Discrimination during maternity leave

[Richie Slow]

markiii said:

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.

That's the opportunity of the professional

[JonV8V]

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?

No. If the criteria is laid out based on a reasonable basis to which she had already agreed then she effectively self barred. Her timing was unfortunate.

There is no compulsion to offer a position to all employees

[Jasandjules]

Actus Reus said:

So - is this discriminatory and what should she do?

It is possible she has a claim under 18(4) EQA.

Part of the question is what does she want to do about it?

[surveyor]

BV - thanks for the informative posts. I had no idea there was so much protection over and above the actual maternity leave provisions.

[Jasandjules]

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?

How would they know without interviewing her? Or at the least obtaining an up to date CV?

[markiii]

can't see the updated CV helping,

last position, sitting on her arse on the sofa for 9 months watching daytime telly isn't going to help her prospects :-)

[BJG1]

grumbledoak said:

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.

Because the OP's wife doesn't want to go back to work unless she really has to and a sexual discrimination payout would mean she doesn't have to. If the law allows it, she should go for it, the business will always act in its own interests with regard to you, as it should. You in return should do the same.

[PurpleMoonlight]

Jasandjules said:

How would they know without interviewing her? Or at the least obtaining an up to date CV?

Other than pushing out a baby what new skills to you think she will have gained to add to her CV since she last presented herself to work for them?

[grumbledoak]

BJG1 said:

Because the OP's wife doesn't want to go back to work unless she really has to and a sexual discrimination payout would mean she doesn't have to. If the law allows it, she should go for it, the business will always act in its own interests with regard to you, as it should. You in return should do the same.

I suspect you are correct. Ker-ching! Tribunals all round!

[JonV8V]

Jasandjules said:

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?

How would they know without interviewing her? Or at the least obtaining an up to date CV?

Because employees may be under a career development and review process and opportunities for progression are part of that. They should also be fully aware if her skills unless she's domehow developed external capability outside her current employment.

An interview process for an internal promotion is likely to focus on how they would approach the role, what they'd change, what benefit they'd bring etc.

[Jasandjules]

PurpleMoonlight said:

Other than pushing out a baby what new skills to you think she will have gained to add to her CV since she last presented herself to work for them?

She may have been working for them for several years, during which time she might have undertaken various training and even gained other skills as a result of her working there. Who knows. No-one, without asking.

However, a prejudicial view is clear from a complete failure to even consider her.

[craigjm]

This place never ceases to amaze me. Its exactly for the reasons people are spouting on here that we need the legislation bread van is referring to. Honestly what are you all doing this afternoon? selling your slaves in the back yard? its 2015 not 1840

[jimmybobby]

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.

Breadvan i am unlike you no lawyer so cannot speak for whats lkegal or not but common sense but the reality just as she has been disadvantaged ber her own decision to have time off work to have a baby she has also disadvantaged her company and fellow employees.

They are not career imbalances they are life personal life choices. If I took 9-12 months off from work I sure as hell would not expect to be able to walk straight into my old job or for that matter a promotion.

Business policy, customers, markets change fairly contantly which means depending on a persons role when they come back to work they will be behind the curve.

[jimmybobby]

grumbledoak said:

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.

Sadly though its people like the op who will do well in life while ruining things and business for everyone else by whining whinging and then suing everyone around them for the op and his families own personal choices.

[vonuber]

My other half works for a very large and well known organisation and they tried to make her redundant whilst she was on maternity leave with no consultation whatsoever, with the reason being that basically her boss doesn't like her.

Shocking really, we are convinced that the stress of it is why our baby was born so small.

[allergictocheese]

Ah here were go. The usual PH, having a baby is all about lifestyle, nonsense.

All you hairy directors would have nobody to help your buy-to-let and equity portfolios grow for your retirement if all these awful, manipulative women didn't keep 'pushing babies out'.

Of course, the OP's wife is purely In this to fk her employer and in no way do those unfortunate employers ever gleefully screw their employees.

Hint- if the balance hadn't been in the wrong direction and employers not historically taken advantage, there would been no need (or support) to specifically outlaw such discrimination.

[jimmybobby]

Richie Slow said:

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?

fk off I have been paying in a LOT longer than you and I am definitely better at the Euro millions playing than you anyway!

I deserve compo before you.

[PurpleMoonlight]

craigjm said:

This place never ceases to amaze me. Its exactly for the reasons people are spouting on here that we need the legislation bread van is referring to. Honestly what are you all doing this afternoon? selling your slaves in the back yard? its 2015 not 1840

You say that like it's a bad thing ....

[PurpleMoonlight]

I fancy getting a hamster.

I will let my employer know that I will be taking a year off work to care for my hamster. Money will be tight so I expect my employer to continue to pay me for some of my time off, and thereafter the Government can pay me. I will not decide until the end of the year whether or not I wish to return to work for my employer, but I expect them to keep my job open for all this time just in case I do. If a possible promotion should arise during this year I expect to be give exactly the same consideration for that as my colleagues that have chosen not to have a hamster, even though I would be unwilling to take up the new position until the end of my year (if at all). Oh, and one final thing, if I should return to work I expect my employer to accommodate my request for flexible working hours as I will miss my hamster, and should my hamster be ill at any time I expect my employer to give me paid time off to care for it.

[Countdown]

PurpleMoonlight said:

Jasandjules said:

How would they know without interviewing her? Or at the least obtaining an up to date CV?

Other than pushing out a baby what new skills to you think she will have gained to add to her CV since she last presented herself to work for them?

Looking after a newborn baby, dealing with its numerous tantrums, irrational demands, and constantly dealing with the crap it produces is ideal training for managing a team of staff.