Discrimination during maternity leave

Discrimination during maternity leave

Author
Discussion

Actus Reus

Original Poster:

4,229 posts

154 months

Friday 17th July 2015
quotequote all
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?

Some Gump

12,671 posts

185 months

Friday 17th July 2015
quotequote all
Imo no, not discriminatory.

E92Dan

22,154 posts

107 months

Friday 17th July 2015
quotequote all
Why hasnt she been checking her blackberry?

MitchT

15,788 posts

208 months

Friday 17th July 2015
quotequote all
Happens to people who aren't on maternity leave too. I've witnessed it many times. Not sure how it could be considered more unfair to someone who is on maternity leave and misses out on the role than someone who is at work and also misses out on it.

jimmybobby

348 posts

105 months

Friday 17th July 2015
quotequote all
My position on this this wont be popular but your wife took the decision to have your child not the company she works for. Are they to simply wait in limbo until she decides she wants to come back to work or maybe they should try entice her to come back by dangling a nice shiny possible promotion in front of her face.

I am all for mothers speding time with their newborn children but the rules in my book are frankly ridiculous. It is a personal decision you take that the company has no say in yet massively affects the company. After 9 months leave I think she should simply be grateful to have a job to go back to.

Has she considered that her decision to have a baby has meant a heavier work load on her colleagues? Did she ask if they were ok with picking up any slack left while she takes time off to have a baby?? Bet not.

Edited by jimmybobby on Saturday 18th July 02:07

Nigel Worc's

8,121 posts

187 months

Saturday 18th July 2015
quotequote all
jimmybobby said:
My position on this this ownt be popular but your wife took the decision to have your child not the company she works for. Are they to simply wait in limbo until she decides she want sto ome back to work or maybe they should try entice her to come back by dangling a nice shiny possible promotion in front of her face.

I am all for mothers speding time with their newborn children but the rules in my book are frankly ridiculous. It is a personal decision you take that the company has no say in yet massively affects the company. After 9 months leave I think she should simply be grateful to have a job to go back to.

Has she considered that her decision to have a baby has meant a heavier work load on her colleagues? Did she ask if they were ok with picking up any slack left while she takes time off to have a baby?? Bet not.
The above, absolutely.

The new rules saying men can share this leave are even worse, we are businesses , not charities to people who wish to have children !

Issi

1,782 posts

149 months

Saturday 18th July 2015
quotequote all
So didn't check her emails, and is now moaning that she missed out? Did I get that right?

Countdown

39,690 posts

195 months

Saturday 18th July 2015
quotequote all
OP

employer is supposed to keep people informed about work issues which might affect you. This includes things like promotion opportunities. The method of communication can be whatever is acceptable to both parties. Phone / Letter/ Email.

What was the normal communication method?

Rick101

6,959 posts

149 months

Saturday 18th July 2015
quotequote all
Tough st imo.

I have been looking for a job change so check the vacancy lists daily.

It's up to her to check and apply for the post not for someone to come and ask her. By the sounds of it she is taking her money whilst on leave and probably not going back anyway.

When you say 'it's just possible..' it's pretty obvious that she had the email but never checked it. Correct?

LoonR1

26,988 posts

176 months

Saturday 18th July 2015
quotequote all
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?
Brilliant, you're currently deciding whether she'll bother going to back to work at all and then find out there was a better job and are all huffy that she didn't get offered it. It may well be technically discriminatory, but there are some even bigger double standards going on here and they aren't the company's. .

anonymous-user

53 months

Saturday 18th July 2015
quotequote all
The responses above are typically PH, but also wrong. The OP's wife may well have a claim that she has been subjected to a form of detriment for a reason connected with her maternity status. It is not reasonable to expect someone on maternity leave to monitor company emails.

Those of you cry foul please think about it for a minute. The OP's wife has possibly been disadvantaged at the work place because of her pregnancy/maternity. Note that there is no need to find a male comparator, because there cannot be a male comparator so long as only women can become pregnant. Maternity has a special protected status in employment law. This has nothing to do with political correctness. It attempts to redress the career imbalances that flow from women taking time off to have children.

Actus Reus

Original Poster:

4,229 posts

154 months

Saturday 18th July 2015
quotequote all
Issi said:
So didn't check her emails, and is now moaning that she missed out? Did I get that right?
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.

grumbledoak

31,500 posts

232 months

Saturday 18th July 2015
quotequote all
Legals aside, the OP has gone straight from "considering whether or not she'll be going back to work after her maternity leave" to "The company has form for similar stuff and has settled with at least two other employees in the last few months" and "speak to a solicitor on Monday".

FFS. Call that Kyle fella too.

PurpleMoonlight

22,362 posts

156 months

Saturday 18th July 2015
quotequote all
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.
Does it not occur to you, even in the slightest, that her employer had decided she was not satisfactory for the new position regardless of her maternal situation?

It always seems that women on maternity leave (and spouses/partners) want special consideration above what they would get if not on maternity leave. As soon as something doesn't go their way they cry 'discrimination'.

Actus Reus

Original Poster:

4,229 posts

154 months

Saturday 18th July 2015
quotequote all
I was never really certain about discrimination laws having real value and practical application. Then you read PH and you see exactly why these laws exist.

And to pre-empt the next set of posts - yes, I own my own business, and yes I employ several women of 'child bearing age'.

anonymous-user

53 months

Saturday 18th July 2015
quotequote all
Pregnancy creates an inherent inequality between men and women that favours men in the workplace because, for example, they are there to apply for the promotion when the woman is not. The law seeks to redress that inequality. This imposes a cost on businesses, but this is one of those utilitarian instruments that spreads the costs of social policy across many businesses.

Not so long ago employers would routinely dismiss women as soon as they became pregnant, but we have come along a bit since then.

LoonR1

26,988 posts

176 months

Saturday 18th July 2015
quotequote all
Actus Reus said:
I was never really certain about discrimination laws having real value and practical application. Then you read PH and you see exactly why these laws exist.

And to pre-empt the next set of posts - yes, I own my own business, and yes I employ several women of 'child bearing age'.
Red Bull? Goatee?

Actus Reus

Original Poster:

4,229 posts

154 months

Saturday 18th July 2015
quotequote all
LoonR1 said:
Red Bull? Goatee?
Don't like it. No.

Moderately powerfully built.


And considerably richer than yow.

JonV8V

7,177 posts

123 months

Saturday 18th July 2015
quotequote all
Breadvan72 said:
Pregnancy creates an inherent inequality between men and women that favours men in the workplace because, for example, they are there to apply for the promotion when the woman is not. The law seeks to redress that inequality. This imposes a cost on businesses, but this is one of those utilitarian instruments that spreads the costs of social policy across many businesses.

Not so long ago employers would routinely dismiss women as soon as they became pregnant, but we have come along a bit since then.
It's got nothing to do with men and women, It is do with pregnant people and those taking maternity and paternity leave and those who are not. Minor technicality but an important one.

Women at work in her place of work did not suffer. Well apart from having to take on her work load while she becomes out of touch with the latest thinking. But rather than think a transition back into the workplace is a good idea, she thinks she can do the next job up.



Edited by JonV8V on Saturday 18th July 08:47

E92Dan

22,154 posts

107 months

Saturday 18th July 2015
quotequote all
PurpleMoonlight said:
Does it not occur to you, even in the slightest, that her employer had decided she was not satisfactory for the new position regardless of her maternal situation?

It always seems that women on maternity leave (and spouses/partners) want special consideration above what they would get if not on maternity leave. As soon as something doesn't go their way they cry 'discrimination'.
So OP has this been considered??