Discrimination during maternity leave
Discussion
Thanks Desolate - and yes, i wonder too - the honest answer is that I'm on a train and bored. The attacks are personal, but they come from people so demonstrably stupid and mean-spirited that they're easy to ignore. Overall though PH has helped me on two really quite important matters over the last two years, so I stick with it. Karma innit?
PurpleMoonlight said:
Do you not see the difference between someone standing up for their rights to protect their income and employment, and someone using those rights to gain financial compensation from an employer who they did not intent to return to work for?
OK, ignoring my own case, try and prove that intent. You can't. You say someone's wife had no intention of going back, she says she did. Who do you have to believe? It HAS to be her - there's no evidence one way or another unless she's planning on leaving the country. Thus the law is the way it is - it's not difficult for an employer to comply with it - literally one email is all it takes.So whilst I understand your moral point the law is correct on a practical level, surely?
Thing is Richie, not discriminating against people is EASY - very very very easy. In the case at hand a two line email would have avoided all of this. Period.
So I'd contend that it is quite well balanced - sure, some jokers will always try it on - but they lose and get costs awarded against them hopefully.
Going back to PM's comments above - knowing full well he will ignore this question - if you are going to ask a woman to PROVE intention of going back to work and NOT accept her word for it, how much proof will you need? And in what form? Do you not see that asking a plaintiff to provide evidence like that will 1. shoot most complainants in the foot, because the burden of proof will be stupidly high and 2. utterly wreck the court system as suddenly statements under oath are no longer acceptable and you now need hard evidence for EVERYTHING? Totally unworkable from a public policy point of view.
So I'd contend that it is quite well balanced - sure, some jokers will always try it on - but they lose and get costs awarded against them hopefully.
Going back to PM's comments above - knowing full well he will ignore this question - if you are going to ask a woman to PROVE intention of going back to work and NOT accept her word for it, how much proof will you need? And in what form? Do you not see that asking a plaintiff to provide evidence like that will 1. shoot most complainants in the foot, because the burden of proof will be stupidly high and 2. utterly wreck the court system as suddenly statements under oath are no longer acceptable and you now need hard evidence for EVERYTHING? Totally unworkable from a public policy point of view.
PurpleMoonlight said:
Who said anything about them having to prove it.
You stated that I had to believe them if they claimed they were intending on returning to work. I said I didn't. I am a free individual and I can chose what to believe and what not to.
I fail to understand where a plaintiff or court system comes into it.
Oh I see, I thought we were talking about actual courts here, not the court of PM.You stated that I had to believe them if they claimed they were intending on returning to work. I said I didn't. I am a free individual and I can chose what to believe and what not to.
I fail to understand where a plaintiff or court system comes into it.
Dealing with ACTUAL real life courts is easier than dealing with PH - who'd have thunk it?
That's true - you can defend it if the employee is manifestly unsuitable - either because the employment record is terrible or because of something like the role being clearly inappropriate, for example if your tea lady on maternity leave applies for the CFO's job.
If it's a tight call though it's an easy enough duty to dispense.
If it's a tight call though it's an easy enough duty to dispense.
On a general note I'd add that 'going legal' is stressful if you're not used to it. And potentially very expensive too - the further one goes down this path the more likely it is that you will need to take advice and even decidedly average advice is expensive; £200+vat an hour for an associate at a provincial firm, right up to North of £600+vat for City firm partners.
And that's why I have been so grateful to PH for the advice given freely - and that's also why it is such a shame that the genuinely knowledgable posters feel less and less like posting in this part of the forum.
And that's why I have been so grateful to PH for the advice given freely - and that's also why it is such a shame that the genuinely knowledgable posters feel less and less like posting in this part of the forum.
PurpleMoonlight said:
Why do you claim that businesses making choices for the betterment of the business rather than the potential employee as misogyny? It isn't.
I commented on the likelihood of fathers taking extended paternal leave earlier in the thread so won't again.
It could be construed as discriminatory, however.I commented on the likelihood of fathers taking extended paternal leave earlier in the thread so won't again.
What hasn't been discussed here, though IanA2 mentioned it pages ago, is the possibility of quitting the job and then suing for constructive dismissal - it is a tougher route as far as I can gather (and to be clear absolutely not something my wife has considered), but I wonder if the damages might be higher?
IanA2 said:
The worst bits of this thread give insights into frightening minds. The best bits are hilarious and quite surreal. I vote for another gazillion pages.
In the spirit of keeping this going I have advised SWMBO to tell them to stick their settlement and sue. In addition we'll start trying for another baby. Just as soon as she's got another job. Anybody know the name of Purple Moonlight's company, please?Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff