Discrimination during maternity leave
Discussion
Right, I'll try and keep this brief...
SWMBO is currently 9 months into her maternity leave and so we're considering whether or not she'll be going back to work after her maternity leave.
She had a meeting with work (a large, well-known, company) today - turns out that, during her absence, a role just above hers was created. She wasn't told about this possible promotion and the role has been filled - not once but twice as the initial applicant backed out and so they found a 2nd choice.
It's just possible she was sent a work email informing her, but she's not been checking her Blackberry and all other correspondence from work has gone to her private email address or been via telephone.
So - is this discriminatory and what should she do?
SWMBO is currently 9 months into her maternity leave and so we're considering whether or not she'll be going back to work after her maternity leave.
She had a meeting with work (a large, well-known, company) today - turns out that, during her absence, a role just above hers was created. She wasn't told about this possible promotion and the role has been filled - not once but twice as the initial applicant backed out and so they found a 2nd choice.
It's just possible she was sent a work email informing her, but she's not been checking her Blackberry and all other correspondence from work has gone to her private email address or been via telephone.
So - is this discriminatory and what should she do?
Issi said:
So didn't check her emails, and is now moaning that she missed out? Did I get that right?
Yes. Because she's on maternity leave. Reading hundreds of emails a day isn't exactly leave.To be clear, the upset isn't that she didn't get the job - the upset is that because she wasn't even told there was an opportunity. She may very well have chosen to go back earlier for the sake of her career, but wasn't given that chance (I should also add that we don't think any email was sent at all - the blackberry charger is missing so we can't check, but why have all communication via gmail bar this one crucial mail?).
And thank you, Breadvan - I have no experience of this, but that was my reading of it. The company has form for similar stuff and has settled with at least two other employees in the last few months. We'll speak to a solicitor on Monday in more detail and see what happens.
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 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.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.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.
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.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.
As to a free cheque - my wife will lose her well paid job. Not quite free.
PurpleMoonlight said:
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.
You are Nigel Farage and I claim my free prize.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.
JonV8V said:
For me the point is more that she's put her career on hold for a year while she has a baby. No problem with that. But I do have an issue not telling her employer if she's coming back to work or not and to even think she might be eligible for promotion during her period of absence. She's be afforded the right to return to work and it feels like that's already being abused by her.
That's very 19th century though and not what the law says.She's entitled to take a year. Simple as that.
justanother5tar said:
Have you ever thought that maybe they wanted to know if/when she was coming back because they wanted to offer her the promotion?
Sounds very much to me like she's miffed at the company and is now seeking to get a payout. Just my view.
Well that's a funny fSounds very much to me like she's miffed at the company and is now seeking to get a payout. Just my view.
king way of doing it isn't it?In any case the job was gone long before she went in.
tapereel said:
I'm all for equal opportunities for women and men and if they want maternity leave fair enough.
I really think that those who take 12 months leave, putting a strain on their employers who willingly or otherwise support them to have that leave, but then quit after that 12 months leave should be locked up then when released get a marker put on them to warn employers what they have done.
Wow. I really think that those who take 12 months leave, putting a strain on their employers who willingly or otherwise support them to have that leave, but then quit after that 12 months leave should be locked up then when released get a marker put on them to warn employers what they have done.
You do know that you're not necessarily paid by your employer for most of those 12 months, don't you?
The employer in this case made a £660m profit last year and employs over 70,000 people. They can probably handle the strain even if they were to pay full whack for the whole year (which they don't).
We're debating it - I think she feels she can't go back to the same company, so it looks like she'll resign now, no matter what. We had been shooting for a part time return to work, but that's pretty well dead and buried. If there's a case against these guys I daresay she'll pursue it - as I said earlier they have been sued 3 times in recent months for sex discrimination and lost each time so seems like they have form for it.
We'll see though - need to sleep on it I think.
Not surprised by the PH responses, though they seem to have doubled my wife's resolve to prosecute this if she can.
We'll see though - need to sleep on it I think.
Not surprised by the PH responses, though they seem to have doubled my wife's resolve to prosecute this if she can.
wolf1 said:
Can't go back! Why? If she wasn't going to return then why not resign once the pregnancy term was to the point where she needed to leave work? I'm sorry but fair enough take maternity leave etc as is your wife's right but also do as you agreed at the beginning of the leave period and actually return to work. Your posts at the moment just smack of compo seeking.
She never made any agreement about returning - nobody does (or doesn't have to anyway). She'll hand her notice in, if she chooses to, and serve her notice like anybody else. As to compo seeking - would you, honestly, not do the same? Really, genuinely, you'd say 'no, the law is wrong - my woman is a wench and should be treated as such - keep your money, sir, and I will discipline my woman once I get he home'.
She wasn't sure what to do - in the end we'd hoped she'd go part time and see how it panned out for her and the baby.
She came away from the meeting yesterday in a whole new mindset - don't go back and fk them, time to shaft them. So I'm encouraging her to sleep on it and then make a call on Monday. She can only claim compo if she's been wronged - PH's moral compass seems on the whole to be at odds with law, but luckily for us the law seems to look after women and babies rather better than PH would.
She came away from the meeting yesterday in a whole new mindset - don't go back and f
k them, time to shaft them. So I'm encouraging her to sleep on it and then make a call on Monday. She can only claim compo if she's been wronged - PH's moral compass seems on the whole to be at odds with law, but luckily for us the law seems to look after women and babies rather better than PH would.Oh and if a promotion were on the table she might take it - though of course forcing it leaves a sour taste for both sides so perhaps better not to go that way.
I'm disappointed in the employer because they are so huge and the field they're in would suggest that they would look after their staff (they employ many more women than men).
For the record I sympathise with the PH members who think business gets st on by maternity law - I own my own business and it would be tough if one of my staff went off on maternity leave, but we've cut out cloth accordingly to allow for that eventuality - whether you agree or not it's the law and it applies to everybody.
Put another way I know Breadvan's real identity and reputation and there's no way I want to be on the wrong side of him or any of his brethren.
I'm disappointed in the employer because they are so huge and the field they're in would suggest that they would look after their staff (they employ many more women than men).
For the record I sympathise with the PH members who think business gets s
t on by maternity law - I own my own business and it would be tough if one of my staff went off on maternity leave, but we've cut out cloth accordingly to allow for that eventuality - whether you agree or not it's the law and it applies to everybody.Put another way I know Breadvan's real identity and reputation and there's no way I want to be on the wrong side of him or any of his brethren.
daemon said:
On the whole?
Gee, glad i took the time to respond....
I'm sure the others who took the time to respond with the correct legal stance (a solicitor included in that) feel great now too.
Not sure I see your point? I'm grateful for all the constructive posts offering advice - sorry if I've not made that clear. Just that on the whole most people seem to be suggesting that my wife is only in it for the money and shouldn't expect equal treatment because of the baby.Gee, glad i took the time to respond....
I'm sure the others who took the time to respond with the correct legal stance (a solicitor included in that) feel great now too.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff