Discrimination during maternity leave

Discrimination during maternity leave

Author
Discussion

Actus Reus

Original Poster:

4,229 posts

154 months

Saturday 18th July 2015
quotequote all
E92Dan said:
So OP has this been considered??
No because 1. in law that doesn't matter 2. my wife thinks she is better able to do the job than the lady who is now doing it. That's of course arguable, but on paper my wife is far far better qualified.

But the crucial part is 1 - she wasn't told about the job and in a transparent work place even inferior candidates should be allowed to apply and out their case, not just be shot down from the get go.

E92Dan

22,154 posts

107 months

Saturday 18th July 2015
quotequote all
If she's that bothered she should have found the missing Blackberry charger and checked her Emails

PurpleMoonlight

22,362 posts

156 months

Saturday 18th July 2015
quotequote all
Actus Reus said:
No because 1. in law that doesn't matter 2. my wife thinks she is better able to do the job than the lady who is now doing it. That's of course arguable, but on paper my wife is far far better qualified.
What law is that?

What your wife thinks doesn't matter. What your employer thinks does. Providing the basis of excluding an employee from consideration is not discriminatory the employer is entitled to promote anyone they choose.

Actus Reus

Original Poster:

4,229 posts

154 months

Saturday 18th July 2015
quotequote all
E92Dan said:
If she's that bothered she should have found the missing Blackberry charger and checked her Emails
I'm gonna pop out and buy one in a minute - but even if the mail is there, I don't think it matters - she received quite a lot of other communication, essentially hassling her to go back, via her gmail account. However we'll check the BB later and see if anything was sent there - if my wife decides to go ahead and go down the legal route I want it to be as measured as possible; I'm in law myself and going off half-cocked does nobody any favours.

Actus Reus

Original Poster:

4,229 posts

154 months

Saturday 18th July 2015
quotequote all
PurpleMoonlight said:
What law is that?

What your wife thinks doesn't matter. What your employer thinks does. Providing the basis of excluding an employee from consideration is not discriminatory the employer is entitled to promote anyone they choose.
See above - Breadvan is a barrister working in employment law. Just because you think there isn't a law doesn't mean that there isn't. The role was advertised internally and interviewed for - my wife wasn't told. The basis of her claim is that that's discriminatory. If you can't see that then fine, but your grasp of employment law is weak.

PurpleMoonlight

22,362 posts

156 months

Saturday 18th July 2015
quotequote all
Actus Reus said:
See above - Breadvan is a barrister working in employment law. Just because you think there isn't a law doesn't mean that there isn't. The role was advertised internally and interviewed for - my wife wasn't told. The basis of her claim is that that's discriminatory. If you can't see that then fine, but your grasp of employment law is weak.
All I see is you looking for a compensation claim against an employer for a job she may or may not have been notified of, may or may not have got, and may or may not be returning to ....

anonymous-user

53 months

Saturday 18th July 2015
quotequote all
Those suggesting that a woman on maternity leave should hover over her company emails on the off chance that something important might come up are not being very realistic, I suggest. People seem so anxious to say OMG unfair to men, whingeing women, PC gone mad etc that they are deploying rather silly arguments.

The social policy here recognises that pregnancy is a special status that creates career disadvantages for women, and so it seeks to mitigate those disadvantages. People talking of comparators miss the point that there are no relevant comparators, and the law doesn't require any.

PurpleMoonlight

22,362 posts

156 months

Saturday 18th July 2015
quotequote all
Breadvan72 said:
Those suggesting that a woman on maternity leave should hover over her company emails on the off chance that something important might come up are not being very realistic, I suggest. People seem so anxious to say OMG unfair to men, whingeing women, PC gone mad etc that they are deploying rather silly arguments.

The social policy here recognises that pregnancy is a special status that creates career disadvantages for women, and so it seeks to mitigate those disadvantages. People talking of comparators miss the point that there are no relevant comparators, and the law doesn't require any.
The law may well try to protect women, and possibly men, from discrimination but the reality is it never will.

If you are going to take a year out of the workplace, or possibly two or three years over a period, and thereafter prioritise your children over your work, it is going to affect the way an employer views you. Oh of course they cant admit that but sure as eggs is eggs it will.

People who choose to have children and prioritise them over the employment that pays the bills need to accept the consequences of that choice, because regardless of any legislation it's always going to be there.

E92Dan

22,154 posts

107 months

Saturday 18th July 2015
quotequote all
Surely she could have checked for any promotions when she visited the firm once a month?

allergictocheese

1,290 posts

112 months

Saturday 18th July 2015
quotequote all
E92Dan said:
Surely she could have checked for any promotions when she visited the firm once a month?
Surely if the employer would have actively informed the employee of the opportunity had she not been on maternity leave, they should also have if she was?

The idea of protection from discrimination, is that the one being protected shouldn't be unduly detrimented due to their differing circumstances.

berlintaxi

8,535 posts

172 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?
Appears so, but of course it is the company that is in the wrong.rolleyes

V8LM

5,166 posts

208 months

Saturday 18th July 2015
quotequote all
Breadvan72 said:
It is not reasonable to expect someone on maternity leave to monitor company emails.
But if the job was advertised internally to all by email, and the employee on leave is provided by the company a Blackberry to send and receive emails, is it reasonable to expect the employer to make extra effort in contacting the person on leave? Should they have written to her? Or phoned her up? Or popped round for a chat? What about the employees who were on holiday when the job was advertised?

If the position was advertised by various means yet the OP's wife only sent an email then fair enough, but if email was the only notification and this went to all then wouldn't making an extra effort to ensure the person on leave knew of the position be discriminating against those that weren't?


Edited by V8LM on Saturday 18th July 10:24

Denis O

2,141 posts

242 months

Saturday 18th July 2015
quotequote all
Maybe the company decided that they didn't want someone popping off to drop sprogs, in a more critical position then current, due to the impact on their business.

Welcome to the real world.

anonymous-user

53 months

Saturday 18th July 2015
quotequote all
Denis O said:
Maybe the company decided that they didn't want someone popping off to drop sprogs, in a more critical position then current, due to the impact on their business.

Welcome to the real world.
Top bombing, Denis O.

Business needs more real men like you.

divetheworld

2,565 posts

134 months

Saturday 18th July 2015
quotequote all
Actus Reus said:
she received quite a lot of other communication, essentially hassling her to go back, via her gmail account.
So contacting her outside of work emails is hassling her, not contacting her is discrimination.
I tend to think along some others on here, you just see the potential for a free cheque. What is sad is that the law may support your position.

JonV8V

7,177 posts

123 months

Saturday 18th July 2015
quotequote all
The law protects women quite well and they can return to work with greater flexibility, usually part time if they want it and as if they had never been away.

What the law can't and shouldn't do is create an artificial bridge to make up for missing experience in post, delays in training, and an inability to do a different job. Our staff, on a reasonable progression path, get promoted every 3 to 5 years, slowing down to a stop at some point. With the best will in the world one of those years can't be while off work for any reason. Im all for picking up where you left off but it seems pretty clear shes completely disengaged from work while off otherwise she'd have known the position was coming up.

Edited by JonV8V on Saturday 18th July 10:02

anonymous-user

53 months

Saturday 18th July 2015
quotequote all
It used to be OK to sack a woman because she was pregnant, and to refuse to hire someone because he or she was black. People said "this is the real world, it will never change", but it did change. Attitudes change slowly (on PH, gender politics are frozen somewhere circa 1847), and in general the law should follow society and not lead it, but sometimes the law can give society a nudge along the way. You can never altogether eradicate unfairness in many contexts, but you can ameliorate it.

Actus Reus

Original Poster:

4,229 posts

154 months

Saturday 18th July 2015
quotequote all
divetheworld said:
So contacting her outside of work emails is hassling her, not contacting her is discrimination.
I tend to think along some others on here, you just see the potential for a free cheque. What is sad is that the law may support your position.
Repeatedly asking 'when are you coming back' and saying 'there's an opportunity - are you interested' are quite different and if you can't see that I'd suggest that the problem lies with you.

As to a free cheque - my wife will lose her well paid job. Not quite free.

eldar

21,614 posts

195 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 was only relative recently (abolished 1973) that parts of the civil service required women to resign on marriage.

Richie Slow

7,499 posts

163 months

Saturday 18th July 2015
quotequote all
Denis O said:
Maybe the company decided that they didn't want someone popping off to drop sprogs, in a more critical position then current, due to the impact on their business.

Welcome to the real world.
I'm sure many employers make that a consideration. For a small business it could be financially disastrous to lose a worker on full pay, or even their replacement too.....

http://uklawstudent.thomsonreuters.com/2012/10/mon...