My wife, Maggie, was fired from her job as a pre-school teacher in May 2009. She evidently violated one of their policies, which has more detail below.
La Petite Academy, one of those corporate chain outfits, refused to pay her accrued vacation when they terminated her. They evidently violated numerous sections of the Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act (IWPCA).
Maggie has what the great Texas songwriter, Guy Clark, calls "a playground sense of justice". Justice arrived in the mail recently, about 14 months after she was canned.
More below.
Maggie does indeed have Guy Clark's playground sense of justice and Rule #1 on the playground is stand up to bullies. She figured La Petite (hereinafter referred to as La Patoot) owed her about $600 in accrued vacation. For dKos folks in other parts of the country, La Patoot was bought out in 2007 by Learning Care Group, based in Novi, MI. Their website boasts of 1,061 schools under their corporate aegis, also doing business as The Children's Courtyard, Childtime Learning Centers, Montessori Unlimited and Tutor Time Childcare/Learning Centers. If you have children who attend these "educational" institutions you may want to look a little closer at them.
http://www.learningcaregroup.com/
La Patoot said they didn't owe Maggie accrued vacation. Maggie wasn't about to let this stand.
She was fired for allegedly not following one of their policies, which seem to have been devised by some fool of a Ph.D. in child development (online university, no doubt) who, in turn, pedaled it to the fools running the La Patoots. Among the actions by which she violated policy was telling a child (she had a class of 2-year olds)"no". You see you must never, ever, tell a child "no", regardless of the degree of imminent danger involved or how completely antisocial is the child's behavior. Biting another kid? Can't tell them no. Cross the street with traffic coming? Better not say it.
This also extended to things like comforting the child after they hurt themselves. Better not hug them and say, "you're OK", because that's denying the kid's feelings that they're hurt. Once again, these are toddlers we're talking about. I guess I didn't realize how damaged my fragile ego was when growing up, because my mom sure as hell didn't follow the teachings of the great Patoot.
I offer these examples to show that this wasn't a case of "gross misconduct", simply the violation of some petty (and pedagogically unsound) rules. The employer didn't contest her unemployment claim, but did contest her claim to accrued vacation (in retrospect I've got to wonder why they didn't just lay her off. The dwindling number of kids leaving the pre-school because of our wrecked economy would have justified that and she would have been eligible for unemployment benefits just the same. But I digress).
When she asked them their reasoning for not paying her accrued vacation, they tried to equivocate on the word "accrued", saying, yes, you've accrued vacation but you haven't earned it. According to their interpretation an employee accrues vacation throughout the year based on the number of hours worked but they don't earn it until--ta da--their anniversary date of hire. This worked out nicely for the employer: just can someone prior to their anniversary date and you don't have to pay any accrued vacation for that work year.
Maggie told 'em she was born at night but it wasn't last night and they've obviously never dealt with an Irish girl who's been wronged. They persisted in their fiction.
Maggie filed a claim with the Illinois Department of Labor's Law Division in July of 2009 after getting unemployment started. I should mention at this point that laws vary by state and filing a claim within a state's Department of Labor or other state entity is not always an option. When I worked in Missouri I was terminated and the employer didn't pay my accrued vacation. When I called the Department of Labor in Missouri I was told that the state of Missouri doesn't adjudicate disputes involving separation from employment and alleged vacation pay due. The Show-Me-State is the SOL-State in these cases and who in the hell has the money to pursue a claim with a private attorney for an amount that's likely to be less than the attorney's fee.
After she filed the claim there was a lengthy period in which nothing happened. Then Maggie received notice that there would be an investigative conference by telephone with the DOL and the parties involved. She did her homework, outlined a cogent argument for payment and anxiously waited for the conference. A few days before it was to occur, La Patoot requested an extension because one of their staff essential to the case was on vacation on the scheduled day.
It should be obvious but I will state this here. Companies like La Patoot
count on the fact that an ex-employee isn't going to have the time and resources to fight these kinds of claims. They assume (mostly correctly), that the ex-employee will be busy finding another job and once a new job is begun they count on the ex-employee's being unable to participate in a claims hearing because they're conducted during business hours Monday-Friday and the ex-employee can't get off work for it. They also just count on your wearing down and giving up. Their arrogance is palpable. It's ironic that their act of terminating her and becoming unemployed created the conditions whereby she was able to pursue the claim. Petard hoisting, anyone?
Finally, nine months after filing the claim, Maggie presented her case in an April 8, 2010 phone conference. The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) heard her account and La Patoot's account and requested additional materials and explanation from both parties, and set May 13th as the date for a followup conference. At that conference the ALJ seemed somewhat irritated that La Patoot hadn't provided all of the materials requested in the previous hearing. We took this as a good sign but who really knows in these matters.
The ALJ has up to eight weeks after the hearing phase of the process to render a decision. The decision was mailed to Maggie earlier this month in a notice dated July 6, 2010. For those of you good readers who have stayed with this diary until now, this is the really good part.
Judgment was made in favor of the Claimant, Maggie, ordering La Patoot to pay her the sum of $940.07 in unpaid vacation. Why that amount, you ask, when she had calculated around $600 due? It goes back to their arrogance and failure to comply with document requests.
Respondents failed to provide all payroll and employment records in strict compliance with 56 Ill Admin Code 300.630 showing, in each pay period, hours worked daily and wages and vacation earned and paid during the term of employment...It is well settled that a negative inference may be drawn when a party deliberately fails to produce evidence which that party would reasonably be expected to produce in support of that party's position.
So far, so good. Absent complete company records, the ALJ calculated the amount due on his own. $940 is preferable to $600, this we know. And with Maggie only days away from receiving her final unemployment check because of the unconscionable obstruction of the GOP in opposing an extension of benefits, this was a welcome bit of good news. But not the best news.
The respondents in this case were the CEO of Learning Care Group, its head of Human Resources, and the Director of the local La Patoot where Maggie had been employed.
The above-named individuals..are found to have been personally liable under Section 13 and 56 Ill Admin Code 300.620 of the Act and Rules.
I'm not sure what this means exactly but it sounds like it's more than just an "I was only following orders" role these Patoots played (can a lawyer or ALJ out there clarify this or is it just boilerplate language?).
Then came the statement that really made it all worthwhile.
Respondents are on notice to amend their practices and policies to comply with Illinois law. Repeated or continued violations of the Act may constitute a willful refusal to pay. (original emphasis). It is noted that "La Petite Academy" was subject to an acquisition in 2007. The Department had claims under the IWPCA against LPA before 2007. Thus, in this instance, there will not be a finding of "hindering and delaying" under the Act. Nonetheless, Respondents are admonished to comply immediately and fully with the IWPCA.
And an Irish curse on ye as well! Not only did Maggie get her some justice but La Patoot has been given notice that they're a rather large blip on the DOL radar screen now.
The check came earlier this week. Thanks for reading this diary and I want to end by going back to the title. We all need to celebrate small victories, particularly over the corporatocracy that seriously threatens our democracy, wherever we find them and however we define them. They probably sustain us better than bigger ones. And in the words of another Texas songwriter, Lyle Lovett, "some things my baby don't tolerate".