working in a higher position for the lower position pay

[maligna]

What is the name of your state? Texas

I have been working in a retail store manager position for an assistant managers pay for 6 months now. It was announced by my new district managers boss in front of 14 my peers (other store managers) about 2 months ago that I was being given the promotion. Since then my new district manager has said she wants to wait on my promotion till she can "get to know me better". I have 3 questions.
1. Have they violated the law concerning my situation?
2. If not, will not giving me the position as stated in front of my peers be a violation of the law?
3. If they do give me the position dose the law state that I am due the back pay from the time I started in the position?

Any help would be appreciated as I am not the only one in this company that has been through this or is currently going through this.

Thanks

 

[cbg]

1.) No.
2.) No.
3.) No.

 

[maligna]

Really? My husband contacted a lawyer who stated that we had a case and he would take it whenever I wanted to. But being as it is late and I was wanting to know now what laws were violated I found this site. I will have to call that lawyer tomarrow and find out what laws he says were violated.

 

[cbg]

If a lawyer says you have a case, then there's a LOT of information that you didn't post here. On the basis of what you've posted, you don't have diddly.

The law requires that you be paid no less than minimum wage. It also requires that if you are non-exempt and work more than forty hours in a week, you get paid overtime. That is ALL the law requires. In the absence of a contract that specifically says otherwise, the law does not require that you EVER be given a raise unless you are being paid EXACTLY minimum wage, and minimum wage is raised by either your state legislature or an act of Congress. If you are being paid more than MW, then in the absence of a contract that guarantees it, you don't have to be given a raise under ANY circumstances.

Making an announcement that you will be given a promotion is not a binding contract. Announcing that you will be given a promotion does not mean that you have to be given a raise. It most certainly does not mean that you have to be given a raise retroactively.

I will be most interested in exactly what laws this lawyer thinks have been violated.

 

[maligna]

maybe it is because I did not offer enough information. I am a salary employee not hourly (I work aprox. 50-60 hours weekly). I am female and doing a job of equal Skill, Effort, Responsibility, Working Conditions, and Establishment to all the other store managers in my district. I have actually been given more responsibility in the last month (running not only my store but another store in a neigboring city). 70% of the store managers in my district are male as well as the person they just hired from outside the company for a diffrent store. The new manager dose have retail managment experience but in a completely diffrent unrelated field. They have not given me the promotion so this is not a case of here is your title at the same pay. They announced my promotion and then did not give it. And did not give reason other than wanting to get to "know me better" as to why I was not being promoted as promised. And that was not given to me in writing, it was told to me over the phone. Dose that help or dose it leave me in the same position?

Thanks for you assistance in this matter.
Maligna

 

[maligna]

I should also note that ALL the female store managers (though I do not know their current pay) went through the same thing as me when trying for a store manager position from an assistant manager position. NONE of the male store managers I spoke with went through this when switching to the higher position.

 

[cbg]

Ah, that was kind of vital information to leave out, don't you think? Yes, that changes things slightly.

Nonetheless, the best that gives you is a weak, maybe. You need to be able to show that you were not promoted BECAUSE you are female, and not for ANY other reason. "Getting to know you better" by a new manager is not necessarily an invalid reason. If I were a new manager, I'm not sure that I wouldn't want to get to know my employees better before I decided who I wanted to promote.

What's more, they are not required to give you ANY reason. All they have to do is say, "Maligna, we've changed our minds and you will not be given a promotion at this time". It doesn't matter if it was in writing or over the phone.

BTW, while I am by no means saying not to contact an attorney, the law says that before you can file a lawsuit, you MUST file a complaint with the EEOC and/or your state discrimination board, AND receive a right-to-sue letter from them. Only then can you actually sue them.

Again, I'm not saying don't talk to a lawyer - a lawyer can help you decide if you have a worthwhile case or not. But you CANNOT file a lawsuit without a right-to-sue letter from either the state or Federal regulatory agency.

 

[maligna]

this is maligna's husband. I did not bother to create a login because
1. this forum doesn't really interest me
2. this will be my only post here

cbg your information is full of half-truths unfortunately. Let me point a few things out.

In the absence of a contract that specifically says otherwise, the law does not require that you EVER be given a raise unless you are being paid EXACTLY minimum wage, and minimum wage is raised by either your state legislature or an act of Congress. If you are being paid more than MW, then in the absence of a contract that guarantees it, you don't have to be given a raise under ANY circumstances.

Under any circumstances eh? So what you're saying is, by your statement, that if a company has 100% of its employees at 25k/year, 80% of them are white, the rest are other races, and the company gives all of the whites a raise but not the minority 20% that it would be legal because there is no contract for the raise? An extreme example I know, but I can think of so many circumstances of when employers are required to raise pay other than when minimum wage increases. So yes, there are other circumstances that require an employer to give an increase in wages.

Making an announcement that you will be given a promotion is not a binding contract.

Maybe you are speaking from the federal labor law standards, but in texas announcing the promotion to 3 or more people in the company by a person authorized to do the promotion is binding. There are other labor standards than what the federal labor board supervises.

Announcing that you will be given a promotion does not mean that you have to be given a raise.

This is true, however if every man promoted receives a raise and every woman doesn't, this is strong ground for a suit, and is relevant to maligna's situation.

It most certainly does not mean that you have to be given a raise retroactively.

In Texas, it most certainly does. My father won a suit on this already, and they had to pay him triple back pay + fees. It was a law passed in TX in 1986.

I will be most interested in exactly what laws this lawyer thinks have been violated.

well let's put it this way, he'll take the case for nothing and he's with a reputable firm and has won for us before when people like you were saying we didn't have a case. Let's see, a reputable attorney taking the case for nothing, or some anonymous troll telling us we don't have diddly. Gee I wonder who we're going to go with...

You need to be able to show that you were not promoted BECAUSE you are female, and not for ANY other reason. "Getting to know you better" by a new manager is not necessarily an invalid reason.

I'm so glad this is not true. Most of the time when discrimnation is present, the person being discriminated against isn't being told bad news and then given the reason "because you're black", or "because you're a woman". Of course they are told other things. Just imagine how no discrimination case would ever exist because the perps never gave the reason as defined as being discriminatory. Besides, the point here is maligna was told she was promoted, announced to a group of managers by a district rep that she was promoted, and then when she asks about the raise they say she doesn't have the promotion, while her job responsibilities have increased. That's not even mentioning the fact that every male in her company that is at her level is paid a minimum wage for that position, she is not and hasn't been for 6 months, along with a few other women.

What's more, they are not required to give you ANY reason. All they have to do is say, "Maligna, we've changed our minds and you will not be given a promotion at this time". It doesn't matter if it was in writing or over the phone.

Actually if you request in writing the reaons for denial they have to submit it to you in 30 days unless the position has been eliminated.

BTW, while I am by no means saying not to contact an attorney, the law says that before you can file a lawsuit, you MUST file a complaint with the EEOC and/or your state discrimination board, AND receive a right-to-sue letter from them. Only then can you actually sue them.

True, but it's also true that the EEOC will give you a right to sue letter regardless of their findings. They may do an investigation that finds no discriminatory practices and you can still sue the company.
http://www.eeoc.gov/policy/docs/mouprop.html
And that's a case based on discrimination, not required if you're suing for labor law violations alone.

But you CANNOT file a lawsuit without a right-to-sue letter from either the state or Federal regulatory agency.

You mean to say you cannot file a DISCRIMINATION lawsuit without it. And like I said before, they give out the right to sue letter regardless of their findings, so it really isn't even that important.

 

[cbg]

Fine. If you have all the answers and know everything, there's no point in continuing this. Tell me, since you know everything to know about employment law, why did your wife even bother to post here at all?

The initial post gave no information whatsoever about any potential discrimination issues. She asked several questions, which I answered on the basis of the information she supplied. I'm so glad you're able to read minds - us anonymous trolls can't do that.

 

[maligna]

Well I certainly don't have all the answers, but at least I do have some of them. In any case, it's not that I can read minds either. You did not respond based on just the information you were given. You made very broad and general statements about law that were quite simply untrue.

The reason I said you were a troll was because you seemed to be naysaying for the sake of naysaying. Being that you're an HR consultant, it appeared that you were suspicious that it might be YOUR company that was getting sued. Well, I highly doubt it is, but nevertheless you seem very good at discouraging people from exercising legal methods to achieve equality.

As for my wife contacting this board, you do have a good point in asking to the effect; "if you know the answers why are you asking", but I happened to be reading over her shoulder at your responses that were not just inaccurate, but horribly false. We don't know all the answers, but we're not idiots either.

Now i've made a second post and I said I'd only make one. Oh well.