OP did your conversation with your mom make you doubt your beliefs? Or are you looking for stronger arguments to try to "convince" her? If it's the latter I'd say give it up and just say you have to agree to disagree. No point in beating your head against a wall with someone who thinks "pregnancy impairs a person's ability to do their job well."

In response to your question about what a newly pregnant woman should do, she should NOT disclose her pregnancy until she's been offered the job. This is both because, while it may be rational for the employer not to want to hire her b/c she's pregnant as some of the PPs argue, it is not legal. She should not invite illegal discrimination against herself. The flip side is that it actually burdens the employer to know that when they're making a hiring decision. If they don't know, there's no risk they will be accused of discriminating.

Re the whole discussion on this thread, you could also argue that discriminating against the disabled, the elderly, or women in general is economically rational, but it's still illegal. I for one am glad for that.

OP again. Thanks for such a thoughtful discussion. I too am finding it a bit depressing but maybe I'm naive. So out of curiosity: If a newly pregnant woman is looking for a job (let's say she doesn't currently have one and needs one), what should she do? Should she reveal the pregnancy in the interview? Does she have an ethical obligation here even if it means she risks forfeiting the job? (I know she does not have a legal one.)

For the sake of argument let's say she's hoping for 6 weeks maternity leave, with the understanding that it may not be granted.

Anonymous wrote:Wow -- you all sound so 1950s. If you women are so unenlightened -- imagine how men feel. No wonder women never get ahead.

Actually there are a lot of reasonable responses here.

Wow -- you all sound so 1950s. If you women are so unenlightened -- imagine how men feel. No wonder women never get ahead.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Actually, if you're hired while prgnant, it's within the employer's rights to ask you to come to work the day after giving birth. FMLA, the legal justification for taking time off to care for a baby, isn't in effect unless you've been in a job for a year. If you haven't accrued any sick or vacation time, you can ask for unpaid leave, but it's legal for them to say no.

Actually it's 6 weeks - 6 weeks for the woman who gave birth to heal. Just as if she was hit by a truck and needed 6 weeks to heal. After that FMLA kicks in to care for the child.

But that 6 weeks isn't legally mandated.

Employers shouldn't assume that someone will take lots of leave after giving birth, because they can simply mandate that she come back days later. It's fully within their rights.

Well, it depends on the type of employment. If it's a physically demanding job or a small firm/small office, it's kind of crappy to apply knowing that you're going to be out for 3 months (unless, of course, you have no intention of taking leave).

There are other situations where that applies. When I sold my house a couple of years ago, I interviewed a bunch of real estate agents because I knew, given the market and my work schedule, that the agent was going to have to put in actual time (not just list the house and disappear until a buyer magically shows up).

I finally decided on an agent and listed with him. And then I found out his wife was pregnant and due soon. That would have been fine, except for the fact that he used it as an excuse not to be available. Beyond that, he gave me a guilt trip when I was frustrated about his lack of availability. One of the interview questions I asked when searching for an agent was, "how available are you -- not your staff, not someone in your office -- you?" I feel he should've disclosed that he was going to have family commitments for the next two months that would make him less available.

Of course, I wouldn't have gone with him.

And that's the issue -- availability. Even if a person isn't pregnant, but has family responsibilities that limit their availability (i.e. absolutely cannot work past 3pm), they should disclose to he employer their schedule limitations.

Of course, this makes it difficult for a pregnant lady looking for a job, and I don't know what to say about that, except maybe better family planning is in order -- i.e. don't get pregnant if you anticipate having to find a job in the next few months. Of course, there are always unforeseen circumstances.

Anonymous wrote:While I do not strictly agree with your mother, there is something to it. It is wrong to discriminate against someone because she is pregnant. It is not wrong to pass on a candidate because that candidate will not be available to do the work you need done. So, as PP said, if a company needs a candidate to report to work on the day after that candidate would give birth, the company would not be wrong to not hire that applicant (or to fire her for not showing up).

On the other hand, if the decision not to hire is born out of some general belief that new mothers do not maek productive workers, that would be wrong.

I agree with this. If I have a major event in 6 months and am looking for an event planner, I'm not going to hire someone 3 mo pregnant. If they didn't tell me and I hired them anyway, I'd be frustrated. In most cases, hires are long-term and a bit of time off isn't a big deal. Depends on the job. Some places, especially smaller places, can't afford to have a new hire take time off fairly soon after starting. I left a huge company to work for a small one. At the big one I turned off my blackberry and did nothing work-related for months. In this job, I'd be back online fairly quickly but also have much more flexibility, etc. it's a trade off.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Actually, if you're hired while prgnant, it's within the employer's rights to ask you to come to work the day after giving birth. FMLA, the legal justification for taking time off to care for a baby, isn't in effect unless you've been in a job for a year. If you haven't accrued any sick or vacation time, you can ask for unpaid leave, but it's legal for them to say no.

Exactly. No FMLA, and most places with parental leave benefits require you to be there for at least a year.

Also, you are making assumptions about what that pregnant woman will do once she has the baby. No, it would not be appropriate to ask for a 6 month leave when you've just been at the company for 3 months. But some women will know that a short leave is the price to be paid for taking a new job while pregnant. Look at Marissa Mayer.

Anonymous wrote:Actually, if you're hired while prgnant, it's within the employer's rights to ask you to come to work the day after giving birth. FMLA, the legal justification for taking time off to care for a baby, isn't in effect unless you've been in a job for a year. If you haven't accrued any sick or vacation time, you can ask for unpaid leave, but it's legal for them to say no.

Actually it's 6 weeks - 6 weeks for the woman who gave birth to heal. Just as if she was hit by a truck and needed 6 weeks to heal. After that FMLA kicks in to care for the child.

Anonymous wrote:Actually, if you're hired while prgnant, it's within the employer's rights to ask you to come to work the day after giving birth. FMLA, the legal justification for taking time off to care for a baby, isn't in effect unless you've been in a job for a year. If you haven't accrued any sick or vacation time, you can ask for unpaid leave, but it's legal for them to say no.

Exactly. No FMLA, and most places with parental leave benefits require you to be there for at least a year.

While I do not strictly agree with your mother, there is something to it. It is wrong to discriminate against someone because she is pregnant. It is not wrong to pass on a candidate because that candidate will not be available to do the work you need done. So, as PP said, if a company needs a candidate to report to work on the day after that candidate would give birth, the company would not be wrong to not hire that applicant (or to fire her for not showing up).

On the other hand, if the decision not to hire is born out of some general belief that new mothers do not maek productive workers, that would be wrong.

Actually, if you're hired while prgnant, it's within the employer's rights to ask you to come to work the day after giving birth. FMLA, the legal justification for taking time off to care for a baby, isn't in effect unless you've been in a job for a year. If you haven't accrued any sick or vacation time, you can ask for unpaid leave, but it's legal for them to say no.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I had a distressing and frustrating argument with my mother last night. Basically, she believes that women who are pregnant but not visibly so, and who are interviewing for a job, are ethically obligated to reveal that to a prospective employer. And she believes that once that information is disclosed, the employer is well within its rights not to hire that person (yes, I realize this is illegal and so does she, though she doesn't think it should be--she says she is talking about what's fair for the employer). She had assumed that if I were in this position I would disclose (and consequently not be hired) and was shocked and dismayed when I said I would keep quiet until offered the job. She considers it blatantly dishonest on the part of the potential employee.

The conversation was based on a real-life situation, though not one where my mother is in a hiring position. Still, I was really troubled that she thinks this way. I tried to present arguments to explain why I disagreed, but I don't think I got through. I may never get through but was wondering about other coherent arguments out there. My mother is considering this from the perspective of the employer, who will be understandably inconvenienced if it hires a pregnant woman who then takes a (short) maternity leave sixish months later.

Her position assumes that a temporary situation (pregnancy followed by maternity leave) is not temporary. That pregnancy impairs a person's ability to do their job well.

I understand that it's inconvenient to hire someone and then have them go on maternity leave shortly thereafter, but you're theoretically hiring a person for the long term. When I came back from maternity leave, I was JAZZED to be there. I was so productive. I know not everyone is like that, but I got better at prioritizing and multitasking as a result of motherhood, rather than worse.

OP here. Yes, she does believe this.

Anonymous wrote:I had a distressing and frustrating argument with my mother last night. Basically, she believes that women who are pregnant but not visibly so, and who are interviewing for a job, are ethically obligated to reveal that to a prospective employer. And she believes that once that information is disclosed, the employer is well within its rights not to hire that person (yes, I realize this is illegal and so does she, though she doesn't think it should be--she says she is talking about what's fair for the employer). She had assumed that if I were in this position I would disclose (and consequently not be hired) and was shocked and dismayed when I said I would keep quiet until offered the job. She considers it blatantly dishonest on the part of the potential employee.

The conversation was based on a real-life situation, though not one where my mother is in a hiring position. Still, I was really troubled that she thinks this way. I tried to present arguments to explain why I disagreed, but I don't think I got through. I may never get through but was wondering about other coherent arguments out there. My mother is considering this from the perspective of the employer, who will be understandably inconvenienced if it hires a pregnant woman who then takes a (short) maternity leave sixish months later.

Her position assumes that a temporary situation (pregnancy followed by maternity leave) is not temporary. That pregnancy impairs a person's ability to do their job well.

I understand that it's inconvenient to hire someone and then have them go on maternity leave shortly thereafter, but you're theoretically hiring a person for the long term. When I came back from maternity leave, I was JAZZED to be there. I was so productive. I know not everyone is like that, but I got better at prioritizing and multitasking as a result of motherhood, rather than worse.

I had a distressing and frustrating argument with my mother last night. Basically, she believes that women who are pregnant but not visibly so, and who are interviewing for a job, are ethically obligated to reveal that to a prospective employer. And she believes that once that information is disclosed, the employer is well within its rights not to hire that person (yes, I realize this is illegal and so does she, though she doesn't think it should be--she says she is talking about what's fair for the employer). She had assumed that if I were in this position I would disclose (and consequently not be hired) and was shocked and dismayed when I said I would keep quiet until offered the job. She considers it blatantly dishonest on the part of the potential employee.

The conversation was based on a real-life situation, though not one where my mother is in a hiring position. Still, I was really troubled that she thinks this way. I tried to present arguments to explain why I disagreed, but I don't think I got through. I may never get through but was wondering about other coherent arguments out there. My mother is considering this from the perspective of the employer, who will be understandably inconvenienced if it hires a pregnant woman who then takes a (short) maternity leave sixish months later.