Jump to content

HurryUpnWait

Members
  • Content Count

    80
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About HurryUpnWait

  • Rank
    Member

Recent Profile Visitors

785 profile views
  1. I totally disagree with previous comments regarding the responsibility being solely on you to request accommodation. Your boss presented their evaluation of workplace problems and you presented an answer that put them on notice that you have a disability. Therefor, the need for accommodation was clearly apparent to your boss so as soon as they read your text, they were effectively given notice. Here is some information posted on the American bar associations page. I suggest you look into it deeper and contact someone in your state for specificity. ~~~~~ Duty to Provide an Accommodation Without an Express Request Although the general rule places the burden to request an accommodation on the employee or applicant, there are circumstances under which employers may have an obligation to provide an accommodation without a request to do so. Employers should be aware that some courts have suggested that if the employer knows both about the disability and the need for accommodation, it may have an obligation to provide the accommodation—even without an express request that a modification is needed because of a disability. This often occurs in circumstances where the employee’s disability is obvious and it is clear that the disability is interfering with the employer’s performance expectations. Further, the EEOC’s guidance suggests that accommodation should be provided without request if the employer • knows that the employee has a disability, • knows or should know that the employee is experiencing workplace problems because of the disability, or • knows or should know that the disability prevents the employee from requesting a reasonable accommodation. See EEOC Enforcement Guidance: Reasonable Accommodation and Undue Hardship Under the Americans with Disabilities Act, No. 915.002 (Oct. 17, 2002), at Question 40. The EEOC clarifies that, under the latter circumstances, if the individual declines the offer of an accommodation, the employer will have fulfilled the accommodation requirement under the ADA. Employer’s Duty to Engage in the Interactive Process Once an accommodation has been requested or the need for an accommodation is obvious, the employer should initiate an interactive process with the individual. Courts generally have held that the interactive process requires employers to • analyze job functions to establish the essential and nonessential job tasks, • identify the barriers to job performance by consulting with the employee to learn the employee’s precise limitations, and • explore the types of accommodations that would be most effective. Employers can demonstrate a good-faith attempt to accommodate by meeting with the employee, requesting information about the limitations, considering the employee’s requests, and discussing alternatives if a request is burdensome.
  2. You can not be penalized for taking time off work for medical appointments. There are factors that determine whether or not it falls under ADA, FMLA or paid work leave/unpaid work leave that will depend on your employer size, your job description, how long you've been employed there etc. I'd suggest looking up https://adata.org/factsheet/work-leave But you've properly notified your employer of the need for accommodation and they have a responsibility to provide reasonable accommodation. Time off work for appointments, provided it doesn't fundamentally disrupt the flow of business, is part of reasonable accommodation and you are allowed to take that leave in long stretches or intermittently
  3. So are you saying that you were denied a promotion promised you because you reported mismanagement of assets or employees to your supervisors? You said that report was not well received... what made you think that? Did you have a meeting about it? Was it documented? You stated you always had good reviews and then suddenly your new boss was complaining about your work. How did he complain? Were you written up, given a bad review? This will help us figure out what direction, if any, you might be able to look for help. Also- is this company private or public and did it do any government business?
  4. My spouse's original case was in Northern California but the ex spouse had moved to So Cal where both of their families lived. My spouse had custody of their 4 yr old daughter and when we approached the court for permission to move to Texas where my family was (as my spouse had also attained employment in Texas as well) we were given permission to move with the child. Granted, that was 15 yrs ago and in Northern California but just wanted to give an example. The stated reasons for permission was that the ex spouse had moved back to So Cal and my spouse got a job in an area where my family had always lived and we'd wanted to move back to. Hope it helps
  5. In spite of the sarcastic response above to your question about the ex keeping the children if you don't pick hem up, I believe what you're asking is whether or not he'd have a legal standing to say you abandoned them or something... correct? The answer is no, but I suppose a judge could believe anything if your ex is willing to lie and mislead the judge about WHY you didn't show up. Personally, I'd start recording every single encounter with this man, be it telephone or in person- providing it's legal in your area. If you believe your children are unsafe or he won't answer calls you have every right (though i'd use it only in times of real concern) to request the police or cps to do a welfare check on your kids.
  6. If he went through the AG's office to pay child support here (his words) then I'm assuming he also went to court the Dallas or Tarrant County courts. My question would be to ask how long ago she moved to Arizona? You pay through the AG's office but what directed you there, when and why?
  7. I cannot understand why all the same people who comment on OP questions would rather sit back and condescend, patronize, preach, assume the things they say, like "I'd focus on getting my child medical evidence" is somehow appropriate (how do you know the child DIDNT get the treatment they needed already) or you comment and complain about grammar and punctuation. It's ridiculous... people come on here because they are upset, looking for help and don't always come out of the chute with the right words the first time. Stop talking to people this way please! If the questions (or almost questions) are such a waste of your time, why not just skip them? And now I have to sit here irritated at myself for DOING exactly what I'm asking y'all not to do. Ugh. OP, the best point made here is to use the tool to help you find an attorney. Otherwise just try and clarify what you question is. And frankly, anyone who wouldn't feel DESPERATE if this happened to their child should probably think long and hard about that. How much can a kid take before it affects them going to school, how they perform at school and how much they do or don't want to be there? How much? For me, it'd already have been too late if I were in that child's shoes. And by the way- I think she wants an attorney not just for the school and the attacker but possibly for the MTA for doing NOTHING and not trying to help this girl. I hope you get some justice for your daughter.
  8. I don't think anyone (at least not me) stated it'd be easy. I simply pointed out that she is in position to show standing to request visitation. Doesn't mean she'd be allowed to automatically and it certainly doesn't mean that if she asked for it she'd win... while you certainly said it much clearer, I was trying to say the same thing and actually your post directed at me that starts off stating the my post doesn't state Texas law I never said it did but every thing you wrote in that post, I guess trying to explain to me what my own post meant, you've pointed out again here as if I didn't understand it. I didn't want to get into the specifics because I'm not interested in telling my story to that degree on here BUT... I am one of these "interested 3rd parties" who prevailed in Texas courts. So, just saying. I've been there, and I've done it and I know what the judge wanted to hear from me.... so please don't try and explain to me over and over again the exact same things that I pointed out myself.
  9. What I was trying to point out was that the key to having any shot at prevailing in Texas as a step parent seeking visitation requires some specific things, among them is that the step parent have a meaningful long term relationship with the child, provided support for the child, and being held out to the public (not to mention in this case, to the child) as the actual parent. PLUS this step mother states that the bio mom has a domestic violence issue and the father works ALOT so the child is almost always in her care. ALL of those things are what the court looks for when deciding. THAT is what I said. Also consider that these parents have all been parties to or witnesses of the custody case of this child since the mother re entered the picture at the age of 7 and was granted limited visitation then and had it narrowed even more shortly thereafter. There had to be some reasons for it, which I'm guessing will be part of the court record and will most certainly be raised in this case if it gets that far.
  10. I thought so, but thanks for confirming. Offhand, any idea under what circumstances do the tend to seek child support and how often it is done? I can only assume that if the state asks the judge to order child support, they're probably going to get it.
  11. See my post above. Texas has taken a middle ground stance on step parents who have been the de facto parent or when the other parent has fostered a relationship in which the step parent is put out to the public as a parent. There is also the fact that for the first 7 yrs of child's ljfe she only knew this woman as her mother and has had less than 3 years with bio mom even involved. Of course, it only provides the general guidelines looked at to decide standing and Texas would view her as an interested 3rd party. As such, she would have standing to seek (but not be guaranteed to be awarded) visitation but no standing to seek custody without negligence or abuse allegations on the table. Even that may not help if there is other family for the child to be placed with. The links I posted above state this in one paragraph... This doctrine was first recognized in a 1995 Wisconsin case, In re Custody of H.S.H.-K, and has been adopted in a few other jurisdictions since then. In its typical formulation, the doctrine requires not only that the co-parent function as a parent, but also that the legal parent consented to the creation of the functional parent-child relationship and actively fostered its growth. Although the doctrine varies from state to state, it typically does not give rise to rights equivalent to a legal parent’s. Rather, it allows the de facto parent to seek visitation, but not custody. Courts in states that recognize de facto parentage justify the intrusion into the legal mother’s constitutionally-protected parental rights by pointing to her role in creating and fostering the relationship with the co-parent.
  12. She apparently decided the child will live with y'all. I guess pg1067 is probably right about your options. But I do wonder if you ask the state to take custody, can't they make you pay child support to the state in some instances?
  13. I see. I was asking this as a general "what if" using basically the information in the OP where the mother didn't work during marriage and hasn't worked for really any reason since divorce and in the instance where the support by the father (or really vice versa) is some exorbitant amount... like something a high paid business person, famous actor/musician... something like that, would have to pay. I see your point though, and I appreciate you taking the time to answer. It was just a question that came to mind after reading your comment on this thread and I found it interesting. Thanks
  14. Daughter so 17 so not a guarantee she would be made to return.
×
×
  • Create New...