Not hiring a woman because she's pregnant...

Acceptable discrimination?

Say there are 2 applicants. The pregnant woman is more qualified for the position than the other applicant, but she isn't given the job (edit: Since I know it will be asked how I know this, it is what the temp agency-who sent us both to interview with the company told me. The woman seemed a little dumbfounded that I was not hired). While the company (not the temp agency but the actual company) will not say right out that it's because of the pregnancy, it is implied indirectly.

Is it acceptable for a company to pass over a pregnant woman so they know they will not have to deal with the maternity leave within the next couple of months? I know it's against the law to discriminate, but I'm sure we all know that it happens.

So is this acceptable or not in your minds? Why or why not?

[JaJae]

I think so. You can hire who you want. If someone came to me said they have 30 days to live or if someone came to me and said in 90 days they'll be asking for leave, etc I would weight it in when making my decision. I'm looking to fill a position, not train someone to work temporarily and be left without someone again.

Originally Posted by JaJae

I think so. You can hire who you want. If someone came to me said they have 30 days to live or if someone came to me and said in 90 days they'll be asking for leave, etc I would weight it in when making my decision. I'm looking to fill a position, not train someone to work temporarily and be left without someone again.

Why even have anti-discrimination laws in place then?

6 weeks maternity time isn't really that much. If I wasn't planning on coming back, I would completely understand. But that isn't the case.

Technically, you could hire someone and have them get into an accident and require that much time off due to it. There are never any guarantees that the person you hire will always be available.

[JaJae]

Originally Posted by 03 white zx3

Why even have anti-discrimination laws in place then?

6 weeks maternity time isn't really that much. If I wasn't planning on coming back, I would completely understand. But that isn't the case.

Technically, you could hire someone and have them get into an accident and require that much time off due to it. There are never any guarantees that the person you hire will always be available.

6 weeks is a long time to be expected to hold someone's job.

[curlyque221]

Originally Posted by 03 white zx3

Why even have anti-discrimination laws in place then?

6 weeks maternity time isn't really that much. If I wasn't planning on coming back, I would completely understand. But that isn't the case.

Technically, you could hire someone and have them get into an accident and require that much time off due to it. There are never any guarantees that the person you hire will always be available.

The thing is though, a maternity leave is a guaranteed leave of absence, unlike a person who gets into a freak accident.

It can go either way. Six weeks is a long time to get behind on work. However, it could take a company six weeks to fill the position with another capable employee.

I also think it depends upon how pregnant you are..not to push or anything. If you are due sooner rather than later, whatever company is hiring has to worry about getting you in place and trained before you may possibly burst.

I don't think this is discrimination, but possibly a little unfair. When hiring someone, an employer is going to look for the best candidate for the position. It costs time and money to train someone and while you're on maternity leave, they are still going to have to have someone fill your place. I don't think you should be offended. I know another woman who is going through the same problem right now as well.

[7960]

Originally Posted by 03 white zx3

Is it acceptable for a company to pass over a pregnant woman so they know they will not have to deal with the maternity leave within the next couple of months?

Yep.

Because private companies should be allowed to hire whomever they wish.

[7960]

Originally Posted by 03 white zx3

6 weeks maternity time isn't really that much. If I wasn't planning on coming back, I would completely understand. But that isn't the case.

how do they know?

Technically, you could hire someone and have them get into an accident and require that much time off due to it. There are never any guarantees that the person you hire will always be available.

And there's no guarantee you'll be coming back in 6 weeks.

and

There's no guarantee that someone will get in a car accident, and actually the chances are they won't. Is there any chance you *won't* have a baby and need 6 weeks off?

[Dumpy Dooby]

I'm tolerant of any form of discrimination, but I accept very few.

In principal, I have no problem with hiring a pregnant woman. But in practice, I won't hire a pregnant woman for the same reason I won't hire a handicap person: they're too much of a liability.

Pregnant women can demand maternity leave (sometimes with pay, depending on the state), and they can demand other special accommodations with which I, as an employer, must comply. Looks like Bush Sr. fucked 'em over with the ADA.

[Kytro]

I don't even know why this information was asked for. If it is illegal to discriminate on that basis, then employers have no business asking.

[kinggovernor]

i wouldn't hire a pregnant woman

[Kytro]

Originally Posted by 7960

Yep.

Because private companies should be allowed to hire whomever they wish.

Even illegal immigrants

[Dumpy Dooby]

Originally Posted by Kytro

Even illegal immigrants

Yes.

[7960]

Originally Posted by Kytro

Even illegal immigrants

No.

Originally Posted by Kytro

I don't even know why this information was asked for. If it is illegal to discriminate on that basis, then employers have no business asking.

The pregnancy is visible It was also brought up in the interview though (what my plans were after having him, how long I plan on working while pregnant etc). Questions that are very clearly illegal.


So again let me ask. Why do we have anti-discrimination laws in place if it is okay for the employer (or potential employer) to ignore them anyways? Facts About Pregnancy Discrimination So this is nothing but a smoke shield designed to make women "think" that they have a little bit of protection?

An employer cannot refuse to hire a woman because of her pregnancy related condition as long as she is able to perform the major functions of her job. An employer cannot refuse to hire her because of its prejudices against pregnant workers or the prejudices of co-workers, clients or customers.

Originally Posted by 7960

how do they know?

And there's no guarantee you'll be coming back in 6 weeks.

and

There's no guarantee that someone will get in a car accident, and actually the chances are they won't. Is there any chance you *won't* have a baby and need 6 weeks off?

Of course not. I'm sure that wasn't a question I needed to answer though.

[curlyque221]

Originally Posted by 03 white zx3

The pregnancy is visible It was also brought up in the interview though (what my plans were after having him, how long I plan on working while pregnant etc). Questions that are very clearly illegal.


So again let me ask. Why do we have anti-discrimination laws in place if it is okay for the employer (or potential employer) to ignore them anyways? Facts About Pregnancy Discrimination So this is nothing but a smoke shield designed to make women "think" that they have a little bit of protection?

Reading over the facts you posted...i think it's a matter of choosing one's words carefully. It says that an employer cannot discriminate against a pregnant individual as long as they can perform the major job tasks. However, for a lot of employers, a major job task is coming to work daily/attendance and punctuality in addition to whatever the company requires for the specific position.

While you may be able to perform tasks probably better than most people applying for the job, you cannot meet their schedule for 6 weeks. And while I wish the best for your baby and his/her health, you can't guarantee it's going to be just 6 weeks, you can only promise.

Originally Posted by curlyque221

Reading over the facts you posted...i think it's a matter of choosing one's words carefully. It says that an employer cannot discriminate against a pregnant individual as long as they can perform the major job tasks. However, for a lot of employers, a major job task is coming to work daily/attendance and punctuality in addition to whatever the company requires for the specific position.

While you may be able to perform tasks probably better than most people applying for the job, you cannot meet their schedule for 6 weeks. And while I wish the best for your baby and his/her health, you can't guarantee it's going to be just 6 weeks, you can only promise.

I completely understand that. It also addresses maternity leave though.

Pregnancy and Maternity Leave

An employer may not single out pregnancy related conditions for special procedures to determine an employee's ability to work. However, an employer may use any procedure used to screen other employees' ability to work. For example, if an employer requires its employees to submit a doctor's statement concerning their inability to work before granting leave or paying sick benefits, the employer may require employees affected by pregnancy related conditions to submit such statements.
If an employee is temporarily unable to perform her job due to pregnancy, the employer must treat her the same as any other temporarily disabled employee; for example, by providing modified tasks, alternative assignments, disability leave or leave without pay.
Pregnant employees must be permitted to work as long as they are able to perform their jobs. If an employee has been absent from work as a result of a pregnancy related condition and recovers, her employer may not require her to remain on leave until the baby's birth. An employer may not have a rule which prohibits an employee from returning to work for a predetermined length of time after childbirth.
Employers must hold open a job for a pregnancy related absence the same length of time jobs are held open for employees on sick or disability leave.

[Kytro]

Originally Posted by 7960

No.

Why not, surely employers shouls choose the best employees for the position?

Clearly the government shouldn't be interfering in what private business' hiring practices.

I can see why however a business wouldn't want to hire someone pregnant, to them it is merely an extra risk, and they are unlikely to be the biggest priority for the employee. In other words potential costs ect. It does not make business sense.

Originally Posted by Kytro

Why not, surely employers shouls choose the best employees for the position?

Clearly the government shouldn't be interfering in what private business' hiring practices.

I can see why however a business wouldn't want to hire someone pregnant, to them it is merely an extra risk, and they are unlikely to be the biggest priority for the employee. In other words potential costs ect. It does not make business sense.

With all due respect, but how many employees (whether they are parents or not) truly put their employers above all other things? How is it right to judge someone on that simply because of their parental status? I have been a mother for 10 years now, and have never had issues at work because I was a mother. While I am at work, my work is my #1 priority. If that means that I stay after to complete work, I've done it in the past and will do it in the future. We have babysitters and backup plans for a reason.

[Linzyhop]

i think maternity leave is only given once you've worked for that company for a certain length of time......