Discrimination during maternity leave
Discussion
RobinOakapple said:
Red Devil said:
It doesn't matter what any of us on PH think.
The law regarding the rights of a pregnant woman is what it is and has been decided by the ECJ...
I'm amazed that you would think it worthwhile posting something like that in what is after all a discussion forum.The law regarding the rights of a pregnant woman is what it is and has been decided by the ECJ...
If we were not to discuss things which were covered by existing laws them (speeding for instance) then there would be a great deal less discussion here than there is.
The OP himself, provided some early doubt as to the motives for bringing the claim.
Actus Reus said:
Yes. Because she's on maternity leave. Reading hundreds of emails a day isn't exactly leave.
To be clear, the upset isn't that she didn't get the job - the upset is that because she wasn't even told there was an opportunity. She may very well have chosen to go back earlier for the sake of her career, but wasn't given that chance (I should also add that we don't think any email was sent at all - the blackberry charger is missing so we can't check, but why have all communication via gmail bar this one crucial mail?).
And thank you, Breadvan - I have no experience of this, but that was my reading of it. The company has form for similar stuff and has settled with at least two other employees in the last few months. We'll speak to a solicitor on Monday in more detail and see what happens.
To be clear, the upset isn't that she didn't get the job - the upset is that because she wasn't even told there was an opportunity. She may very well have chosen to go back earlier for the sake of her career, but wasn't given that chance (I should also add that we don't think any email was sent at all - the blackberry charger is missing so we can't check, but why have all communication via gmail bar this one crucial mail?).
And thank you, Breadvan - I have no experience of this, but that was my reading of it. The company has form for similar stuff and has settled with at least two other employees in the last few months. We'll speak to a solicitor on Monday in more detail and see what happens.
Hol said:
RobinOakapple said:
Red Devil said:
It doesn't matter what any of us on PH think.
The law regarding the rights of a pregnant woman is what it is and has been decided by the ECJ...
I'm amazed that you would think it worthwhile posting something like that in what is after all a discussion forum.The law regarding the rights of a pregnant woman is what it is and has been decided by the ECJ...
If we were not to discuss things which were covered by existing laws them (speeding for instance) then there would be a great deal less discussion here than there is.
The OP himself, provided some early doubt as to the motives for bringing the claim.
Actus Reus said:
Yes. Because she's on maternity leave. Reading hundreds of emails a day isn't exactly leave.
To be clear, the upset isn't that she didn't get the job - the upset is that because she wasn't even told there was anopportunity. She may very well have chosen to go back earlier for the sake of her career, but wasn't given that chance (I should also add that we don't think any email was sent at all - the blackberry charger is missing so we can't check, but why have all communication via gmail bar this one crucial mail?).
And thank you, Breadvan - I have no experience of this, but that was my reading of it. The company has form for similar stuff and has settled with at least two other employees in the last few months. We'll speak to a solicitor on Monday in more detail and see what happens.
To be clear, the upset isn't that she didn't get the job - the upset is that because she wasn't even told there was anopportunity. She may very well have chosen to go back earlier for the sake of her career, but wasn't given that chance (I should also add that we don't think any email was sent at all - the blackberry charger is missing so we can't check, but why have all communication via gmail bar this one crucial mail?).
And thank you, Breadvan - I have no experience of this, but that was my reading of it. The company has form for similar stuff and has settled with at least two other employees in the last few months. We'll speak to a solicitor on Monday in more detail and see what happens.
What's that got to do with morals?
Stating your position, and explaining background is a sensible thing to do if you want accurate advice.
Cherry picking two sections and stitching them together does not mean that you know what is going through the OP's mind, neither does it have a moral implication.
Stating your position, and explaining background is a sensible thing to do if you want accurate advice.
Cherry picking two sections and stitching them together does not mean that you know what is going through the OP's mind, neither does it have a moral implication.
Yawn.... not biting. Misogyny is as irrational as racism and homophobia, so reasoning with misogynists is like reasoning with a horse.
Various cases argued in the 1990s helped to reduce the incidence of women being disadvantaged in the workplace because of maternity. Recently, employers have been able to turn the clock back, and maternity related disadvantage is on the rise. It is harder to obtain a remedy for this, because of changes to the tribunal system that apply across the board, regardless of gender, and which have reduced employment protection generally.
Webb v EMO Air Cargo was a bad luck result for the employer, given its particular facts (maternity leave replacement herself becomes pregnant), but the principle that it establishes seems to me sound, and most cases do not have the unlucky facts of Webb.
Various cases argued in the 1990s helped to reduce the incidence of women being disadvantaged in the workplace because of maternity. Recently, employers have been able to turn the clock back, and maternity related disadvantage is on the rise. It is harder to obtain a remedy for this, because of changes to the tribunal system that apply across the board, regardless of gender, and which have reduced employment protection generally.
Webb v EMO Air Cargo was a bad luck result for the employer, given its particular facts (maternity leave replacement herself becomes pregnant), but the principle that it establishes seems to me sound, and most cases do not have the unlucky facts of Webb.
On a general note I'd add that 'going legal' is stressful if you're not used to it. And potentially very expensive too - the further one goes down this path the more likely it is that you will need to take advice and even decidedly average advice is expensive; £200+vat an hour for an associate at a provincial firm, right up to North of £600+vat for City firm partners.
And that's why I have been so grateful to PH for the advice given freely - and that's also why it is such a shame that the genuinely knowledgable posters feel less and less like posting in this part of the forum.
And that's why I have been so grateful to PH for the advice given freely - and that's also why it is such a shame that the genuinely knowledgable posters feel less and less like posting in this part of the forum.
Breadvan72 said:
Yawn.... not biting. Misogyny is as irrational as racism and homophobia, so reasoning with misogynists is like reasoning with a horse.
Various cases argued in the 1990s helped to reduce the incidence of women being disadvantaged in the workplace because of maternity. Recently, employers have been able to turn the clock back, and maternity related disadvantage is on the rise. It is harder to obtain a remedy for this, because of changes to the tribunal system that apply across the board, regardless of gender, and which have reduced employment protection generally.
Webb v EMO Air Cargo was a bad luck result for the employer, given its particular facts (maternity leave replacement herself becomes pregnant), but the principle that it establishes seems to me sound, and most cases do not have the unlucky facts of Webb.
Various cases argued in the 1990s helped to reduce the incidence of women being disadvantaged in the workplace because of maternity. Recently, employers have been able to turn the clock back, and maternity related disadvantage is on the rise. It is harder to obtain a remedy for this, because of changes to the tribunal system that apply across the board, regardless of gender, and which have reduced employment protection generally.
Webb v EMO Air Cargo was a bad luck result for the employer, given its particular facts (maternity leave replacement herself becomes pregnant), but the principle that it establishes seems to me sound, and most cases do not have the unlucky facts of Webb.
Carefully chosen words, and rightly so as we know women still face considerable hurdles in the workplace.
Assuming that you are not trolling, obstacles include disadvantanges arising from maternity, and also glass ceilings, still found in many sectors. Add to this attitudes that judge women workers by reference to looks, clothing and so on.
I have an old school friend who has been UK Ambassador to important nations, including Afghanistan. She is a Fellow of an Oxford College. She is currently working as the political adviser to a NATO General engaged in a big wargame. She has been mistaken for the note taker by several uniformed and civilian men, repeatedly, at meetings during the last week or so. She has been asked to fetch the tea by junior and mid ranking officers and civilian staffers.
I have an old school friend who has been UK Ambassador to important nations, including Afghanistan. She is a Fellow of an Oxford College. She is currently working as the political adviser to a NATO General engaged in a big wargame. She has been mistaken for the note taker by several uniformed and civilian men, repeatedly, at meetings during the last week or so. She has been asked to fetch the tea by junior and mid ranking officers and civilian staffers.
Breadvan72 said:
Assuming that you are not trolling, obstacles include disadvantanges arising from maternity, and also glass ceilings, still found in many sectors. Add to this attitudes that judge women workers by reference to looks, clothing and so on.
Anyone who spends a significant proportion of their career out of the workplace is going to be at a disadvantage against someone who has not.I don't buy the glass ceiling argument. The best person for the job should get it. To have criteria that require a certain percentage of a gender in a particular role by definition discriminates against the other gender.
And as for attitudes, women themselves are the first to judge other women by looks, clothing, etc. Men just picture them naked ....
RobinOakapple said:
Assuming that you are not trolling, maternity disadvantages have already been factored in, in the point I was replying too.
As for being treated like a note taker etc, that might be irritating but in no way affects opportunities for advancement.
There are none so blind as those who will not see.As for being treated like a note taker etc, that might be irritating but in no way affects opportunities for advancement.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff