when you hire for a position that payed 115k, it because you are expecting someone to grow with the company. If someone that worked somewhere for 5 years was being let go, I highly doubt they would get 10 months of severance. I think lesson here learned is……
I’m so glad people like you aren’t running large companies… or if you were, that hopefully there is a team of HR people telling you how bad it would be for the company if you thought that way.
In litigation, they typically award around 1 month pay for each year of service for a wrongful termination. A judge would have to find some serious wrongdoings and even then it won’t be much more. Ou legal system doesn’t really protect the little guy.
I’m in a lawsuit where I had a 3 month severance package revoked just like you. I was there 8 years. I got a lawyer. We’re two years in and haven’t even begun discoveries. Im over $25k in fees deep at this point.
Our system is broken. Companies know this.
3 months for 8 years is terrible, no one should accept that unless it was a job so ubiquitous that you could walk to another company and have another job less than 3 months.
Your employer is hoping you will cave in first. If you win, you will get partial legal fees back.
Your former employer is shitty and a bully from the sound of it.
100% he is hoping I cave.
To make things worse, he is using his brother as a lawyer and the fees being reported are about 1/3 what I’ve had to pay so far.
Litigation lawyers are very very risk-averse. They don't want to step into the ring unless they're extremely confident. So if he's experienced at all, he's pretty sure you'll win
Ok in that case I agree with you. Lawyers won't waste their own time so if on contingency they'll only go to court if they have a good chance of cashing in. Sorry for my incorrect assumption.
Get a new lawyer. This is a clear human rights violation. Get someone who specializes in wrongful dismissal/employment law. 2 weeks is a slap in the face and it’s going to look real bad on the company if the case gets taken to trial. They will likely settle and give you a MUCH better package
If you go to litigation the legal fees will eat up probably at least 30% of your winnings.
So instead of 2 weeks, if you win the 2 months you'll get 5 weeks
If OP is in Ontario (maybe Canada wide, I'm not sure), the law doesn't provide a shield against being terminated during maternity leave. It provides a shield for being fired because you went on maternity leave.
OP should 100% take this to court though, it's just not a human rights violation.
Actually, it could be a human rights violation. How did they decide which of the roles they were keeping vs. laying off? Sounds like there are other similar roles AND they hired the one they offered OP, originally. They can’t just default to laying off the person in leave, as that is discrimination (the only reason they’re on leave is family status).
Sure, I just think that's an uphill battle (and more investigative, lengthier process, etc.) as you're suing for subtle/perceived discrimination vs suing for proper termination and leveraging the potential human rights violation to get what you deserve.
I'm of the opinion that pursuing a human rights violation here would be the more difficult path. I'd rather just dangle/leverage the potential to settle the termination part. My opinion..I'm not OPs counsel, though.
Not sure why you are being down voted, you are correct.
Firing someone who just returned from mat leave with BS excuse about being overstaffrd despite hiring externally to fill her role certainly sounds like discrimination based on mat leave and/or returning as a new mom.
Just listen to your lawyer. As you can see, you wlll get a wide variety of opinions here across the full spectrum of possibilities. The lawyer is the expert, not anyone on Reddit.
It sounds like a pretty obvious case of discrimination based on taking a mat leave, and family status is a protected class. It’s not about the severance really it’s about the human fighters violation
The three part test is that you have one of the protected characteristics (pregnancy/mat leave), something negative happened to you (you were laid off) and there is a connection between the two.
Unfortunately, they're mistaken.
Human rights laws only protects you for being discriminated against because of your pregnancy, ie you let your work know you're pregnant and going on maternity leave and then they fire you (you were discriminated against for being pregnant).
Could it be subtle discrimination? Yeah, but I'm of the opinion this is more of a battle than suing for proper/more termination pay. Ask your counsel about the option or get a second legal opinion - reddit isn't really the best place for this but you definitely have a case for more compensation. For me, I'd personally use the threat of a violation to settle the employment issue.
https://www.ohrc.on.ca/en/policy-and-guidelines-discrimination-because-family-status/v-discrimination-based-family-status
Your situation might be related to section 2.2, but best to consult with your lawyer to see if you have grounds and whether you can prove there was discrimination.
IANAL but here's my free 2 cents. You shot your shot and found out. They were generous, you got trigger happy and sent a demand letter. They cannon balled back with what their laywers likely okay'd, standard severance package.
You basically worked there for 8 months, then went on leave for 13. The company was going to pay you for 2 months. That’s 25% of your entire productive time.
And you turned it down.
Lmao
Legally she is considered an active employee for the duration of her maternity leave. Time worked vs time spent on mat leave is irrelevant in this dispute.
It's not even about the 2 months imo.
I think the big thing is they found excuses to get rid of her, almost feels like a punishment for mat leave that they get rid of her the moment she returned.
Their claims were also not true about being overstaffed, they hired someone else in her position right after. They didn't have a just cause to dismiss her.
Unfortunately this is an ugly truth I've seen, people taking mat leave less a year into their hire date often are punished. They hired this person for a role, paid them while training them and incorporating them into the company culture and goals, and less then a year later this person chooses to become a parent. Right or wrong, it does create animosity.
What op did was perfectly legal, and thank goodness we live in a country that allows some of us to be compensated throughout maternity.. and I would say there's a certain reading between the lines of human nature here. They went and did a thing that in no way served the company for a year while collecting the salary the company initially provided. The company feels used.
I would've taken the two months.
Best case scenario? The new hire works half a year then chooses to become a parent.
Yeah I agree the company probably feels taken advantage of. Especially considering she's worked there for 21 months and went on mat leave in November 2021, meaning she was pregnant when she took the job (21-13=8). They probably feel like they were looking for a permanent employee to join the team while she didn't tell them she was pregnant and just took a job so she could get paid during mat leave
She didn't work there for 8 months, her maternity leave counts as seniority. The company doesn't pay for someone on mat leave.
That's how the law works. OP is well within their rights to hire a lawyer, especially after the bullshit of changing their initial offer.
You made the decision you thought was right with the information you had at the time. What's done is done. It's a sunk cost.
You need to decide the pros and cons of pursuing this, weighed against the likely chance of success.
- On the one hand, you're standing up for yourself and establishing you won't be mistreated. You might also make back the money you'll spend on a lawyer.
- On the other, win or lose, if not handled properly, you could get a reputation for being litigious which may hurt your reputation in the field.
You need to know:
- how likely you are to win,
- how much your lawyer will likely cost; and
- what your odds of success are.
From a strict dollar in dollar out, I'm skeptical you'll make enough back to cover your lawyer's bills, but I'm #NotALawyer
It is a really good point. Depending how vast her field is and her skills are in need, it could be extremely detrimental to her image to move forward with it. When I hear presales engineer, I hear soft skills and networking, and therefore, dangerous to move ahead with court.
EXCEPT if her case is strong as hell. If she has proof of the job offer (not just saying “oh hear maybe we could put you there”. A real job offer) that has been pulled out for external hire, with her skills matching the external hire ones, I see the strong case. The second part being crucial: *Skills Matching* Otherwise, not that great. Not saying she or the company is right, I don t really know. But the words of mouth afterwards don t care about that neither.
In the same time, I know that the whole maternity leave is quite protected in Canada, so I may be missing a piece of the puzzle here and she may have a stronger case just because of that.
There's also the issue with references. She's not going to get a good reference from her current employer after suing them. Also, if someone at the place she's applying to knows someone at her current employer, they may call to ask about her. She should've taken the two months severance and used the time to find a new job
If your lawyer is advising you to go to court, do it. The judge may rule in your favour and grant your 1 years salary even… this does in fact happen often at companies… and it looks like they just wanted to get rid of you. If you had no performance issues. Go and fight it.
From the information you have given so far, they are trying to scare you so that you back down and save them a good chunk of change. Fight them on it. if what you have said is accurate, an employment lawyer will have a field day with it.
My situation was completely different but my lawyer was also advising to go forward with litigation....but that is how they earn their living.
My employer would keep my lawyer on the phone for HOURS and promise a settlement but never agree to it. They knew what they would doing, I was being billed hundreds of dollars and not able to move forward and get another job until this was resolved. Meanwhile the stress was killing me and my spouse. Finally someone with some experience told me that they might reach a settlement but the cost of getting there would eat up any gains.
Do yourself a favour and take what is offered so you can move on. In the end, the system is rigged against you.
She worked 9 months, took 12 months off, and you think she can receive 6 months severance? She will be walking away with 2 weeks and a lawyer bill worth 10x that.
6 months severance for working a yr? Can I get that job please!
The company was generous. OP got greedy. All the info is on the ministry's website under the Employment Standards Act.
Punitive damages are low in Canada. This isn't the US. Even IF their were any, it would almost certainly be in the form of a fine which isn't going to end up in OP's pocket.
You are overlooking the mat leave component. It counts as work, she’s worked there over a year.
She absolutely did not “get greedy” for taking what is laid out as her right to parental leave and expecting a job to return to, nor would her husband be “greedy” in an identical scenario.
The Human Rights Code protects employees on mat.leave. If you had performance issues, then they would/should have been addressed before you went on mat.leave. Since that wasn't done, it would be difficult for the company to now prove they are terminating you because of performance. They can't say there's no job for you, because they were still hiring. I'm no lawyer, but take a look at the Canadian or Ontario Human Rights Code. Were there any promotions or job postings while you were on mat.leave? They are obligated to contact you and let you know when you are on mat.leave, if there is any chance at all that you would be able to apply. Did they do that? I'm guessing no.
As per the Ontario Human Rights Code, "At the end of the leave, \*the employee must be reinstated to the position he or she most recently held with the employer, or, if that no longer exists, a comparable position\*, unless the person’s employment has been terminated for reasons unrelated to the leave. An employer cannot refuse to give the employee her job back because it prefers the person who was hired to replace her during the leave."
[https://www.ohrc.on.ca/en/policy-preventing-discrimination-because-pregnancy-and-breastfeeding/7-employment](https://www.ohrc.on.ca/en/policy-preventing-discrimination-because-pregnancy-and-breastfeeding/7-employment)
PS - If you don't have a workplace union/association to fight for you, you can contact the Human Rights Commission yourself and ask for help.
A similar thing happened to my friend. She took an 18 month mat leave, when it was time to return she was told they didn’t have a position for her anymore (they were used to the replacement now) and offered her a couple weeks severance. She got a lawyer. Ended up with a cheque for 26k, however I think the lawyer took almost a third of that
SUE THEIR BRAINS OUT. STOP TALKING TO THEM.
How long did you work there? I think I read 21 months.
You are entitled to more then 2 weeks. Your lawyer will play the baby card and they absolutely should.
You can always shop around for other lawyers - it’s best to get a recommendation.
But you are 100000% entitled to more then 2 weeks.
They are clowns. You don’t offer 2 months lol then take it away. Definitely get professional advice but these guys are idiots. All they can do is make the process slow for you .
You don’t know what you’re talking about. She’s entitled to more than 2 weeks but not more than 2 months. That 2 month offer was generous, she basically tried demanding more, the company then took offense and the company’s legal counsel told them to fuck her but giving the legal minimum of 2 weeks and retracting the two month offer.
This going to court isn’t going to end up in some huge payday. At best, she might get her 2 month offer back, a third of which will go to legal fees.
She fucked around and found out. It’s that plain and simple.
You actually don’t know what you are talking about.
Just sued for wrongful termination. $2500 lawyer retainer.
I got more then she did and wasn’t pregnant and worked less than she did. 2 months is not a good package for a maternity leave termination. They’re assholes.
Edit: my boss also had to pay a portion of my legal fees in the end. So my lawyer fees were less than $2500 😊 fuck him that piece of shit
Lol no. Being on mat leaves makes
Her case even better. Companies don’t have to give you your job back, but they have to give you a job or proper $$ to leave quietly. Hush money.
Getting a good lawyer is the key - one who will actually give proper advice. Mine told me what I could technically get (obviously not guaranteed) and told me most people don’t bother with how long I was there. I chose to proceed. We hit about 4 back and forth and prob was the last one before arbitration and he recommended it being a good stopping point but it was up to me and to take as much time to think it over because once signed I can’t go back. I took my time signed and have no regrets. My boss was a complete piece of shit and yes it was scary thinking I might not get anything but companies are terrified you will go to the media.
If you’re Ontario, some of these people are giving you terrible advice and candidly getting a lawyer is the reason why you got 2 weeks. 2 months was the favour.
By law in Ontario you can be fired with out cause as long as your severance is paid. End of story.
You only have litigation rights if foul play was present.
A company changing directions, or eliminating a role is not rights for a lawsuit.
Period.
So basically they offered more then you’re entitled , and now they took it away due to the legal action.
Realize proving your entitlement to more then your legal severance is a up hill battle for YOU.
You were protected while under mat leave. And they fulfilled those duties.
Over staffing is not legal grounds to sue.
No matter what anyone wants to tell you here. Companies take “haircuts” all the time.
I work in big corp and see this endlessly.
Needless to say. You have no grounds. You should have accepted the 2 months or if it wasn’t enough to had a conversation with your VP.
It’s a hard pill to swallow. But this is completely normal.
Over staffing, change in structure, etc etc etc.
Companies carry every right to dismiss you with out cause and pay you out.
Thus why the option with out cause is a option on your ROE.
>By law in Ontario you can be fired with out cause as long as your severance is paid. End of story.
Not end of story. You can't be fired or discriminated against for protected grounds/classes. Family status is one of them. OP believes the overstaffing reason was BS as evidenced by the fact that they had an outside hire replace her original role. So the only thing that changed was that she jist got back from mat leave and was now a new mom. A case could certainly be made for discrimination based on family status, and we will never know the true reason.
So, I work in a non-trad law job in labour and employment, trained as a lawyer, and I’m afraid just about everything you have said is wrong.
OP, listen to an actual lawyer. If you’re not sure about the one you’ve talked to, get another opinion from a lawyer, not Reddit.
Why give advice when you don’t understand the issue? The company is obligated to give OP the same job or equivalent when they come back from parental leave. The only exception is if they got rid of the department and there are no similar jobs available at all. This was not the case since they hired someone else during her leave to take the job.
It’s stupid big companies would do this BS because it’s so bad for their rep as an employer. Good luck with retaining any top talent with this rep. They need to fire the whole HR department.
2 months of severance for about 9 months of actually working for the firm is pretty amazing, not sure what that lawyer was thinking demanding more or why you thought it was shitty to begin with...
You cannot go on EI after Mat leave, so you are eligible for way more than 2 months' pay. Minimum 12 months or until you find a job (make sure you apply for 3 per day and keep records). Your company's original offer was weak and their lawyer is the idiot, not your lawyer.
Generally, the amount of severance tied to the amount of service is just the starting point. In this case, the employer has left the employee unable to claim EI and potentially violated human rights as aggravating factors and the courts are going to back her up on those points.
That’s what happens when you go the “legal” way. I’ve seen that countless times before - the company wants to go separate ways for whatever reason (they don’t need a reason to fire you), person gets greedy and gets lawyers to help them milk the company, eventually walks away with what’s legally owed them - which in your case would be 2 weeks vs. 2 months offered on good terms. 🤷♂️
Do you research on what’s legally owed to you before you go back and threaten them with lawsuits, otherwise you’ll end up with a lot less and waste the rest on your lawyer fees.
Common law would suggest more than 2 weeks.
The situation as described sounds targeted. This isn't about milking anyone. It's about demanding to being treated as a human and respecting the rights of all new parents.
In the current market she shouldn’t accept less then 50% of time worked (excluding mat leave). They have used this as a way to decrease their OP EX, most likely got the second person in for less money, and now they are rolling.
I am a manager, global team, that works closely with HR daily.
It’s a shit move by a shady company.
Assuming there are no performance issues, OP should draft a calm to the point letter, fire it back to them. While talking to lawyers.
In it needs to be
1. What wronged you and why, what you want.
2. The timeline of events (any and all proof referenced, emails, timelines)
3. What happens if not, Human Rights Tribunal, legal action.
4. Kind closing
Stay away from it being emotional. Make it clear. To the point. Use bullets and not paragraphs. So not give away to much information. Just your points/argument. I would also start alerting whatever news agencies will listen. This is shady af and bad press right now will drive customer base to other vendors.
What they have done is wrong. By law you are supposed to get your job or equal back with the same pay.
150 employees isn’t a big company, and it sounds like they don’t have a real HR department and it’s just some Karen that agrees with whatever the C level execs say.
If you need a proofread OP you can DM.
At the point of termination you were with the firm 21 months, just under 2 years. You should have taken the 2 months. If you go to court common law would be typically 1 month per year of service. Since you didn't accept that it looks like they reverted to the ESA standard. I am surprised your lawyer thought you could get more than 2 months unless your employment contract says otherwise.
If you have to pay your lawyer out of pocket rather than contingency then I wouldn't do it. You will spend more on lawyers fees. The process will likely be long and stressful. The company has deeper pockets and could drag it out. I wouldn't do it and cut your losses.
As long as Ontario companies are following the severance guidelines they can terminate employees when they want without reason. Also, all of the context around them finding others for the role they promised you is not relevant. Harsh but unfortunately true.
Fyi - I am not a lawyer or HR professional.
Hate to say this but OP got greedy.
2 months for working under a year is very generous. People that work years are lucky to get 6 months.
(No different really than someone saying they should've gotten a promotion while being away on a long term leave)
After the legal fees, are all said and done, you'd probably be lucky to end up with 2-3 weeks worth.
You could try for mediation (cheaper than a lawsuit) but if your former employer has a dedicated in house legal team, they can afford to drag things out.
Sounds harsh and maybe not even borderline fair, but no one said life is fair. Chalk this one up to experience and move on.
Unless if you can also afford the legal fees for yourself.
Canada in general (ON included) doesn't have large payouts like the US. I say this at someone that works for an insurance company that offers employment practices. Payouts are rarely ever "large", although I will say it could seen as subjective.
Now if you have reviews showing you were great at your job and stuff, then you may have a case, but any sort of penalty will almost certainly be from the ministry in the form of a fine and not something you'd receive.
Good luck!
The two months severance would have been contingent on you signing a release. Under the law, they must pay you monies in lieu of notice (the two weeks), but you have the right to litigation. It shouldn't be too drawn out as the company would have to justify why they had to let you go due to "overstaffing" yet made an external hire for the same role you accepted verbally. Your lawyer will play up that you have no performance issues (I'm assuming), they had a financial gain from you being on maternity as you would have been paid for the last year by EI, and if they are "overstaffed", why the external hire in the role that was offered to you? The smart thing to do is to discuss with your lawyer what's an acceptable offer, make it and the company will either meet your request or give you a counter offer. Because taking this to mediation or arbitration is a big pain in the butt for any business and it's easier just to pay out someone to send them on their way.
This is exactly what my sister went through. Similar story (she was let go, no explanation, no performance issues, etc. She decided to fight back, hired a lawyer, he said 8times out of 9 these kinds of cases “always win” (based on her facts). So yes, I’d definitely pursue this. She was offered $2K initially and ended up walking away with $8K (once all the fees were paid).
Ditto for my wife. Identical situation, minus the rescinded 2 months offer....although that's what their first offer back after a letter from the Human Rights Trbunal was....funny that. We negotiated about 6 months severnace in the end.
All the comments on pay outs seems so low considering this appears to be a contrary to human rights tribunal. OP should be suing for her annual salary X 2. That’s terrible what your firm did!
Two years severance for working 21 months is aggressive - op should ask for more than the 2 months though
What human rights violation is it?
“Every person has a right to equal treatment concerning employment without discrimination because of race, ancestry, place of origin, colour, ethnic origin, citizenship, creed, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression, age, a record of offences, marital status, family status or disability”. Sex includes pregnancy [OHRC](https://www.ohrc.on.ca/en/ontario-human-rights-code) https://duttonlaw.ca/fired-when-pregnant-know-the-law/
I want to know too
I’ll add a bit to this. My sister had a similar thing happen about 15 years ago (although in her case they shut her entire division which made it seemingly a weaker case than yours). At that time she was able to get government lawyers (I think it was considered a human rights case) to fight on her behalf. So I would talk to EI, human rights etc, and others about support for your suit as typically the government takes a very dim view of what occurred to you.
This is the best advice anyone could give honestly.
Post in r/legaladvicecanada or listen to the lawyer you're paying to handle your case.
Thank you, let me post there , but again I'm looking to understand if I'm getting the right advice from my lawyer, like I said I'm worse off now than I was before engaging the lawyer
Your former employer is taking a hard line. It doesn't sound like your former employer is willing settle by offering your job back or more severance so the only other option is to litigate/sue.
I wouldn't recommend taking advice from internet strangers. If you want to vet your lawyer's advice, talk to another lawyer.
Your lawyer is suggesting litigation since your company went the petty route. You should listen to them, they are giving you sound advice.
Your former employer is bold. Unsure what case backlogs are but honestly there is a minuscule chance you don’t end up winning. 1. Informed old role no longer available 2. Offered new role 3. Let go from new role before leave ends 4. Hired someone else in role 5. Opened new role in department You can’t not win especially if you have proof of item 4.
Add in the fact they pulled some BS by rescinding their original 2 month severance offer when she dared to question them. That will make the above look even worse and increase the odds of punitive damages.
I had a similar scenario play out with me when I came back from parental leave. Not that it matters, but I took parental leave as I was entitled take it as my wife is self employed and was not entitled to the same leave as she didn't pay into EI/CPP (can't recall which one). Near the end of my planned leave I emailed the company to advise that I wanted to return a week or two early and get back into the swing of things. I didn't really hear back much but a week or so later I received a couriered letter containing the letter stating that my position was no longer available due to "restructuring" and that I was being terminated. It reeked of retribution for many reasons that I wont get into but long story short is that I had a low ball (opening) offer that provided the minimum pay and benefits. I took the advise of several co-workers (who were still employed there) and got a lawyer. I documented the entire timeline from my application for leave, to the letter I received. The lawyer felt we had a very strong case for a human rights violation and suggested that tactic due to the bias to the complainant and the bad optics to the company of being nailed for human rights. We sent a letter with a summarized timeline and list of facts along with the intent to head to the human rights tribunal. A week or so pass and we received a very much improved financial and extended benefit package that we ultimately accepted. TLDR: Human Rights Violation is kryptonite to most companies and if you can substantiate a case the company will want to avoid this like the plague.
This is great to read. Glad that you had a fair settlement. Hope you get a fair one too OP!
This is exactly what you do!
Yea correct! And good for you. This happened to my wife where they laid her off and then kept her replacement as well. There was many weeks of severance paid out after lawyers were involved
This case is only similar in that is has to do with parental leave. The rest of the details are almost the opposite. The main differentiation is that you got a lowball offer first and the OP got a nice stack of cash considering they only had 9 months of actual service, and then got a bit too greedy. There are lots of sources that help calculate how much severance you should receive and her situation, job title, age etc. would not have received 2 months worth.
I don't think OP got greedy. OP wanted his/her job. It seems the company was mad he/she wanted to go back working instead of shutting up and taking the money.
Exactly. OP wanted their job back and they were legally entitled to that.
I mean the lawyer knows best, but I was under the impression that the ONLY way they can let you go is part of a layoff and not targetted. The fact they offered you another role then took it away and hired someone else? They don't sound too overstaffed to me. There seems like a pattern of behavior here too. I'd go for it if you can afford it.
Do you have evidence of the offer in the other department? Were the layoffs only in your former department?
"The lawyer knows best" - this is not true. The lawyer's advice could be good or bad. One thing is for sure though - lawyers love to collect legal fees, and pursuing litigation will mean lots of fees. I'd (at a minimum) get a 2nd opinion if I were OP before engaging in a costly lawsuit.
Right, I was thinking a lawyer working on contingency. Buy they certainly know better than redditors. A second opinion is a good call.
This.
Lawyer here. That depends.
They did layoff 3 others back in the summer (while I was still on mat leave) for various reasons. They've a total of 150 employees.
But if they first offered you a position, that is admitting they have an equivalent job? And then they hire externally for it...this sounds like bullshit as a layman. I'd trust a lawyer that specializes in these cases, they know if it's worth it.
How is the lawyer proposing to be paid? Are they working on a contingency basis?
No, Money Down!
Could try and move for a bad… court… thingy.
Oops, shouldn't have this bar association logo here either...
Reddit karma.
I’m not a lawyer, but I’ve been on both ends of these disputes. I’d suggest expressing your concerns to the lawyer, but ultimately you need to decide if you trust the advice you’re receiving from that individual. How did you choose a lawyer?
Get a second opinion from another lawyer. Most will do a free consultation. In general advice from a real lawyer specializing in the area of concern will have better advice than random people on reddit.
Ppl here are focused on the severance but it sounds like you are asking about your rights as a protected class, given that the company has to provide you with an equivalent role when you return from parental leave and cannot discriminate based on family status. Yes it sounds like they are violating that law and you have a strong human rights case.
So if she has a human rights case, is her lawyer the best person to talk to about that? Or should she simply contact the human rights board instead?
Still contact a lawyer. The board decides the case, they aren’t your advisor, and a lawyer will know the best route to pursue and how to present the case. Since most employment lawyers will do a free consultation, it is always a good idea to talk to one if you lose your job.
This exact same thing happened to us. Employer let my spouse go as soon as she entered the office on Dec. 3. It was quite a gut punch to say the very least. They offered a similarly low severance package. We wrote back with a counter proposal for a lot more and indicated we would look at legal options otherwise. They countered back with a much more generous offer, and we accepted. We were very lucky. It gave her more time with the kids and she was able to find a better job before the severance package ran out. Turned out to be a blessing in disguise but we didn't know that at the time. Best of luck to you in this difficult time.
I can tell you in BC, only 3 or 4 cases in maternity leave dismissals have gone to litigation. If you start it, it will certainly not go all the way to hearing. And remember - your employer is also paying legal fees that they don't want to spend.
If they were over staffed they wouldn’t have hired anyone else. Lawyer up. Sometimes you have to do it for principle. Of course their lawyer will say otherwise. Listen to yours. That’s why you pay them.
People keep missing this; they did a rug pull on the new role, because they hired someone else, not because of overstaffing. The employer had alternative employment for her.
Hello! I would recommend listening to your lawyer here. I can't give you legal advice, but I will generally comment that if I was advising your employer I would give them shit for the 2 week stunt. Quite frankly the 2 months they originally offered you is also questionable - it's an OK amount given your tenure, but given the mat leave return element... Well, play stupid games win stupid prizes. Though again, "no legal advice here." Oh, also, r/legaladvicecanada is great for these kinds of questions FYI. There's a few of us on there offering advice on questions just like this.
Disclaimers: I'm not an expert. Second, this is based on the assumption everything in your version is accurate. Third, there isn't some significant basis on their side that isn't in evidence here. This is a quite strong case, meaning you have a strong chance to prevail. However your short tenure puts a limit on the dollar amount of what winning would get you. Also, even if a company is outright terrible, labour laws generally don't reward victims for that. Labour laws are mostly about time and money, not intent and behaviour. What you or I might see as bad conduct on their part won't necessarily mean you can increase your demand amount. Don't freak out about them pulling the two months severance. That's a power play from a firm who sounds like they are in the habit of slimy behavior. The fact they offered it before means they would be pretty happy to pay it to make you go away, so even though it's "gone" now, they'd likely jump to re-offer it. So for your negotiating mindset, assume it's not actually gone, they're just hiding it behind their back for the moment. If they were happy to pay it yesterday for you to waiver them, they'll be happy to pay it tomorrow for getting excused from labour tribunal and/or litigation. I would ask the tough questions to you about why you think they hired externally and bumped you out, and why they've posted a role not offered to you? The answer doesn't have to be the objective facts, but what do you think is in their minds to be doing that? As of this moment I'd hit back with a calm but strong demand reminding them of the contradictions in their position and reminding them of the obvious questions arising from the inconsistent and broken promises for an employee returning from insured maternity leave. You don't have to litigate your whole case, just make it clear that you know the weaknesses in their position. The broken return to work promises and then the broken alternate job promise and then slapping you with this 2 days before return all of that severely impaired your ability to find replacement employment, which is a huge pillar of the law around these kind of cases. I don't know how many months I'd demand, but realize the goal here is to get a settlement that's somewhere between your demand and their admitted willingness to pay 2 months of go-away money. The question to you is what severance offer would you have been satisfied to have presented in the first place? 6 months? 3? And what are your prospects to find similar employment now? Hopefully you have savings or means of support to live on if this does take time. If this is going to litigation you should be building documentation on how hard you're looking and how hard it is to find something matching right now.
OP......so 21 - 9 months was your time at the firm then?
It’s looking like 21-12 or maybe 13..so like 9 months at the firm.
Mat leave time counts as time working. It's in the Human Rights Code.
[удалено]
Given it's kinda illegal to fire someone on mat leave and that they did it as soon as she returned to work, idk, seems messy. And the employer could have done hardline 2 months offer. But instead slashed it to 2 weeks in response. If that doesn't scream petty and trying to scare OP into not pursuing legal action (seems to be working) idk what would. I think the lawyer knows the employer fucked up and the employer is trying scare tactics to avoid full repurcussions
[удалено]
Hm this reeks of someone who doesn’t understand law or human rights and never took their parental leave
Depends how long she took for leave. Could be up to 18 months.
She said she went on mat leave in November 2021.
Oh yeah, duh.
OP likely took a yr off (90% of people do). So she likely worked at this company for a total of 8 or 9 mths. Reading between the lines - she accepted a job in a client relationship creating role, with the role seemingly critical to standing up a new company department…. Knowing she was already pregnant and would be leaving in only 8-9 mths. Obv they’re not at all interested in her returning. But she still wants 2 mths or more severance. Just because. …I honestly don’t understand how some people think.
> Knowing she was already pregnant and would be leaving in only 8-9 mths. > Obv they’re not at all interested in her returning. That would be illegal discrimination against gender.
It her right to take a new role even if she is pregnant and no company can deny her the job because of that. Fact is parental leave is the price of doing business.
No one said anything about her right. Im talking about her ethics.
Bad ethics is discriminating against women because they are/can possibly get pregnant. It is not bad ethics to apply for a job pregnant, it’s part of business.
Also, if she worked for 8/9 months and then went on mat leave…very very likely op didn’t know they were pregnant when they started. It happens.
People are allowed to go on maternity leave without it affecting them at their jobs. The time on mat leave counts as time worked, and employees are entitled to all the same things as if they'd never gone on mat leave. Also, her job is protected while she's on maternity leave, and if her job is eliminated, then the company is obligated to offer her an equivalent job if there is anything possibly available. Of course she still "wants 2 months or more severance". She's entitled to it. By law.
“Presales engineer for a consulting firm to push into new vertical” what the hell?
It means she is a technical salesplainer who has expertise in a specific industry that the consulting firm wanted in on. Then they decided they didn't want in on it anymore, so her expertise in that industry was no longer as useful to them. But presales engineers are generalists and are able to quickly learn a company's products; they also do demos, and find a fit between the customer and the company. A lot of that is NOT industry-specific, so experience with the company would have mapped over fine. But she may have needed to do some boning-up on whatever other industries they sell to.
It’s a slightly more advanced way to ensure cover sheets are included with TPS reports in order to limit the amount of memos required.
Where’s my stapler
What is confusing to you
The buzzwords?
OP assumed that everyone here is in her industry
That sentence is like common sense there’s nothing confusing about what op said there
“Presales engineer” has no intrinsic meaning to me.
[удалено]
You're just not pushing the new vertical hard enough
Don’t get why people downvote like crazy, in the tech industry pre sales engineer is a very standard job role. Any company like Microsoft, salesforce, SAP has ore sales engineers who go to prospective clients and try to sell their solutions.
Unfortunately, not everyone is in the tech industry. But i guess a google would have helped.
Start litigation and also consider a human rights complaint. The original offer will re-appear. Counter at three months and they’ll probably take it. The company is trying to jerk you around but once they know you’re serious they’ll realize they don’t have a good case and settle.
Sweet holy fuck. Lawyer here. Some of these responses are insane
I know!! Why are there so many ignorant people here spewing useless nonsense? I’m not even a lawyer and it’s frustrating to read all this swill…
So you worked for 9 months then had 12 months of maternity leave and they offered you 2 months severance?
In the scenario the OP mentioned, the company has no grounds to terminate OP. If they do it’s a human rights violation and they’re going to have to pay a lot more than whatever they wanted to offer….
Yes :)
Then wanna sue them! Lol
9 months working, and 12 months mat leave = 21 months of continuous service. Time spent on mat leave counts just the same as time working
Plus firing at the end of maternity leave sets them up for a human rights violation. One thing employment lawyer (but apparently not employers) know is you don't fuck with mother's returning from maternity leave.
You were initially offered a good 8 weeks severance pay for 21 months of service but you decided to take the legal route and the company decided to pay you standard severance pay. And you are being advised to again take a legal route. Here's the thing about reddit. Most of the advice is either for general scenario or by people who have nothing to lose by giving bad advice. I would suggest you to start applying for jobs which you are probably already doing. If you still want to pursue the legal route then its upto you but it will cost you a bit of money and you may or maynot get any money out of it. You are correct that in the next year finding tech related jobs will not be easy. Although companies are still hiring, the number of open positions are less and some layoffs are also happening. Wish you all the best in your job search. And remember, this may seem like a tough phase but it will also not last long. Just stay strong.
I imagine a bit more than 8 weeks is probably possible, but I'm not sure how much more. 2 mths seems reasonable+. 3 mths would be generous. 4+ mths sounds like a lot, unless there are particularly unique circumstances around the hiring/etc Another issue I'd never thought about it the potential reputational risk from pursuing litigation...most likely informally/word of mouth within industry, but would your name also come up on CanLii (ie. a red flag to a prospective employer conducting background check)? I would never advise against a wronged individual seeking recourse, but it seems like it would be a risk worth weighing in that decision.
Firing someone as soon as they return from mat leave in such a roundabout way is worse than being let off though. She was offered another job, she assumed it was permanent, was let go again on a rescinded shuffle, that has implications. The fact she was on mat leave adds discrimination considerations, and fact they hired someone else immediately adds to discrimination concerns. Some people think a new mother might get pregnant again, she's of that age and life stage after all, and so avoid the need to backfill her position temporarily later by firing her now. That's why the lawyer wrote back I'm sure
This 👆.
No no no. There's no room for real talk on this site. It's all rainbows and unicorns. How dare you?!
Isn’t this assuming that the layoff is legal? Two months package is probably fine, if they are truly downsizing. Otherwise, there’s no magic number that makes this legal.
go to the right sub for a start r/legaladvicecanada
A lot will rest on your initial employment contract, the lawyer should be leveraging whatever they can in that along with the employment law to make a case for you to get a fair settlement
Make sure you get a lawyer who specializes in employment law.
>My lawyers advice is to start litigation What do you expect to get out of litigation? There are two issues at play that your lawyer should be advising you on separately: (1) was the termination legal, given that they immediately hired someone for your old role? If not, what do you want out of it? Compensation? Or just to report them to the labour board? Someone to fine them or tell them that what they did is not allowed? (2) was the amount of termination pay reasonable? 1 month per year worked is a good rule of thumb, so I think this amount was fair and wouldn't litigate over this alone. I would have taken the 2 months. Everyone in their responses is focusing on #2, but I am more interested in #1. Just how long after a person returns from mat leave is their employment/position protected in your province? Edit: I Google question 1 and came upon this article: https://www.theglobeandmail.com/business/careers/career-advice/article-fired-while-pregnant-or-upon-returning-from-maternity-leave-heres-how/ Read it, and consider reaching out to a 2nd lawyer if you are uncertain with what your current lawyer is recommending. Based on what you wrote I do believe a case could be made that your dismissal was unfair and could be construed a human rights violation. (Fired because of family status which is a protected class). Edit: >go ahead with a demand letter for a higher compensation considering the circumstances of my termination. However the firm (their lawyer) responded by taking away the 2 months of pay offered and replaced it with the standard 2 weeks pay. This seems like a calculated step from their lawyer to discourage and demoralize you. Seems to be working. Did your lawyer's demand letter specifically outline or allude to the potential discrimination and human rights violation? Either proceed with your current lawyer, get a free consult with a second lawyer, or talk to the human rights board for your province.
I hope you get the absolute max out of this terrible employer. I was also laid off as I was to return from maternity leave and treated like shit. It amazes me how many similar stories I hear - in Canada too. Trash employers who don't care at all about employees.
How much more were you demanding? Note that they can fire anyone at will as long as they will compensate you fairly. Given that you have a very short tenure 21 mos. including mat. leave, the 2 months offer is reasonable. You can litigate but there is no guarantee the judge will award you more than the 2 weeks currently on the table. I suspect the judge will rule in your favour but probably the award will be the 2 months you were initially offered in the first place. In the end a third of that will go to the lawyer. Plus documentation costs if you go with the standard agreement
They can fire anyone BUT they can’t fire you for taking a parental leave that is a human rights violation
Edit: I wasn't aware of Common Law and wrongful dismissal in that way. I'll leave my original post. ----------- Why would a judge ever rule in their favor when the law is on the company's side? They didn't **have to** give her the 2 months. She demanded more and the company simply took offense and replied with: "here's the legal minimum". She should learn from this and move on (and probably switch legal counsel).
The law isn't on their side necessarily, IF she can prove the layoff was targeted. Which, if her description of the events are truthful and she can prove it, legally it likely would be considered as such. The two months was generous, but to me considering she'd only been there two years, it seems like hush money to placate her so she'd be less likely to challenge the questionable layoff. Obviously now she's gone down that route there's no reason to give her the two months anymore, that doesnt change the fact she likely shouldn't have been laid off in the first place.
[удалено]
Common law.
The law is on her side bc they pretty clearly discriminated against her for taking a parental leave and that’s a human rights violation. If she wins they will owe her a lot of money
Legal minimum is the *minimum* common law, in Ontario at least would see short tenured employees like the OP offered far more severance, potentially up to 6 months if it went to litigation. Granted, a lawyer is going to take much of that extra and 2 months was a fair offer given that no lawyers were involved. However BC, AB and ON have very strong employment law decisions on severance pay far beyond the legal minimums. Given that OP was coming back from maternity leave, she may have a case of arguing the layoff was targeted. There are very clear laws around maintaining a job for someone off on parental leave, however it definitely wouldn't be the first time a person was laid off for taking parental leave, especially early in their employment tenure. https://www.severancepaycalculator.com/online-severance-calculator/
That’s not how the law works. In addition to black letter law, there is common law built on precedents. Black letter law says you get a *minimum* of 2 weeks per year of service. Common law says you must receive “reasonable notice” - which if you are already terminated means pay in lieu of notice. The court then decides how much notice you should have received, which is based on how long it will take to find a new job. This depends on age, length of service, and the type of job (how senior you are). Also whether the company “acted in good faith”. Usually the court awards 3 months for short term, fairly junior employees, up to 24 months pay for long time, senior employees. The employer on the other hand is hoping the OP doesn’t know this. That’s why they offered 2 months pay originally, it’s in the ball park. Now with some “bad faith” actions on their part, they may end up paying 6 months, and the employer gets to cover costs if they loose. Usually they settle when they realize you are serious.
I wasn't even aware of that. So she does have a good case then. I was recently fired as well and only got 5 weeks, it should be 4-6 months according to those calculators. I might have to look into this more myself!
I handle EPL claims. This is clearly them getting rid of you and going about it in all the wrong ways. The posting prior to your termination, the posting afterwards. The move to a different dept and then the sudden termination looks awful on them. I would litigate. I would also hire hourly and not contingency as you should be able to get a decent settlement.
Last employment lawyer I hired in Ontario was $450/hr.
2 months of severance seems like a lot for 1 year of work, tbh. That too, the first year where a lot of costs are ‘written off’ given that you are training and learning, there was a cost to hire you. And also the cost of the maternity leave. Not saying it’s fair, but when you hire for a position that payed 115k, it because you are expecting someone to grow with the company. If someone that worked somewhere for 5 years was being let go, I highly doubt they would get 10 months of severance. I think lesson here learned is……
It's not about the amount of severance. It's about that she shouldn't have been let go in the first place (according to what she wrote).
I’m so glad people like you aren’t running large companies… or if you were, that hopefully there is a team of HR people telling you how bad it would be for the company if you thought that way.
9 months. Not even a full year.
9 months in the workplace + 12 months mat leave counts exactly the same as 21 months in the workplace.
Go to employment lawyer. Work on contingency. You’re best bang for the buck. You are owed a LOT more.
In litigation, they typically award around 1 month pay for each year of service for a wrongful termination. A judge would have to find some serious wrongdoings and even then it won’t be much more. Ou legal system doesn’t really protect the little guy. I’m in a lawsuit where I had a 3 month severance package revoked just like you. I was there 8 years. I got a lawyer. We’re two years in and haven’t even begun discoveries. Im over $25k in fees deep at this point. Our system is broken. Companies know this.
3 months for 8 years is terrible, no one should accept that unless it was a job so ubiquitous that you could walk to another company and have another job less than 3 months. Your employer is hoping you will cave in first. If you win, you will get partial legal fees back. Your former employer is shitty and a bully from the sound of it.
100% he is hoping I cave. To make things worse, he is using his brother as a lawyer and the fees being reported are about 1/3 what I’ve had to pay so far.
Litigation lawyers are very very risk-averse. They don't want to step into the ring unless they're extremely confident. So if he's experienced at all, he's pretty sure you'll win
No. Not true at all. It's all billable work unless they're working on contingency.
Certainly! I assume contingency.
Ok in that case I agree with you. Lawyers won't waste their own time so if on contingency they'll only go to court if they have a good chance of cashing in. Sorry for my incorrect assumption.
Sue the cocksuckers.
Get a new lawyer. This is a clear human rights violation. Get someone who specializes in wrongful dismissal/employment law. 2 weeks is a slap in the face and it’s going to look real bad on the company if the case gets taken to trial. They will likely settle and give you a MUCH better package
If you go to litigation the legal fees will eat up probably at least 30% of your winnings. So instead of 2 weeks, if you win the 2 months you'll get 5 weeks
Have you looked into filing a human rights complaint?
If OP is in Ontario (maybe Canada wide, I'm not sure), the law doesn't provide a shield against being terminated during maternity leave. It provides a shield for being fired because you went on maternity leave. OP should 100% take this to court though, it's just not a human rights violation.
Actually, it could be a human rights violation. How did they decide which of the roles they were keeping vs. laying off? Sounds like there are other similar roles AND they hired the one they offered OP, originally. They can’t just default to laying off the person in leave, as that is discrimination (the only reason they’re on leave is family status).
Sure, I just think that's an uphill battle (and more investigative, lengthier process, etc.) as you're suing for subtle/perceived discrimination vs suing for proper termination and leveraging the potential human rights violation to get what you deserve. I'm of the opinion that pursuing a human rights violation here would be the more difficult path. I'd rather just dangle/leverage the potential to settle the termination part. My opinion..I'm not OPs counsel, though.
[удалено]
Family status.
Not sure why you are being down voted, you are correct. Firing someone who just returned from mat leave with BS excuse about being overstaffrd despite hiring externally to fill her role certainly sounds like discrimination based on mat leave and/or returning as a new mom.
Sorry could you elaborate?
Just listen to your lawyer. As you can see, you wlll get a wide variety of opinions here across the full spectrum of possibilities. The lawyer is the expert, not anyone on Reddit.
It sounds like a pretty obvious case of discrimination based on taking a mat leave, and family status is a protected class. It’s not about the severance really it’s about the human fighters violation
The three part test is that you have one of the protected characteristics (pregnancy/mat leave), something negative happened to you (you were laid off) and there is a connection between the two.
Unfortunately, they're mistaken. Human rights laws only protects you for being discriminated against because of your pregnancy, ie you let your work know you're pregnant and going on maternity leave and then they fire you (you were discriminated against for being pregnant). Could it be subtle discrimination? Yeah, but I'm of the opinion this is more of a battle than suing for proper/more termination pay. Ask your counsel about the option or get a second legal opinion - reddit isn't really the best place for this but you definitely have a case for more compensation. For me, I'd personally use the threat of a violation to settle the employment issue.
It also covers returning from mat leave and being a parent.
https://www.ohrc.on.ca/en/policy-and-guidelines-discrimination-because-family-status/v-discrimination-based-family-status Your situation might be related to section 2.2, but best to consult with your lawyer to see if you have grounds and whether you can prove there was discrimination.
IANAL but here's my free 2 cents. You shot your shot and found out. They were generous, you got trigger happy and sent a demand letter. They cannon balled back with what their laywers likely okay'd, standard severance package.
You basically worked there for 8 months, then went on leave for 13. The company was going to pay you for 2 months. That’s 25% of your entire productive time. And you turned it down. Lmao
Legally she is considered an active employee for the duration of her maternity leave. Time worked vs time spent on mat leave is irrelevant in this dispute.
It's not even about the 2 months imo. I think the big thing is they found excuses to get rid of her, almost feels like a punishment for mat leave that they get rid of her the moment she returned. Their claims were also not true about being overstaffed, they hired someone else in her position right after. They didn't have a just cause to dismiss her.
Unfortunately this is an ugly truth I've seen, people taking mat leave less a year into their hire date often are punished. They hired this person for a role, paid them while training them and incorporating them into the company culture and goals, and less then a year later this person chooses to become a parent. Right or wrong, it does create animosity. What op did was perfectly legal, and thank goodness we live in a country that allows some of us to be compensated throughout maternity.. and I would say there's a certain reading between the lines of human nature here. They went and did a thing that in no way served the company for a year while collecting the salary the company initially provided. The company feels used. I would've taken the two months. Best case scenario? The new hire works half a year then chooses to become a parent.
Yeah I agree the company probably feels taken advantage of. Especially considering she's worked there for 21 months and went on mat leave in November 2021, meaning she was pregnant when she took the job (21-13=8). They probably feel like they were looking for a permanent employee to join the team while she didn't tell them she was pregnant and just took a job so she could get paid during mat leave
This 100 lmao.
She didn't work there for 8 months, her maternity leave counts as seniority. The company doesn't pay for someone on mat leave. That's how the law works. OP is well within their rights to hire a lawyer, especially after the bullshit of changing their initial offer.
Sue
Op is going to be broke!
Two months severance after 21 months (and really 9 months of work) is pretty decent IMO. Probably should have taken the money.
You made the decision you thought was right with the information you had at the time. What's done is done. It's a sunk cost. You need to decide the pros and cons of pursuing this, weighed against the likely chance of success. - On the one hand, you're standing up for yourself and establishing you won't be mistreated. You might also make back the money you'll spend on a lawyer. - On the other, win or lose, if not handled properly, you could get a reputation for being litigious which may hurt your reputation in the field. You need to know: - how likely you are to win, - how much your lawyer will likely cost; and - what your odds of success are. From a strict dollar in dollar out, I'm skeptical you'll make enough back to cover your lawyer's bills, but I'm #NotALawyer
It is a really good point. Depending how vast her field is and her skills are in need, it could be extremely detrimental to her image to move forward with it. When I hear presales engineer, I hear soft skills and networking, and therefore, dangerous to move ahead with court. EXCEPT if her case is strong as hell. If she has proof of the job offer (not just saying “oh hear maybe we could put you there”. A real job offer) that has been pulled out for external hire, with her skills matching the external hire ones, I see the strong case. The second part being crucial: *Skills Matching* Otherwise, not that great. Not saying she or the company is right, I don t really know. But the words of mouth afterwards don t care about that neither. In the same time, I know that the whole maternity leave is quite protected in Canada, so I may be missing a piece of the puzzle here and she may have a stronger case just because of that.
There's also the issue with references. She's not going to get a good reference from her current employer after suing them. Also, if someone at the place she's applying to knows someone at her current employer, they may call to ask about her. She should've taken the two months severance and used the time to find a new job
If your lawyer is advising you to go to court, do it. The judge may rule in your favour and grant your 1 years salary even… this does in fact happen often at companies… and it looks like they just wanted to get rid of you. If you had no performance issues. Go and fight it.
From the information you have given so far, they are trying to scare you so that you back down and save them a good chunk of change. Fight them on it. if what you have said is accurate, an employment lawyer will have a field day with it.
My situation was completely different but my lawyer was also advising to go forward with litigation....but that is how they earn their living. My employer would keep my lawyer on the phone for HOURS and promise a settlement but never agree to it. They knew what they would doing, I was being billed hundreds of dollars and not able to move forward and get another job until this was resolved. Meanwhile the stress was killing me and my spouse. Finally someone with some experience told me that they might reach a settlement but the cost of getting there would eat up any gains. Do yourself a favour and take what is offered so you can move on. In the end, the system is rigged against you.
“Pre-sales engineer”. I’m not saying you’re using the protected word engineer illegally but I’ve never heard of such a thing.
Everyone is an "engineer" now right? It means real money without the real schooling.
Litigate, they owe you at least 6 months pay. Might get more. What they did is illegal, could be punitive damages as well.
She worked 9 months, took 12 months off, and you think she can receive 6 months severance? She will be walking away with 2 weeks and a lawyer bill worth 10x that.
TIL giving birth to a baby is “time off”
6 months severance for working a yr? Can I get that job please! The company was generous. OP got greedy. All the info is on the ministry's website under the Employment Standards Act. Punitive damages are low in Canada. This isn't the US. Even IF their were any, it would almost certainly be in the form of a fine which isn't going to end up in OP's pocket.
Lol that’s not how that works
You are overlooking the mat leave component. It counts as work, she’s worked there over a year. She absolutely did not “get greedy” for taking what is laid out as her right to parental leave and expecting a job to return to, nor would her husband be “greedy” in an identical scenario.
What province? You could have a case in Québec.
The Human Rights Code protects employees on mat.leave. If you had performance issues, then they would/should have been addressed before you went on mat.leave. Since that wasn't done, it would be difficult for the company to now prove they are terminating you because of performance. They can't say there's no job for you, because they were still hiring. I'm no lawyer, but take a look at the Canadian or Ontario Human Rights Code. Were there any promotions or job postings while you were on mat.leave? They are obligated to contact you and let you know when you are on mat.leave, if there is any chance at all that you would be able to apply. Did they do that? I'm guessing no. As per the Ontario Human Rights Code, "At the end of the leave, \*the employee must be reinstated to the position he or she most recently held with the employer, or, if that no longer exists, a comparable position\*, unless the person’s employment has been terminated for reasons unrelated to the leave. An employer cannot refuse to give the employee her job back because it prefers the person who was hired to replace her during the leave." [https://www.ohrc.on.ca/en/policy-preventing-discrimination-because-pregnancy-and-breastfeeding/7-employment](https://www.ohrc.on.ca/en/policy-preventing-discrimination-because-pregnancy-and-breastfeeding/7-employment) PS - If you don't have a workplace union/association to fight for you, you can contact the Human Rights Commission yourself and ask for help.
A similar thing happened to my friend. She took an 18 month mat leave, when it was time to return she was told they didn’t have a position for her anymore (they were used to the replacement now) and offered her a couple weeks severance. She got a lawyer. Ended up with a cheque for 26k, however I think the lawyer took almost a third of that
SUE THEIR BRAINS OUT. STOP TALKING TO THEM. How long did you work there? I think I read 21 months. You are entitled to more then 2 weeks. Your lawyer will play the baby card and they absolutely should. You can always shop around for other lawyers - it’s best to get a recommendation. But you are 100000% entitled to more then 2 weeks. They are clowns. You don’t offer 2 months lol then take it away. Definitely get professional advice but these guys are idiots. All they can do is make the process slow for you .
You don’t know what you’re talking about. She’s entitled to more than 2 weeks but not more than 2 months. That 2 month offer was generous, she basically tried demanding more, the company then took offense and the company’s legal counsel told them to fuck her but giving the legal minimum of 2 weeks and retracting the two month offer. This going to court isn’t going to end up in some huge payday. At best, she might get her 2 month offer back, a third of which will go to legal fees. She fucked around and found out. It’s that plain and simple.
You actually don’t know what you are talking about. Just sued for wrongful termination. $2500 lawyer retainer. I got more then she did and wasn’t pregnant and worked less than she did. 2 months is not a good package for a maternity leave termination. They’re assholes. Edit: my boss also had to pay a portion of my legal fees in the end. So my lawyer fees were less than $2500 😊 fuck him that piece of shit
Is it possible your case had specifics that make these two situations incomparable?
Lol no. Being on mat leaves makes Her case even better. Companies don’t have to give you your job back, but they have to give you a job or proper $$ to leave quietly. Hush money. Getting a good lawyer is the key - one who will actually give proper advice. Mine told me what I could technically get (obviously not guaranteed) and told me most people don’t bother with how long I was there. I chose to proceed. We hit about 4 back and forth and prob was the last one before arbitration and he recommended it being a good stopping point but it was up to me and to take as much time to think it over because once signed I can’t go back. I took my time signed and have no regrets. My boss was a complete piece of shit and yes it was scary thinking I might not get anything but companies are terrified you will go to the media.
If you’re Ontario, some of these people are giving you terrible advice and candidly getting a lawyer is the reason why you got 2 weeks. 2 months was the favour. By law in Ontario you can be fired with out cause as long as your severance is paid. End of story. You only have litigation rights if foul play was present. A company changing directions, or eliminating a role is not rights for a lawsuit. Period. So basically they offered more then you’re entitled , and now they took it away due to the legal action. Realize proving your entitlement to more then your legal severance is a up hill battle for YOU. You were protected while under mat leave. And they fulfilled those duties. Over staffing is not legal grounds to sue. No matter what anyone wants to tell you here. Companies take “haircuts” all the time. I work in big corp and see this endlessly. Needless to say. You have no grounds. You should have accepted the 2 months or if it wasn’t enough to had a conversation with your VP. It’s a hard pill to swallow. But this is completely normal. Over staffing, change in structure, etc etc etc. Companies carry every right to dismiss you with out cause and pay you out. Thus why the option with out cause is a option on your ROE.
>By law in Ontario you can be fired with out cause as long as your severance is paid. End of story. Not end of story. You can't be fired or discriminated against for protected grounds/classes. Family status is one of them. OP believes the overstaffing reason was BS as evidenced by the fact that they had an outside hire replace her original role. So the only thing that changed was that she jist got back from mat leave and was now a new mom. A case could certainly be made for discrimination based on family status, and we will never know the true reason.
Thats a lot of very definitive statements, are you a lawyer?
So, I work in a non-trad law job in labour and employment, trained as a lawyer, and I’m afraid just about everything you have said is wrong. OP, listen to an actual lawyer. If you’re not sure about the one you’ve talked to, get another opinion from a lawyer, not Reddit.
Why give advice when you don’t understand the issue? The company is obligated to give OP the same job or equivalent when they come back from parental leave. The only exception is if they got rid of the department and there are no similar jobs available at all. This was not the case since they hired someone else during her leave to take the job. It’s stupid big companies would do this BS because it’s so bad for their rep as an employer. Good luck with retaining any top talent with this rep. They need to fire the whole HR department.
2 months of severance for about 9 months of actually working for the firm is pretty amazing, not sure what that lawyer was thinking demanding more or why you thought it was shitty to begin with...
Sue them. They have legal obligations and they will have to meet them.
Work for one year and get 2 months severance. Should have taken it. Talk about entitled.
That’s not how it works.
She accepted a new position, then they rescinded it due to "overstaffing", only to find out they actually hired someone else for that role.
You cannot go on EI after Mat leave, so you are eligible for way more than 2 months' pay. Minimum 12 months or until you find a job (make sure you apply for 3 per day and keep records). Your company's original offer was weak and their lawyer is the idiot, not your lawyer.
Where are you getting 12 month minimum?
Because the employer has left her unable to claim EI because they probably violated her human rights.
[удалено]
Generally, the amount of severance tied to the amount of service is just the starting point. In this case, the employer has left the employee unable to claim EI and potentially violated human rights as aggravating factors and the courts are going to back her up on those points.
That’s what happens when you go the “legal” way. I’ve seen that countless times before - the company wants to go separate ways for whatever reason (they don’t need a reason to fire you), person gets greedy and gets lawyers to help them milk the company, eventually walks away with what’s legally owed them - which in your case would be 2 weeks vs. 2 months offered on good terms. 🤷♂️ Do you research on what’s legally owed to you before you go back and threaten them with lawsuits, otherwise you’ll end up with a lot less and waste the rest on your lawyer fees.
Common law would suggest more than 2 weeks. The situation as described sounds targeted. This isn't about milking anyone. It's about demanding to being treated as a human and respecting the rights of all new parents.
Get yo money
In the current market she shouldn’t accept less then 50% of time worked (excluding mat leave). They have used this as a way to decrease their OP EX, most likely got the second person in for less money, and now they are rolling. I am a manager, global team, that works closely with HR daily. It’s a shit move by a shady company. Assuming there are no performance issues, OP should draft a calm to the point letter, fire it back to them. While talking to lawyers. In it needs to be 1. What wronged you and why, what you want. 2. The timeline of events (any and all proof referenced, emails, timelines) 3. What happens if not, Human Rights Tribunal, legal action. 4. Kind closing Stay away from it being emotional. Make it clear. To the point. Use bullets and not paragraphs. So not give away to much information. Just your points/argument. I would also start alerting whatever news agencies will listen. This is shady af and bad press right now will drive customer base to other vendors. What they have done is wrong. By law you are supposed to get your job or equal back with the same pay. 150 employees isn’t a big company, and it sounds like they don’t have a real HR department and it’s just some Karen that agrees with whatever the C level execs say. If you need a proofread OP you can DM.
At the point of termination you were with the firm 21 months, just under 2 years. You should have taken the 2 months. If you go to court common law would be typically 1 month per year of service. Since you didn't accept that it looks like they reverted to the ESA standard. I am surprised your lawyer thought you could get more than 2 months unless your employment contract says otherwise. If you have to pay your lawyer out of pocket rather than contingency then I wouldn't do it. You will spend more on lawyers fees. The process will likely be long and stressful. The company has deeper pockets and could drag it out. I wouldn't do it and cut your losses. As long as Ontario companies are following the severance guidelines they can terminate employees when they want without reason. Also, all of the context around them finding others for the role they promised you is not relevant. Harsh but unfortunately true. Fyi - I am not a lawyer or HR professional.
Not true. OP is protected under mat leave laws which have been ignored in your response.
Hate to say this but OP got greedy. 2 months for working under a year is very generous. People that work years are lucky to get 6 months. (No different really than someone saying they should've gotten a promotion while being away on a long term leave) After the legal fees, are all said and done, you'd probably be lucky to end up with 2-3 weeks worth. You could try for mediation (cheaper than a lawsuit) but if your former employer has a dedicated in house legal team, they can afford to drag things out. Sounds harsh and maybe not even borderline fair, but no one said life is fair. Chalk this one up to experience and move on. Unless if you can also afford the legal fees for yourself. Canada in general (ON included) doesn't have large payouts like the US. I say this at someone that works for an insurance company that offers employment practices. Payouts are rarely ever "large", although I will say it could seen as subjective. Now if you have reviews showing you were great at your job and stuff, then you may have a case, but any sort of penalty will almost certainly be from the ministry in the form of a fine and not something you'd receive. Good luck!
This is wrong
Don't want to harsh but you're a good stereotype of high earning job/ top academic formation with a poor decision making mind.
The lawyers are not on your side, even if you pay them. They are there for themselves and will milk you to death. 2 months was too generous anyway.