Discrimination during maternity leave
Discussion
Define 'big money'??
Everything else you raise has already been mentioned above, most of it numerous times, but the likelihood of her getting the job is not relevant to the claim other than as a factor that may guide a tribunal with regard to the size of any compensation award. The hassle factor, I agree, may be big enough that we don't do anything - no decisions have been taken as yet.
Everything else you raise has already been mentioned above, most of it numerous times, but the likelihood of her getting the job is not relevant to the claim other than as a factor that may guide a tribunal with regard to the size of any compensation award. The hassle factor, I agree, may be big enough that we don't do anything - no decisions have been taken as yet.
I reckon a settlement would be 3 or maybe 6 months salary - not huge money certainly - maybe enough to buy a new MX5 in PH terms. Is that worth loads of stress and court? Maybe not. Do I think it'll get that far? No, I think they'll offer a compromise agreement and she'll leave quietly. Speculation on my part, but that's their past form (and as I said, they've been sued for sex discrimination twice in the last 6 months and settled both times).
Driver101 said:
If the role is "just above her job", how can you assume it would have been a decent rise?
What happens if this role "just above her job" was actually created as they needed someone to do the role full time, knowing your wife still wouldn't be back in the short term, but didn't want to appear to be filling her job? Maybe this job "just above her job" is actually very similar?
I grasp that she may have been discriminated against if the company made no effort to make her aware of the position. If they didn't contact your wife in any form, she wasn't allowed the opportunity to apply fairly for the job. I still have the opinion that people off long term should really make some effort themselves to keep up to date.
However I think it's apparent that if they didn't make any effort to contact her relating to a promotion, it looks very unlikely that she'd get it anyway. That could be for entirely fair reasons, but to cover their own backs they should have allowed her to apply.
It's hard to assume what losses she has suffered other than going though the process of applying for a job.
Would she realistically had the time to prepare and go through all the motions of applying for a new position if she was as busy, as suggested in this thread, looking after a new baby?
Would the job even be available once she was able to return to work? If the role has been filled twice in her absence, the job was obviously created and required to be filled long before your wife was in a position to take up the role.
Can it be discrimination when you don't meet the criteria of the position on offer?
What happens if this role just above your wife's position doesn't have the decent rise you assume it has?
OK, client waiting so gonna be very brief:What happens if this role "just above her job" was actually created as they needed someone to do the role full time, knowing your wife still wouldn't be back in the short term, but didn't want to appear to be filling her job? Maybe this job "just above her job" is actually very similar?
I grasp that she may have been discriminated against if the company made no effort to make her aware of the position. If they didn't contact your wife in any form, she wasn't allowed the opportunity to apply fairly for the job. I still have the opinion that people off long term should really make some effort themselves to keep up to date.
However I think it's apparent that if they didn't make any effort to contact her relating to a promotion, it looks very unlikely that she'd get it anyway. That could be for entirely fair reasons, but to cover their own backs they should have allowed her to apply.
It's hard to assume what losses she has suffered other than going though the process of applying for a job.
Would she realistically had the time to prepare and go through all the motions of applying for a new position if she was as busy, as suggested in this thread, looking after a new baby?
Would the job even be available once she was able to return to work? If the role has been filled twice in her absence, the job was obviously created and required to be filled long before your wife was in a position to take up the role.
Can it be discrimination when you don't meet the criteria of the position on offer?
What happens if this role just above your wife's position doesn't have the decent rise you assume it has?
Role has equivalents elsewhere in business and rise would have been about 20% we estimate
Job is not similar to my wife's - the job is being my wife's manager. It would place her in charge of 200 or even 300 people. You'll have to take my word for it - I understand the organisation and thus understand the roles - far too difficult to explain properly here.
You may think that she should have made some effort, but the law does not think that. QED.
I contend that had she been at work she would have been right in the hunt - however she was on mat leave, and thus I contend she was discounted on that basis and that basis alone. She is, as said previously, better qualified than the successful applicant. This is not relevant to the claim, but will give the employer a hard time to justify themselves should they choose to say my wife was deemed unsuitable. On paper she is more suitable.
If the rise wasn't as big as expected perhaps she'd not have gone for the job. I don't know.
Could she have had time to apply - yes - had she wanted to I would have helped her make that time by looking after our son.
Right - gotta dash.
Driver101 said:
I only know what a few people at my work earn. I don't have a clue what most people are paid at all. For the ones that I do know, their role and salary don't always match up.
I also don't have a clue what qualifications other people have, unless they either tell me, or make their history public on their company profile.
How have you quickly got access to all the information you have?
The start of this thread went along the lines of your wife was,obviously, too busy looking after a newborn and oblivious to all that was going on at work. It wasn't a close-knit workplace and information wasn't passed around openly.
Now within just a couple of days it appears you have access to personal information about others.
Similar roles advertised previously so that's how I know that.I also don't have a clue what qualifications other people have, unless they either tell me, or make their history public on their company profile.
How have you quickly got access to all the information you have?
The start of this thread went along the lines of your wife was,obviously, too busy looking after a newborn and oblivious to all that was going on at work. It wasn't a close-knit workplace and information wasn't passed around openly.
Now within just a couple of days it appears you have access to personal information about others.
I said on day one (or two) that woman is not qualified - my wife knows her well and knows she joined organisation from school and has been there ever since with no more than GCSEs or O-levels.
Sorry if that doesn't fit your narrative.
In the midst of delivering a yacht so brevity rules for me, but in response to the above, no, we don't need the money. We're not loaded by any means, but we can run perfectly well on my salary. Indeed whenever my wife talks about it it's more to do with righting a wrong. She's read this thread and it makes her fee even more strongly that sexism is prevalent and should be tackled head on wherever it's found.
Many of you disagree with her. She doesn't care.
Many of you disagree with her. She doesn't care.
chrispmartha said:
So she can't right the wrong can she, she can however sue them for money.
I suspect and its only my opinion on the matter but if the people responsible for hiring the person for the role actually wanted your missus to get they job they may possibly have contacted her about it? or at least tried a little harder. Which is why your wife wants to sue them is it not?
As I have said over and over they didn't consider my wife because she is on maternity leave not because she is wholly unsuitable otherwise why was she in the next job down.I suspect and its only my opinion on the matter but if the people responsible for hiring the person for the role actually wanted your missus to get they job they may possibly have contacted her about it? or at least tried a little harder. Which is why your wife wants to sue them is it not?
As to legal action I seriously doubt it will be needed anyway.
As to money, it won't be much - as I said previously maybe 3 - 6 months wages.
chrispmartha said:
So she can't right the wrong can she, she can however sue them for money.
I suspect and its only my opinion on the matter but if the people responsible for hiring the person for the role actually wanted your missus to get they job they may possibly have contacted her about it? or at least tried a little harder. Which is why your wife wants to sue them is it not?
As I have said over and over they didn't consider my wife because she is on maternity leave not because she is wholly unsuitable otherwise why was she in the next job down.I suspect and its only my opinion on the matter but if the people responsible for hiring the person for the role actually wanted your missus to get they job they may possibly have contacted her about it? or at least tried a little harder. Which is why your wife wants to sue them is it not?
As to legal action I seriously doubt it will be needed anyway.
As to money, it won't be much - as I said previously maybe 3 - 6 months wages.
Breadvan72 said:
Tchaah! Should be "In the midst of BUYING a yacht with undeserved proceeds of meretricious BS lawsuit. Ha, ha, losers!".
Phail.
93.055 Metres of floating Gin-Palace heaven. Phail.
I've just had a look at the interior (online), and this one is not to my taste sadly. My search continues.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff