Tell me why it's illegal to discriminate against pregnant women in hiring
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}
Anonymous
| I didn't wear my engagement ring or tell my new employer I was engaged until I started. Same thing. None of their business. |
Anonymous
|
People get hepped up about pregnancy because it's got this long lead time, and people think it's always a choice. But a man could just as easily have a heart attack and need to take 3 months off to recover, but I don't see anyone saying we should be wary of hiring beer-swilling, burger-eating men.
People are human. They have human functions and needs. |
Anonymous
However, it is NOT illegal to choose not to hire someone, or to fire someone, because that person does not meet the current requirements for the position. If one of those requirements is being available to work for the next 12 months, the employer is free to choose based on that. The same does go for the sick. I cannot fire you because you have cancer. But I can fire you because you have not been able to report to work for four months. Again, if the basis for the hiring/firing decision is availability to work, there is no wrong- either legal or ethical. For example, I cannot fire a current employee because she tells me she is pregnant. That is illegal. I cannot deny a promotion or other employment benefit on that basis either. However, if work absences related to her pregnancy cause her to miss out on an experience/project that is a prerequisite for that promotion, I am not obligated to give it to her. Similarly, if I hire someone who then asks me for six weeks of unpaid leave four months after the hire, I can legally deny that leave. I can also legally fire her for not showing up. |
Anonymous
| Actually if you work for a small company they don't have to give you jack for leave. From personal experience, sadly. That being said they shouldn't expect you to stick around if they won't even give a 'valued' employee 6 weeks of UNPAID leave. |
Anonymous
No It takes about 3 days to be discharged from hospital. You cannot ask anyone who is a patient at a hospital to come to work the next day. Any company that demands a woman to come back to work in such a short period of time is playing with fire. I think every pregnancy does not lead to a live birth, so someone not disclosing it is very understandable. Hospital stays are sick leave |
Anonymous
|
Well, there are a few reasons. Discriminating against pregnant women would basically mean not hiring reproductive age women at all, because most of them will have kids at some point. Women are not YET equals of men in capacity and performance in the workplace in many people's minds -- but at the same time, it seems like any employer would be hard pressed to eliminate most women from his hiring pool.
Taking it one step further, providing reasonable maternity leave policies & flexibility for parents of young children is a retention mechanism. Again, most people have kids, so you can't really eliminate them from your work force. Providing a new mom with enough leave & support so that she can successfully return to the workplace just makes good economic sense. If you give her 6 weeks leave then expect her to be fully ramped up right when she returns -- well, of course most women won't be ready for that. But if you have a realistic leave policy then you'll be able to hire and retain excellent, qualified women who just happen to be mothers as well. |
Anonymous
|
OK, not YET equal.
Can you just say men prefer to work with men and do business with men But women get paid less. Men demand more pay and benefits and are not as meek |
Anonymous
|
^^^
I prefer to work with women. And hot moms Are even better. |
Anonymous
|
OP, 2 years ago our very small org (7 people) hired a woman who all but told us she intended to start a family. She was not expecting at the time but was trying and asked a lot of questions about maternity leave and flex time.
She came back and is doing the minimum which distresses me as a woman. I liked her honesty but it is clear that this job means nothing to her and I'd wish she leave it so we could hire the go-getter that we need. In another case, last year, we hired a mom and she kicked ass and took names in her position. Soon after she started she got pregnant, had a horrible pregnancy but did an amazing job between bathroom visits. She's still on leave but I somehow suspect that she will too continue to kick ass. I offer this b/c I think our job performance says a lot about us as people. Not as women or mothers. As for me, I had an old office manager (78) tell me that I could not do my job and be a mom..she told me this while I was 8 months along. Well, I took 5 months off and 6 months after returning I got a raise, bonus, and promotion to#2 at the org. |
Anonymous
You're confusing what's moral with what's legal. If you're not covered by FMLA--which a woman giving birth <12 months after being hired isn't--you're at the mercy of sick/vwcation policies. And once you've used your leave & don't return to work, it's 100% legal to fire you, even if you're still in the hospitql. |
Anonymous
| I was responsible for hiring in my prior position. I interviewed a couple of people for the opening we had and the most qualified (by far) was a woman who was 6 months pregnant (she did disclose to me that she was pregnant in the interview- I did not ask - although it was pretty obvious). My thoughts were long term, not short term and I hired her for the position. She worked up until she had the baby and came back to work 6 weeks later. She did a great job and I have never regretted the decision. She was the right person for that particular job. I am happy that she disclosed the information so I could plan staffing needs accordingly. That being said, I would completely understand not disclosing it as well as not everyone can think and/or plan for the long term. |
Anonymous
+1, and hello, by having a child I also create a future tax payer. The country should be thanking you for doing your part to ensure that the current middle aged generation has access to social security and medicare. |
Anonymous
|
This is a pointless argument. Does someone with medical issues have to disclose their problems before getting hired? Especially people with permanent issues? Pregnancy is not a permanent physiological state, it ends. So, as an employer, what are you really worried about? A woman who is going to be a parent of a young child and will need more flexibility, time off, etc? Should you then ask everyone to disclose their family status before getting hired? How far really will we go if people are supposed to disclose such things, there is no limit. this is why there are no discrimination laws, because there would be no limit to discrimination otherwise.
As an employer you never know whether the person you hire will turn out to be a problem. ANYONE, you may not suspect, can be a problem. and people without problems leave companies before their first year is over. There is no guarantee, it's a moot point. I know a few men who mooch off the system and have taken their employers for a ride in liability court. besides, if you hire a woman who is already pregnant, you are not obligated to pay FMLA, so it's actually cheaper than hiring a woman of reproductive age, who will wait for her benefits to kick in before getting knocked up. |
Anonymous
This. Actually, this is what happened to me. I had to look for a job while 1 month pg, ended up having an MC at 9 weeks and nobody at my new job even knew I was pg. |
Anonymous
| I was a contractor with no benefits when I was pg. I worked till I delivered and returned back to work 2 months later. My client allowed me to take 2 months off and then work from home and have flexible time for another 2 months. It's because they needed me and I had specialized skills I was hired for and was irreplaceable. |