Discrimination during maternity leave

[Actus Reus]

Breadvan72 said:

For a dude from ye olden days, you are catching on with this new fangled passive aggressive thing pretty quickly!

Some people would say he's a . I wouldn't. Some people might though. Perhaps even a lot of people. But not me.

[Actus Reus]

We do?

[Actus Reus]

I should think, Devil, that that would particularly be the case if your line manager had been emailing you on your private email account. It would seem odd to then switch communication to the blackberry. of course we have since established that no emails were sent to the blackberry either, thus rendering this line of enquiry somewhat redundant, even if the law did support it (and it does not).

[Actus Reus]

It wasn't 'bh' but instead c u next Tuesday. Which struck me as being a bit strong.

[Actus Reus]

Sounds like a decent place to work - I honestly thought my wife's outfit would be better. They're a household name and employ more women than men by a fair margin. However I think this one manager has probably let the side down - ex Royal Navy apparently and presumably cut his teeth in a very different environment.

And yes, I thought the same about that post - ho hum. Seems to be common on PH these days.

[Actus Reus]

I think that's usual - I think my wife didn't hear because she's on maternity leave. In other words they discriminated against her unlawfully.

Anyway work calls for me now.

[Actus Reus]

Actus Reus said:

Right, I'll try and keep this brief...

SWMBO is currently 9 months into her maternity leave and so we're considering whether or not she'll be going back to work after her maternity leave.

She had a meeting with work (a large, well-known, company) today - turns out that, during her absence, a role just above hers was created. She wasn't told about this possible promotion and the role has been filled - not once but twice as the initial applicant backed out and so they found a 2nd choice.

It's just possible she was sent a work email informing her, but she's not been checking her Blackberry and all other correspondence from work has gone to her private email address or been via telephone.

So - is this discriminatory and what should she do?

That's my original post - I mentioned the blackberry, and that she hasn't been checking it, as I wasn't sure if that could be considered a legitimate form of communication to her - if it were, she'd have had no claim had an email been sent (I suspected that it would not be considered an acceptable method of communication, but it's important to deal with the facts and not my interpretation of them).

I fail to spot any 'attitude' there as I was asking a simple question and being as honest as I could be in order to get accurate answers. I have, I'll admit, become a bit sick of my wife being torn into by some posters, and so you'll have to excuse some of my more flippant responses concerning the level of compensation that we may want/receive.

The case law would seem to suggest that she is not expected to check her work mail whilst on leave (she manages about 100 people, so routinely receives 200 - 300 mails a day btw, so checking her mail is quite time consuming). So, given that she is not expected to check her work mail, and had agreed that all communication should be via her Gmail, and that no emails were sent AT ALL to any of those addresses I think there's a claim.

You may not like that, and you may not like the law (you may not even properly understand it as you seem to continue to argue it, even though you are arguing against a barrister of years experience in exactly this field, indeed one who is described as '[I've] never seen better' by one of the established authorities). But the fact remains - the behaviour by the employer would appear to be discriminatory.

And relax.

[Actus Reus]

PurpleMoonlight said:

You need to note that BV has put 'may' in all of his posts on this matter, and quite correctly. Further investigation will no doubt take place should the OP seek the desired compensation and before it gets to a Tribunal.

He's a barrister - they all do that sir.

[Actus Reus]

Do you not see that a better paid job might have induced my wife to go back?

[Actus Reus]

otolith said:

Interesting scenario.

To what extent, if any, is an employer allowed to exclude candidates on the grounds that they are not immediately available due to maternity leave? Does that apply only to internal vacancies, or does it also apply to advertised positions? If I needed someone to start immediately, would I be offside if I rejected a candidate because she did not intend restarting work for the next nine months?

I was wondering this earlier - I think you'd be in trouble.

[Actus Reus]

WinstonWolf said:

So to clarify, you have to offer a job to someone even if they're not in a position to do it otherwise it's discrimination?

You have to give them the chance to apply.

[Actus Reus]

PurpleMoonlight said:

In all honesty, no.

She, you as a couple, either want her to be a full time parent or not. For many that's not an option, for you it appears to be.

If you had already made the decision to return to work I would be 100% behind you in the discrimination. But I rather suspect that you are both leaning towards her giving up work, so any discrimination is meaningless except as the basis for a compensation claim.

I believe in acting with integrity and failing to do so can often come back to bite you in the ass ......

I would love her to stay at home and look after my son, but we have household finances to think of. If you can't appreciate that, we're on such different sides of this there's no point continuing to debate it; I have, in any case, clients waiting. Good afternoon to one and all - may your pursuit of integrity, righteousness and a male workplace be a happy one!

[Actus Reus]

WinstonWolf said:

So a business has to offer a job to someone who can't actually do the job?

Doesn't this strike you as a bit "odd".

Not what I said.

[Actus Reus]

Breadvan72 said:

The shoutiness here says more about the shouties than the shouted at, I reckon.

• blush*

You just want to borrow the Ferrari, don't you?

[Actus Reus]

Breadvan72 said:

Darling, when you see my bill you will be handing over the keys for good.

You didn't even study law at university. I'm not sure you're even a real lawyer.

And no, Richie, that's the way these things go on PH. It'd be good if you asked me about my wife's blackberry though - I don't think I've answered that one enough times.

[Actus Reus]

She never reads the fking thing - bloody place is full of aholes so she didn't want to go back anyway

[Actus Reus]

Mandat said:

We all know what the OP's claim is and what the law says on the subject, but the above responses don't provide any new information beyond that.

What I'm trying to understand is the specific mechanics of how the discrimination has been perpetrated by the company.

Have the company said by what methods the company employees (including the OP's wife) were made aware of the vacancy? Surely this is the fundamental question that will go to show whether the OP's wife was disadvantaged or not?

I thought we HAD established that. It is a given that some of wife's colleagues were informed of a vacancy - we know this for sure because somebody now has the job, ergo she was informed. The method of delivery of that notice to this woman is irrelevant.

What IS relevant, is that my wife was not told at all in an acceptable way (i.e. direct communication to her - either a circular email to her Gmail, or a text, or a letter). Thus, by omission she was excluded from applying. It may have been advertised on the company intranet - we do not, however have access at home, and even if we did, that's probably not sufficient - similarly she is not meant, by law, to be checking company mail.

As Breadvan has said you do NOT need a comparator (i.e. how the other people were told) - the important, indeed almost sole, consideration is 'was the OP's wife told?' - and the answer to that is 'No, she wasn't'.

[Actus Reus]

berlintaxi said:

If it is anything like my Blackberry she probably never received as it was important but 1,000 emails a day about erectile dysfunction always seem to get through, godforsaken piece of ste that it is.

She could at least forward them to me.

[Actus Reus]

PurpleMoonlight said:

Are you claiming she should be treated differently when on maternity leave than when not, ie she should have been notified of the position and permitted to apply when on maternity leave, even though if not on maternity leave she would not have?

No. Why would she not have been told had she been at work? I didn't infer that at all.

And Winston, she may well have gone back - that post you quoted a little bit ago was firmly tongue in cheek. You really need to read the preceding 28 pages asking about my wife's Blackberry to understand.

[Actus Reus]

• smashes head on desk*

The role was openly and internally advertised - we can assume this because an external hire was made originally and they either never took the job, or walked out very early on. As I said previously. I am also fairly sure that in a big organisation like this they have procedures and don't just allow managers to promote staff without going through the motions.