Discrimination during maternity leave

Discrimination during maternity leave

Author
Discussion

Actus Reus

Original Poster:

4,236 posts

156 months

Sunday 19th July 2015
quotequote all
They interviewed externally and internally - an external candidate got it, then pulled out. Second choice was an internal candidate (so it was advertised internally somehow, though we don't know how).
Other people could well have gone for it - but the role is directly senior to my wife and one other person, no more (though managing in total 200 odd people), so those two would seem to be natural candidates.

In law I'm fairly well certain now we have a solid case - and as I said earlier the employer has form for exactly this previously.

The moral issue is different - and clearly some of PH feel that it would be immoral to take action. I wonder if they had a baby and several thousand pounds on the table if they would really be quite so moralistic. We'll never know for sure.

I too am about to enter flat-pack furniture hell so see you at IKEA, Breadvan - I don't think their Chingford branch has a croquet lawn though.

Actus Reus

Original Poster:

4,236 posts

156 months

Sunday 19th July 2015
quotequote all
I don't know - presumably an advert somewhere? Recruitment agency? Normal means I should think.

Actus Reus

Original Poster:

4,236 posts

156 months

Sunday 19th July 2015
quotequote all
We do know - I posted earlier. BB now up and running and no emails.

Actus Reus

Original Poster:

4,236 posts

156 months

Sunday 19th July 2015
quotequote all
OldGermanHeaps said:
So if she was looking for a job she could have found it?
Probably not - most ads are through agencies and don't say who the employer is.

Actus Reus

Original Poster:

4,236 posts

156 months

Sunday 19th July 2015
quotequote all
To be really clear:

The company did not make any attempt to make her aware.

The external ad would have been handled by an agency anonymously. Only way of her knowing would have been to go into the office and ask around. Difficult with a baby as they forbid babies in the office (yes, honestly - it's policy). I suppose I could have had a day off so she could go in and ask. But I run my own business and don't have the time.

Actus Reus

Original Poster:

4,236 posts

156 months

Sunday 19th July 2015
quotequote all
Well fingers crossed because I've just ordered a 488.

ETA: with thanks to all for comments - I hope I managed to mostly keep my temper. I'll update the thread if and when anything happens.

Edited by Actus Reus on Sunday 19th July 16:33


Edited by Actus Reus on Sunday 19th July 16:35

Actus Reus

Original Poster:

4,236 posts

156 months

Sunday 19th July 2015
quotequote all
You haven't even read my posts. We've charged it and checked - there was no email. She is on leave. Have you ever looked after a 9 month old baby? It's time consuming - far far more so than work. My wife gave hours and hours of her time to her employer when she was there, such that she is probably still in credit with them. She may well have gone back - this would have meant a big rise and a company car (speaking for myself I'd have encouraged her to go back).

It would be, IMHO, disrespectful of them to not spend 30 seconds making a call telling her an opening had come up.

And with that I am out - I'll update when we have a resolution.

Actus Reus

Original Poster:

4,236 posts

156 months

Sunday 19th July 2015
quotequote all
I'm also amused at the leaps of faith taken above concerning my wife's suitability for the role, my own earnings, and my feelings toward the woman who got the role whom I've never met.

Actus Reus

Original Poster:

4,236 posts

156 months

Sunday 19th July 2015
quotequote all
Yes, she is/was.

I was surprised to see that Jimmy-whatever describes himself as 'in his 20s' in another thread. I presume therefore unmarried and no kids? Would love to have this conversation again once/if he does find a woman patient enough to put up with his sexism.

Actus Reus

Original Poster:

4,236 posts

156 months

Sunday 19th July 2015
quotequote all
Moulder said:
Maybe you're right. Still, I would think I meet the age qualifications to reply to this thread so how about an answer to my earlier post? If you "run my own business and don't have the time" as a business owner how would you have handled this as the employer? From an impartial perspective if your wife had been your employee would you still be taking the same approach?
Don't have the time to baby sit so she could go in to work to discuss things is what I meant.

I'm a lawyer, my business is a law firm, so it may not surprise you that I would try to comply with the law - ie I would tell a woman absent on mat leave about any promotions. I employ a few people with families and I try to accommodate their home lives as much as possible - far more than the law requires of me in fact.

Actus Reus

Original Poster:

4,236 posts

156 months

Sunday 19th July 2015
quotequote all
Yes. Breadvan.

Professionally I do all sorts, but nothing anywhere near employment law.

Actus Reus

Original Poster:

4,236 posts

156 months

Sunday 19th July 2015
quotequote all
Not sure I follow that Moulder. They never mailed her blackberry either.

And what would we want? Money. We'd want money. No idea how much until we've taken advice.

Actus Reus

Original Poster:

4,236 posts

156 months

Sunday 19th July 2015
quotequote all
Indeed, BV. Furthermore it's a web forum - I was looking for some (free) advice and knew damn well that, as always with PH, there was a fair risk of people somehow finding my/my wife's actions shameful. I don't give a monkey's though, and shall find some satisfaction in a payout if that is, indeed, what we get.

I would say to one or two on here who claim to be employers or in positions of authority, that they should make sure that their staff don't ever identify them on PH - though I should love to read the transcript of a case in which sexist posts on PH became part of the supporting evidence. Don't think it could happen? Go and read 10 Pence Short's sorry tale.

Actus Reus

Original Poster:

4,236 posts

156 months

Sunday 19th July 2015
quotequote all
Richie - yes, in a word, yes. You are wide of the mark by miles.

And somebody earlier on called my wife a .

Actus Reus

Original Poster:

4,236 posts

156 months

Sunday 19th July 2015
quotequote all
By the way if you think this is bad, wait for my inevitable photograph of me stood by a Ferrari outside of the Old Bailey. That'll really wind people up.

Actus Reus

Original Poster:

4,236 posts

156 months

Sunday 19th July 2015
quotequote all
Lucky that it'd be my wife then, isn't it?

And as to the rest of it, you may need to hone your 'tongue in cheek detector'. I'm well aware of what a likely pay out will look like, and it won't be all that much in the grand scheme of things. But if people are going to call my wife a , you have to allow me to wind them up a bit. Seems it works too.

Actus Reus

Original Poster:

4,236 posts

156 months

Sunday 19th July 2015
quotequote all
Haha - she wants a Qashqai. Bloody women...

Actus Reus

Original Poster:

4,236 posts

156 months

Sunday 19th July 2015
quotequote all
I don't - some of the other remarks have been rather more direct. My wife has read the thread though and feels more justified than ever in going after people who would disadvantage women because they have children. Somewhere out there right now is a manager who is going to get his arse handed to him tomorrow, and he can, in part, thank PH for that.

Actus Reus

Original Poster:

4,236 posts

156 months

Sunday 19th July 2015
quotequote all
RichieSlow said:
i'm glad I didn't ever go on to practice law. It makes people argumentative and cynical.

smile

Edit: smiley added.
So are those of us who practise law ;-)

Actus Reus

Original Poster:

4,236 posts

156 months

Monday 20th July 2015
quotequote all
PurpleMoonlight said:
God forbid you should have to take some responsibility for your own child.
Absolutely. Looking after children is women's work.