Discriminatory Practices?

[I_Need_Advice]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law) ? - Minnesota

I am back again seeking advice.

I have been working for a company for 6½ years, and I am moving out of state. They have other employees who work from home in other states, one of them working in the very same department as do I. She was able to move out of state and keep her job 2 years ago - no problem.

I work at home and plan to also move out of state, so I notified the appropriate people. I received a message that they would "not be able to accommodate me." I spoke with the HR person, and she said I didn't give them enough time and that the earliest they could do something was December. So, I said that I could stay longer to give them more time to set me up, then, she changed the story and said NO. She said they need to use certain monies for tax issues, etc. to set me up. Okay, that I understand, but again, I am willing to stay longer in order for them to do that. Note, they are not paying any relocation fees or anything of that nature. I kept asking if there was something I could do, and every suggestion was shot down. I feel there is not much difference in my request than the other employee who was allowed to keep her job and move to a different state 2 years ago, and I feel there may be some discrimination or they just want to get rid of me. Do I have any recourse?

Thank you.

 

[eerelations]

Not all discrimination is illegal.

That said, if you have evidence that your employer is denying you this specifically and directly because of things like your race, gender, religion, age (if you're over 40) and/or disability, then what your employer is doing is illegal, and your recourse would be to file a discrimination complaint with the EEOC.

If, however, your employer is doing this for any reason other than those listed above, then your employer is not breaking the law. In this scenario, you have no legal rescourse.

 

[LeeHarveyBlotto]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law) ? - Minnesota

I am back again seeking advice.

I have been working for a company for 6½ years, and I am moving out of state. They have other employees who work from home in other states, one of them working in the very same department as do I. She was able to move out of state and keep her job 2 years ago - no problem.

I work at home and plan to also move out of state, so I notified the appropriate people. I received a message that they would "not be able to accommodate me." I spoke with the HR person, and she said I didn't give them enough time and that the earliest they could do something was December. So, I said that I could stay longer to give them more time to set me up, then, she changed the story and said NO. She said they need to use certain monies for tax issues, etc. to set me up. Okay, that I understand, but again, I am willing to stay longer in order for them to do that. Note, they are not paying any relocation fees or anything of that nature. I kept asking if there was something I could do, and every suggestion was shot down. I feel there is not much difference in my request than the other employee who was allowed to keep her job and move to a different state 2 years ago, and I feel there may be some discrimination or they just want to get rid of me. Do I have any recourse?

Thank you.

Nearly all discrimination is perfectly legal. Unless they are discriminating based on a protected characteristic (race, sex, national origin, etc.), they have no obligation to treat you the same as your co-worker.

 

[I_Need_Advice]

Nearly all discrimination is perfectly legal. Unless they are discriminating based on a protected characteristic (race, sex, national origin, etc.), they have no obligation to treat you the same as your co-worker.

It may or may not matter, but my co-worker is Caucasian and I am of African descent. Of course, that is not hard-core evidence, but it could give rise for concern....

 

[justalayman]

It may or may not matter, but my co-worker is Caucasian and I am of African descent. Of course, that is not hard-core evidence, but it could give rise for concern....

in itself, that is not evidence of any sort. It is merely the statement of the facts concerning the ethnicity of the people in the discussion. You would have to be able to show that the reason you were not allowed to telecommute was in fact due to you being of African descent. So far you have not stated anything that would even hint at that possibility.

 

[eerelations]

It may or may not matter, but my co-worker is Caucasian and I am of African descent. Of course, that is not hard-core evidence, but it could give rise for concern....

It's not evidence. However, if you're certain that it is, run it by the EEOC and see what they say. (If they say anything different from what we've said, I'll eat my keyboard, but again, if you want to go to all that trouble just in case, you're free to do so.)

 

[MrJenkins]

The person you're comparing yourself to made the move 2 years ago. Perhaps the climate was different then for out of state moves?

 

[eerelations]

The person you're comparing yourself to made the move 2 years ago. Perhaps the climate was different then for out of state moves?

Also, from the information you've provided, it sounds like the state you're moving to doesn't have any other employees of your company living there. If that's correct, please be advised (from someone who has direct experience with this) that your company will have to set up a new state payroll process, just for you. This isn't easy, and it costs time and money. I can see why your company is reluctant to allow you to work from the state you're moving to.

Perhaps your coworker moved to a state where the company already had some employees? If that's the case, I can easily see why your company was willing to allow her to work from that state. (And no, this scenario is most definitely not illegal discrimination.)

 

[I_Need_Advice]

Also, from the information you've provided, it sounds like the state you're moving to doesn't have any other employees of your company living there. If that's correct, please be advised (from someone who has direct experience with this) that your company will have to set up a new state payroll process, just for you. This isn't easy, and it costs time and money. I can see why your company is reluctant to allow you to work from the state you're moving to.

Perhaps your coworker moved to a state where the company already had some employees? If that's the case, I can easily see why your company was willing to allow her to work from that state. (And no, this scenario is most definitely not illegal discrimination.)

That was not the case with the other employee. There were no other employees in her state at that time, so I guess it is what it is.

Well, thanks to everyone for your replies.

 

[eerelations]

Well, maybe your company had more time, energy and money to do this back then, but doesn't have as much now. A perfectly legal reason to discriminate.

 

[Mass_Shyster]

your company will have to set up a new state payroll process, just for you.

It's also likely that company would also have to start collecting sales tax on all sales to the new state, as well as the possibility of some business taxes. Employer should also be paying unemployment premiums to the new state.

Whatever health insurance you have may not be available to residents of new state.

So, here's a question for the peanut gallery:

Let's say OP simply packs up and moves, and informs employer of new address after the fact. If OP is terminated, would s/he qualify to unemployment assuming OP is still ready, willing, and able to work from the new location?

 

[ecmst12]

My thought is that when they allowed the other employee to move 2 years ago, they did not know what a pain it would be to get everything in place, either that or it turned out to have a negative impact on the company in some other way that made them decide not to allow it in the future.

 

[Betty]

The bottom line is based on what you posted, your employer is not doing anything illegal by not allowing you to work from home after you move. Sorry. The more states the employer allows employees to work in, the more "hassle" for the employer.

 

[LdiJ]

My thought is that when they allowed the other employee to move 2 years ago, they did not know what a pain it would be to get everything in place, either that or it turned out to have a negative impact on the company in some other way that made them decide not to allow it in the future.

This is exactly what I was thinking as well.