# amtrak conductor uniform policy



## Jimmy (May 16, 2008)

I was a asst. conductor for amtrak last year, i was new with only 4 days to go for my 90 day probation was up and i got fired. the reason was that i was wereing a blue (same color as amtrak vests) sweater vest. i was told by school in wilmington that since they dont have my size vest (6xlt) that i was to find my own sweater vest and were that. thats what i did. and since i saw many conductors with the same color vest i thought it was allright. does anyone were a sweater vest as a conductor and would you have pictures......Thanks


----------



## daveyb99 (May 16, 2008)

Very sorry to hear this.

But it is typical of companies. As a probationary employee, they hold the cards. They were nice to tell you a 'reason', but in fact they likely have to have none.

The FAA is firing probationary trainee controllers all the time ( and that is a one-year probation period.) Sometimes for nothing more than 'might not be able to complete training', which they had yet to start and would last as long as three years. No, they are not psychic.

Make the fight you can, but do not anticipate a victory. Good Luck.


----------



## Jimmy (May 16, 2008)

well what iam trying to establish is that iam 425 pounds and a lot of conductors are able to keep warm in a vest why am i not. they didn't give me a reason for many months after. that's when i found out why. my lawyer says that if i go to chicago take some pictures of amtrak conductors out of uniform he will take the case.well as we all know there are many many conductors out of uniform everyday. so i will see what happens. if i can find some pictures with conductors in sweater vest i would most likely get hired back after the investagation


----------



## had8ley (May 16, 2008)

Just remember...be very careful how you approach this situation. The company holds all the cards and all the chips while you are on probation. They can, will and have made up stories to rid themselves of employees that they do not seem "just right" for the job. I've seen college graduates turned down on their "references"~ good luck in your endeavor. I hope it is fruitful.


----------



## Rail Freak (May 16, 2008)

Jimmy said:


> well what iam trying to establish is that iam 425 pounds and a lot of conductors are able to keep warm in a vest why am i not. they didn't give me a reason for many months after. that's when i found out why. my lawyer says that if i go to chicago take some pictures of amtrak conductors out of uniform he will take the case.well as we all know there are many many conductors out of uniform everyday. so i will see what happens. if i can find some pictures with conductors in sweater vest i would most likely get hired back after the investagation


I would consider a couple more Lawyer Opinions!


----------



## Green Maned Lion (May 16, 2008)

The last thing anyone needs is the opinion of a lawyer.


----------



## Jimmy (May 16, 2008)

WHAT I CANT BELEVE IS THAT THEY WOULD GET RID OF A TOP NOTCH EMPLOYEE. I WORKED 6 MOTHS WITHOUT A DAY OFF, WORKED MY OFF DAY WHEN NEEDED, I WAS THE ONLY ONE ON THE EXTRA BOARD, ONE NICE THING IS THAT THE DISPUTE RESOLUTION OFFICE TOOK MY CASE. BUT I JUST KNOW WHEN THEY BRING IN THE ROAD FORMAN TO SEE IF HE TOLD ME THAT I COULDNT WERE THE VEST HES GOING TO LIE. BUT IF HE DOES, AND SAY, HE POINT BLANK TOLD ME NOT TO WERE THE VEST ( AND HE DIDNT) MY DEFENCE IS SIMPLY WHY WOULD I NOT OBEY A ORDER? I WENT TO WILLMINGTON FOR 8 WEEKS TO TRAIN FOR THIS JOB. WHY WOULD I PUT MY JOB ON THE LINE? I WANT TO WORK HERE THATS WHY I APPLIDE FOR THIS JOB IN THE FIRST PLACE. IAM A BIG GUY 430 POUNDS 46 YEARS OLD BUT DID THE JOB FINE IF I DIDNT, I WOULD NOT HAVE PASSED IN SCHOOL RIGHT? THEY ARE PULLING SOME CRAP AND IAM NOT GOING DOWN WITHOUT A HARD HARD FIGHT.


----------



## Green Maned Lion (May 16, 2008)

Jimmy, are you black, and work out of Albany? If so, I've seen you. If I saw you, it was on train 48.


----------



## RobertF (May 16, 2008)

Green Maned Lion said:


> Jimmy, are you black, and work out of Albany? If so, I've seen you. If I saw you, it was on train 48.


Well, commin' here and yellin' at su in such a manner probaly isnt to col either.

errors intentional.


----------



## yarrow (May 16, 2008)

RobertF said:


> Green Maned Lion said:
> 
> 
> > Jimmy, are you black, and work out of Albany? If so, I've seen you. If I saw you, it was on train 48.
> ...


robert, we can agree jimmy is not the best speller. perhaps it is his agitated state. i am not quite sure of the point of your post. from one, hopefully wrong, perspective it could be seen as racist


----------



## Guest (May 16, 2008)

Perhaps the said sweater vest would have otherwise conformed to policy, but for the damage that the



Jimmy said:


> 6 MOTHS


 had done.
Lawyer: *Congratulations, Jimmy: they will hire you back!*

Conductor/Forman [sic], the next day: *Apparently, someone sued us, and the cost of the defense has forced us to reduce by one the number of assistant conductors. Since you're the least senior, I'm afraid we'll have to lay you off.*


----------



## Jimmy (May 16, 2008)

Sorry about the caps and the spelling iam just so p-off .you got the wrong guy i work out of milwaukee. any way the guy that fired me is no longer with amtrak. that's bad or good in a way. i dont mind taking a fall for something i did. but for simply putting on a sweater vest is not grounds for getting let go. i wish i could put a picture of myself on this site but not sure how to do it. oh well i guess i just have to wait and see.........Jimmy


----------



## yarrow (May 16, 2008)

jimmy, as you can see this isn't an offical amtrak website but a forum of those interested in amtrak. i think those above who say that a probationary employee has little recourse are unfortunately correct. good luck


----------



## RRrich (May 16, 2008)

In the _best of all possible worlds,_ nothing is done with good reason. In the *real world* no reason is REALLY needed.

Do they need justification to fire a PROBY? is your lawyer making money from you?

BE WARNED


----------



## Jimmy (May 16, 2008)

Do they need justification to fire a PROBY? no they dont,except for discrimanation. and thats what this is point blank.


----------



## Green Maned Lion (May 16, 2008)

Discrimination on what? Being overweight? I confused you with another conductor wearing a sweater that must have weighed at least 425lbs.

If you are being canned, there is a reason, and it probably isn't documentable, easily explainible in court, or having to do with discrimination. The bottom line is either they don't need you or they don't like you, for whatever reason. Think, did your fellow employees like you? Did they get along with you?

Hard work isn't enough, Jimmy. It never is. I should know, I've been canned many times because 1) I am abrasive, and 2) I have an explosive temper and a tendency to lose it at the wrong people. In terms of doing my jobs, I was probably the best man they had. (One job I had was an arcade tech for Monduce, Inc. and nobody can fix a pin ball machine as fast as I can, trust me!) I got fired from that job because Monduce's client didn't like me. Not as a worker- as a person.


----------



## RobertF (May 17, 2008)

yarrow said:


> RobertF said:
> 
> 
> > Green Maned Lion said:
> ...


Oh Puleeeze... Racist? Can we be any more overly sensitive? If anything, I'm an equal opportunity offender.

I'd suggest YOU may be racist if in any negative comment I make you look for or find a hint of racism.

I don't see color, period. I see human beings.

It would go a long way to healing this nation if we could get off this hyper sensitive kick.

Not just about racism but everything else.

Frankly, your comment is way more out of place than mine was.

Racist! Give me a break.

If you want to KNOW why the OP irritated me, then ask. Don't assume my motives.

You would be very wrong. Maybe I was insensitive, but that does not make me racist.


----------



## RobertF (May 17, 2008)

Green Maned Lion said:


> Discrimination on what? Being overweight? I confused you with another conductor wearing a sweater that must have weighed at least 425lbs.
> If you are being canned, there is a reason, and it probably isn't documentable, easily explainible in court, or having to do with discrimination. The bottom line is either they don't need you or they don't like you, for whatever reason. Think, did your fellow employees like you? Did they get along with you?
> 
> Hard work isn't enough, Jimmy. It never is. I should know, I've been canned many times because 1) I am abrasive, and 2) I have an explosive temper and a tendency to lose it at the wrong people. In terms of doing my jobs, I was probably the best man they had. (One job I had was an arcade tech for Monduce, Inc. and nobody can fix a pin ball machine as fast as I can, trust me!) I got fired from that job because Monduce's client didn't like me. Not as a worker- as a person.


Ya know GML.... I've seen you comment about your temper, etc... before. I just somehow have a hard time believing it. It does not come out in your posts and somehow it seems an oxy-moron when one looks at your green lion avatar.

I'm abrasive (I know, shocking) though I've never been canned.... thankfully. I think over the years I've learned to temper it a bit... I also used to get really frustrated with people who said and did stupid things. I've become more tolerant over the years but it's been a long hard battle. I still manage to say/do things that upset people as evidenced by this thread.


----------



## RobertF (May 17, 2008)

Jimmy said:


> Sorry about the caps and the spelling iam just so p-off .you got the wrong guy i work out of milwaukee. any way the guy that fired me is no longer with amtrak. that's bad or good in a way. i dont mind taking a fall for something i did. but for simply putting on a sweater vest is not grounds for getting let go. i wish i could put a picture of myself on this site but not sure how to do it. oh well i guess i just have to wait and see.........Jimmy


Jimmy....

I understand that when things don't seem right or fair that we tend to get upset. At 43, one of my life experiences that I'd like to share is that getting upset never helps anything. It closes our mind to the possibilities because anger tends to make us very myopic about things and shuts down our ability to think.

I'm sorry you lost your job at Amtrak. If you feel it's in your best interests to peruse litigation, then you should do so. In my experience though, the best course is often to just move on and learn from our experiences.

Best of luck to ya....


----------



## Amtrak OBS Gone Freight (May 17, 2008)

had8ley said:


> Just remember...be very careful how you approach this situation. The company holds all the cards and all the chips while you are on probation. They can, will and have made up stories to rid themselves of employees that they do not seem "just right" for the job.


Jimmy, this gentleman here (had8ley) has pretty much outlined the biggest "cold hard" fact about working during probation. I work for a freight railroad as a conductor, myself. However, during my probation period I didn't pay any union dues to the union as they were not able to represent me in any way what so ever during that time! Amtrak can decide to release any employee on probation for any reason during that ninety days period. After that period is up, you have your union representation (hopefully it is good) to help you along in such a dispute. But during probation, it is open season. My advice to you would be seriously consider the potential financial hardship (unless you comfortable in that respect) of persuing litigation in this matter! I am sorry to have to say this, but despite what your lawyer is telling you, your odds of winning are VERY LOW due to the fact you were still in probation! You have to make this decision on your own, but Amtrak is likely to win in this case. And then you would be out the money you put into the litigation!

Now one thing I want you to look into as far as your situation at Amtrak is this. Were you actually "fired" or were you simply "released?" There is a slight difference so read on. There was a young man I knew who was a assistant conductor at Amtrak down here in Florida still in his ninety days. There was a small problem in the yard concerning an important rules violation (which I cannot discuss here) with the crew on the job in which he was working. He was about twenty five days into his probation at the time this occured, and the decision was made to dismiss him. I believe he was told that he was fired, but I told his father (who is an Amtrak station agent) to have him go back to check on the details of his exact case to see if he was merely "dismissed" from duty and his employment offer was "rescinded." I haven't heard back from him or dad, but in that case he would not be out of the woods for consideration of a different job description or craft within Amtrak. And the "assistant conductor" would look good on his resume. But actually fired doesn't look good at all as that would apply to something more serious in most cases. So this may possibly be the case with you, and I personally would inquire about it.

But anyway, good luck with your venture and Godspeed you to lucrative employment.

OBS gone freight....


----------



## George Harris (May 17, 2008)

Jimmy, when a company wants rid of you, any excuse will do. Generally during a probationary period they do not even have to give a reason. I would suggest that you move on to something else.

It has been over 20 years now since it ended, but I went through about 10 jobs in a five year period. One I know now looking back I was hired for the purpose of being fired after a short period to wear the blame for the boss's favored child's screw up.


----------



## Jimmy (May 17, 2008)

iam not one to give up. iam 46 425 pounds and finding a job is not easy now days for me. the other employees are happy with me. more so the riders liked me. they even wrote letters to amtrk about me. i now have a little ray of hope. the union stewart is writing a letter saying he has and has worn sweaters in the past and a add on to rule book was posted 2 years ago. so now the question why can other people have sweater vests and i cant? so wish me luck and i will keep you all updated.


----------



## mikerd5522 (May 17, 2008)

Jimmy said:


> so now the question why can other people have sweater vests and i cant?


Hi Jimmy,

Sorry to hear about your troubles. From my point of view, *based on what you've written here*, its tough to say if you're eligible for a discrimination claim. While I'm not a lawyer with a JD degree, I am an Industrial/Organizational Psychologist - sort of like an HR person, but more research and development focused.

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 and 1991, Equal Pay Act of 1963, and the Age Discrimination Act of 1967 are just a few laws that come into play during possible employment discrimination. Basically, these laws establish "protected classes" in which the employer cannot make judgments, hiring decisions, and termination decisions. They are:

- Sex

- Age (only considered for employees over 40 years old)

- Religion

- National Origin

- Disabilities (Americans with Disabilities Act of 1991)

- Ethnicity

- Race

- Color

- Sexual Orientation (in some states, not all)

These acts (mainly Statutory laws, with a few Constitutional Amendments) were set on federal level and apply to all states and districts (with the exception of sexual orientation). Additionally, these laws apply to businesses with 15 or more employees (I believe - its been a while since I've taken an employment law classes!).

Unfortunately, the only area in which you *may* fall is the protected class of disabilities, due to your weight. I say unfortunately because this protected classes is probably one of the most broadly and ambiguously defined areas within employment discrimination. From what I've read, weight is considered as a disability in some states and locations, but not all. For instance, The District of Columbia bans discrimination based on appearance. But since Amtrak is a quasi-federal agency, I'm not sure which laws and regulations they fall under. If anything, employment discrimination is not black and white.

Now, for disability discrimination, if the employer was investigated for a claim, they must prove they made whats called a "reasonable accommodation" that would not produce an undue hardship on the employer themselves. The most frequent example of a "reasonable accommodation" is a handicap assessable ramp to enter a building. These ramps are cheap to make and do not pose an undue hardship financially to the organization. However, if the employee demanded that the organization knock down their building and build a new one to make it lower to the ground to eliminate stairs, that probably would be considered an undue hardship. So, in retrospect, in my *opinion* Amtrak would not be encountering an undue hardship by ordering another size vest - but then again, I don't know Amtrak's uniform ordering process.

So in other words, to sue for disability discrimination, the employee must demonstrate how the organization would not accommodate them because of a given disability. It goes beyond the idea that "Company XYZ would not hire me because I'm in a wheel chair" but rather that "Company XYZ would not make the necessary changes to accommodate me within the work environment, such as establish handicap ramps or modify company policy."

So please remember that I'm not a lawyer, I only knows the facts and descriptions of the laws to follow within my career. I've never practiced them in a court room or seen the various way in which they're applied to "real situations." So this is what I suggest you do:

1. Contact the EEOC - Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

This organization is a government run organization that monitors business selection and termination process, as well as their overall business practices. This commission was designed to protect the employee against discrimination and harassment by the employer and (as far as I know) free to contact.

They have representatives available to talk 8:30 am - 5:30 pm, EST at 1-800-669-4000. Their website (which is pretty helpful) is www.eeoc.gov

2. I know you mentioned you were using a lawyer already, but try to find one that specializes in Employment Law, if she/he does not. I believe the EEOC could help you in that aspect, or they may even take the claim themselves, depending on the nature of the alleged discrimination.

So I hope this helps - please let me know if anything is unclear or have any additional questions - I'll try to answer them the best I can, or direct you to the appropriate source.


----------



## Jimmy (May 17, 2008)

Thanks for the heads up!!! I was told that the reason that amtrak opened the case is the diability that i have. i was told that since amtrak could not provide a winter jacket or a vest do to my size that i was to get my own. thats what i did. and it was a very if not a dead ringer to the amtrak color. some one has screwed up here. one tells me to get my own the other fires me cus i have it on. this is what iam fighting. why is the skinny guy allowed to keep his sweater on and the fat guy is not?


----------



## Joel N. Weber II (May 17, 2008)

I was under the impression that if a business that had three employees posted a job listing that explicitly said they were going to only hire someone if they happened to be of a particular race, that business would be in trouble. On the other hand, if the fourth person they hired happened to be the fourth non-minority person working there, the principles of statistics say that it's quite possible that that four person business was making decisions that have nothing to do with race that just so happened to result in that set of people working there. But if you have a thousand employees and the mix of races among your employees is skewed in a way that doesn't reflect the general population, that might reflect a real problem.

However, I'm not sure discrimination would be the only class of wrong this could fall under. Jimmy apparently was fired for wearing something that he'd previously been told he could wear. I'd be surprised if it's actually OK to fire someone for a stated reason that turns out to be an unreasonable reason. And the photographs Jimmy's lawyer requested seem to be intended to demonstrate that Amtrak isn't consistently enforcing the rule that they're claiming Jimmy violated.

I think whether the lawyer is willing to take on this case on a contingency basis where Jimmy doesn't have to pay anything to his lawyer if he and his lawyer lose would have a huge impact on whether I would pursue the case if I were in Jimmy's shoes.

But I don't think I'd ever really want to hold a job that a court had ordered an employer to let me have that the employer didn't want to let me have if I could possibly find another place to work. Then again, I've always worked for much smaller organizations than Amtrak, so maybe that one manager being gone would make working for Amtrak OK.


----------



## mikerd5522 (May 17, 2008)

Joel N. Weber II said:


> I was under the impression that if a business that had three employees posted a job listing that explicitly said they were going to only hire someone if they happened to be of a particular race, that business would be in trouble. On the other hand, if the fourth person they hired happened to be the fourth non-minority person working there, the principles of statistics say that it's quite possible that that four person business was making decisions that have nothing to do with race that just so happened to result in that set of people working there.


I was a little off on the numbers, but here's the law (from eeoc.gov):

What laws does the EEOC enforce and do they apply to my business?

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII) prohibits race, color, religion, sex, and national origin discrimination. Title VII applies to:

employers with fifteen (15) or more employees

Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA) prohibits age discrimination against individuals who are forty (40) years of age or older. The ADEA applies to: employers with twenty (20) or more employees

Title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA) prohibits employment discrimination against qualified individuals with disabilities. The ADA applies to: employers with fifteen (15) or more employees

Equal Pay Act of 1963 (EPA) prohibits wage discrimination between men and women in substantially equal jobs within the same establishment. The EPA applies to: most employers with one or more employees



Joel N. Weber II said:


> However, I'm not sure discrimination would be the only class of wrong this could fall under. Jimmy apparently was fired for wearing something that he'd previously been told he could wear. I'd be surprised if it's actually OK to fire someone for a stated reason that turns out to be an unreasonable reason. And the photographs Jimmy's lawyer requested seem to be intended to demonstrate that Amtrak isn't consistently enforcing the rule that they're claiming Jimmy violated.


Oh, I agree completely. An overview of an organization's selection process, coupled with the training process, is actually a good way, of the many, to judge the effectiveness of the organization. I'm not up to-date on wrongful termination claims, but based on common knowledge...sounds like that may have occurred.

What my line of thinking is here, which may or may not be correct and is best determined by a lawyer, is this:

Amtrak doesn't provide Jimmy w/ proper uniform b/c they lack the proper size > Amtrak tells Jimmy two different things about what to do > Amtrak fires/dismisses Jimmy b/c he did not wear the proper apparel which they could not provide > Amtrak fails to accommodate Jimmy

The debate on whether this is a discriminatory act is much better suited between lawyers and a judge, but it quite obvious that Amtrak screwed up, *based on the information we have.*


----------



## Jimmy (May 17, 2008)

To be more specific. i was let go dec.of 96 that's 17 months ago. or about $62000 in lost wages. i dont care about the money i just want my job back with the seniority. my lawyer will take the case getting a percentage of the money if and when he wins. iam also on disabilty for my weight. i went back to work on a trial run. i found i could do this job just like everyone else could. this was my opportunity to get off of social security. the guy that fired me no longer workes for amtrak. the man taking my case from the dispute resolutions office says i have a very strong case and the only reason they took the case was based on my disability. so if they cant get this done i have to hire the lawyer. like i said i would not put up a stink if i was wrong but iam not. plus once i get back and do my 4 days iam in the union and its very hard to get let go then. we will see what happens next week.


----------



## Amtrak OBS Gone Freight (May 18, 2008)

Well Jimmy,

You might have a good case. But the most important little tidbit is YOU WERE in your 90 days!!! I have been in the railroad business for a long time, now! They do not need a reason to let you go during that 90 days! This is why Amtrak will most likely win in your case! I will be very surprised if it is otherwise. Everything else aside, that 90 days probation situation will be very tough to beat!

I have one additional question for ya....



> To be more specific. i was let go dec.of 96 that's 17 months ago. or about $62000 in lost wages. i dont care about the money i just want my job back with the seniority.


So were you "fired" or just "released with the employment offer rescinded?" See my last posting as I posted that question to you there.

Anyway, good luck with this situation cuz it doesn't look very promising from my angle based on the info here!

OBS gone freight...


----------



## Jimmy (May 18, 2008)

employment offer rescinded. when i ask why i didnt get a answer for months. yes i was in the 90 day probation. and they can rescinded my offer of employment for any reason except discrimanation. thats the key word. it then becomes wrongful termanation case. and since iam on disability for my weight it becomes a whole nother issue.


----------



## Amtrak OBS Gone Freight (May 18, 2008)

Jimmy said:


> employment offer rescinded.


I hate to tell you this, but that's not good for your case as well as the time that has elapsed since you were released. On the other hand it is good being you were not fired. Therefore, you have a clean record as far as Amtrak is concerned, and it shouldn't affect you negatively on your further seach for work. In other words it is the same as if they had decided not to hire you after they initially interviewed you. I wrote you a more detailed reply in a PM as some of those details do not need to be public. So good luck to you and take care.

OBS gone freight...


----------



## Green Maned Lion (May 19, 2008)

Companies, in probationary situations, have the right to "Employment At Will", so they can fire you for good reason, bad reason, or no reason at all. I'm sure the honest reason is not related to anything we are currently talking about. Were there things that you would do in your job that you needed any assistance in because of your weight? I'm talking things as simple as picking up paper off the floor here.

I understand your problem- I'm pretty overweight myself. Not THAT overweight, and I am pretty athletic, but I am familiar with the problems brought on through being overweight. How fast can you walk? Can you walk the consist of the train quickly for tests, moves, inspections? Does pain in your lower leg joints limit your movement towards the end of a day or work?

You can't call it unfair discrimination if you are hiring me as a track runner and I'm missing a leg, certain people's ability with prosthetics notwithstanding. It might not be fair to consider it unfair discrimination based on weight, if you are doing a job that requires you to do things that are difficult for you to do.

Robert: When typing on the board, if I find myself incensed by something, I walk away for a while before typing my response to it, or don't respond to it at all. Its really easy to hide ones temper over the internet, especially in less than real-time conversations. I have a lot more control over it than I used to 99% of the time, but I go through times where I have a hair trigger. As for abrasive, I make Whooz look congenial, even on this board!


----------



## mikerd5522 (May 20, 2008)

Look what just happened today in a US Appeals Court - it shows I'm not making this stuff up as I go along! 

US court: Paper money discriminates against blind - from the Miami Harold

A federal appeals court says paper money discriminates against blind people.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit has upheld a ruling that could force the U.S. to redesign its money so blind people can distinguish between values.

Such changes could include making bills different sizes, including raised markings or printing oversized numbers for people who see poorly.

*The appeals court ruled 2-1 on Tuesday that the U.S. didn't explain why such changes would be an **unreasonable burden**, especially since many other countries have done so.*



Green Maned Lion said:


> You can't call it unfair discrimination if you are hiring me as a track runner and I'm missing a leg, certain people's ability with prosthetics notwithstanding. It might not be fair to consider it unfair discrimination based on weight, if you are doing a job that requires you to do things that are difficult for you to do.


Very true - the runner situation you speak of is what we call a BFOQ, Bona Fide Occupational Qualifiaction. These are specific qualifications that companies can use to determine hiring elegibitiy, which would typically be frowned upon or illegal. Think of a movie actor for a male role or a bathroom attendent for a female bathroom. These are instances when the type of sex is critical to the position and thus not considered dicsrimination. In fact, in one of the most interesting cases, Hooters just won a law suit, as the court determined it was a BFOQ to be a female to be a server - it was key to their organizational goals and mission.

The only problem I have with the "well if you can't do that job because of weight, you shouldn't work there" is that an Amtrak employee typically goes through a pre-employment physical or screening. These are designed to ensure that the employee is physically capable of performing the job at hand. If Jimmy got through this process ok, I would tend to think his situation is protected by a bit of a precedent. That is to say - how can an organization fire you for a weight problem when their medical staff cleared you to work?

OBS brings up a good point about the length of time which has passed, which in fact a year may be too long for a discrimination case or wrongful termination suit. I'm not positive on what the statute of limitations are on cases like this - a lawyer or the EEOC would know best! And if Jimmy's lawyer is proceeding, he obviously knows somethings about the law that we dont!


----------



## p&sr (May 20, 2008)

mikerd5522 said:


> That is to say - how can an organization fire you for a weight problem when their medical staff cleared you to work?


The medical staff would be more concerned about whether the work involved would pose a hazard to the employee's health. They would not really be in a position to judge the worker's ability to actually undertake the work. That would have to be observed on the job, by the supervisor.


----------

