Discrimination during maternity leave
Discussion
... All of this presumes that the OP's missus Is right in her assumption that she's much better than the one that got it.
Every time there's a promotion at work, someone is upset because they've been overlooked - that they feel they were much better for the job and the award to someone else is a stitch up.
Thing is, 99% of time they're just totally deliuded - pretty much everyone else was wondering why they ever even went for the interview, they'd never get it.
I'm not saying that the OP's wife is in this boat - but to me the assumption that it's discrimination is a wider guess than that she's the wrong person for the job. That she is thinking of suing the people she was considering not returning to means that she's probably not the sort they want in mid- upper management. Might have all the skills, but kind of fails the attitude test.
Every time there's a promotion at work, someone is upset because they've been overlooked - that they feel they were much better for the job and the award to someone else is a stitch up.
Thing is, 99% of time they're just totally deliuded - pretty much everyone else was wondering why they ever even went for the interview, they'd never get it.
I'm not saying that the OP's wife is in this boat - but to me the assumption that it's discrimination is a wider guess than that she's the wrong person for the job. That she is thinking of suing the people she was considering not returning to means that she's probably not the sort they want in mid- upper management. Might have all the skills, but kind of fails the attitude test.
Actus Reus said:
my wife will lose her well paid job. Not quite free.
I've clearly missed something - I thought you were debating whether she goes back to work or not and that a job had been created in a role above her current one that she wasn't appropriately informed about, not losing her current job.Actus Reus said:
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.
At what point do you think it's fair to tell them?As to a free cheque - my wife will lose her well paid job. Not quite free.
She's either near to returning which makes the application for the job relevant or she's not in which case applying for promotion when not due back for months is absurd
V8LM said:
I've clearly missed something - I thought you were debating whether she goes back to work or not and that a job had been created in a role above her current one that she wasn't appropriately informed about, not losing her current job.
I agree ^^^^You have to be in it to win it. She didn't make herself available. Employers aren't just there for you to pick up and drop when it suits you, they are trying to run businesses and generate income for all of their workers- including those on maternity leave.
The OP's wife has lost an opportunity. She might not have obtained the promotion, but she may have had a chance of doing so. It is possible to compensate someone for the loss of a chance, and this commonly occurs in business disputes of many kinds, not merely in employment cases. Somewhat entertainingly, one of the key old cases on this involved a beauty contest (with shades of the Monopoly card which tells you that you have come second).
Breadvan72 said:
The OP's wife has lost an opportunity. She might not have obtained the promotion, but she may have had a chance of doing so. It is possible to compensate someone for the loss of a chance, and this commonly occurs in business disputes of many kinds, not merely in employment cases. Somehwat entertainingly, one of the key old cases on this involved a beauty contest and Charlie Chaplin (with shades of the Monopoly card which tells you that you have come second).
I lost the chance of a Euromillions win last night. Where do I claim?eldar said:
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.Not so long ago employers would routinely dismiss women as soon as they became pregnant, but we have come along a bit since then.
Discrimination on grounds of sex, colour, sexuality etc is bonkers, because it involves a waste of human resources. If we had not spent centuries suppressing women, for example, we would have had twice the talent available to solve many problems.
Edited by anonymous-user on Saturday 18th July 10:21
Richie Slow said:
I lost the chance of a Euromillions win last night. Where do I claim?
The chance in question has to be more than fanciful. It has been proven by science that we all have more chance of meeting Elvis riding Shergar on the Moon than of winning the Euromillions, so tough tomales!Breadvan72 said:
Richie Slow said:
I lost the chance of a Euromillions win last night. Where do I claim?
The chance in question has to be more than fanciful. It has been proven by science that we all have more chance of meeting Elvis riding Shergar on the Moon than of winning the Euromillions, so tough tomales!Breadvan72 said:
The chance in question has to be more than fanciful. It has been proven by science that we all have more chance of meeting Elvis riding Shergar on the Moon than of winning the Euromillions, so tough tomales!
The crux then is how they run their promotion process. If they invite people to apply based on career development objectives for the year and past recent performance it's tough, she didn't qualify. If they stick a notice up then you need to be there and she wasn't she can claim she wasn't informed. Breadvan72 said:
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.
not sure anyone was arguing teh legal ramifications more teh moral ones.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.
I don't see why those imbalances should be addressed, she chose to get pregnant and dissapear for 9 months. IMHO expecting work to treat her like she is still there disadvantages those who actually went to work for those 9 months
markiii said:
not sure anyone was arguing teh legal ramifications more teh moral ones.
I don't see why those imbalances should be addressed, she chose to get pregnant and dissapear for 9 months. IMHO expecting work to treat her like she is still there disadvantages those who actually went to work for those 9 months
I said 1847, but maybe I need to revise that to 1347.I don't see why those imbalances should be addressed, she chose to get pregnant and dissapear for 9 months. IMHO expecting work to treat her like she is still there disadvantages those who actually went to work for those 9 months
Breadvan72 said:
JonV8V said:
... If they invite people to apply based on career development objectives for the year and past recent performance it's tough, she didn't qualify. ..
That would be the essence of pregnancy/maternity discrimination. Can you not see why?Edit. No Stupid of me. Shouldn't stop her from being told of the position and therefore allowing her to apply for it.
Edited by V8LM on Saturday 18th July 10:37
maybe, but I still maintain pregnancy is a choice, its not compulsory like being black, irish, or gay (to use past examples)
you choose to take advantage of 9 months not going to work, you choose to put pregnancy ahead of career, you choose to be 9 months behind on training, you choose to be 9 months out of touch with developments in your field, you choose to be 9 months out of contact with your clients
those choices put you nine months behind those who don't
its one thing making it law to have a job to come back to, its quite another expecting to be treated as if you haven't had a 9 month voluntary career break.
If a women asked for 9 months off to travel the world, was given it and guarantee that her job was still there for her in 9 months. It would be churlish to expect that break not to put you 9 months behind those that carried on working
I fail to see why pregnancy should be any different. It really isn't a mandatory requirement to have kids. And I know women who feel exactly the same about it.
You may be correct on the law, in fact I tend to trust your opinions, so expect you probably are BV. That doesn't mean the law itself is fair, nor that the ways it can be manipulated reflect its original intent.
you choose to take advantage of 9 months not going to work, you choose to put pregnancy ahead of career, you choose to be 9 months behind on training, you choose to be 9 months out of touch with developments in your field, you choose to be 9 months out of contact with your clients
those choices put you nine months behind those who don't
its one thing making it law to have a job to come back to, its quite another expecting to be treated as if you haven't had a 9 month voluntary career break.
If a women asked for 9 months off to travel the world, was given it and guarantee that her job was still there for her in 9 months. It would be churlish to expect that break not to put you 9 months behind those that carried on working
I fail to see why pregnancy should be any different. It really isn't a mandatory requirement to have kids. And I know women who feel exactly the same about it.
You may be correct on the law, in fact I tend to trust your opinions, so expect you probably are BV. That doesn't mean the law itself is fair, nor that the ways it can be manipulated reflect its original intent.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff