New recruit pregnant before job starting

[FlimFlamJimJams]

I've started a new business, it'll open to the public around April time.
It's a very small, community focused business with only 4 staff members initially.
I recruited all the staff within the last few weeks and are finalising contracts. Everyone has formal job offers, no one yet has a job contract.

The roles require training on the job resulting in a nationally recognised qualification, probably achieved within 12 months or so. The business is paying for this.

I have had meetings with everyone individually this week to go through bits and bobs, start dates etc - and at the end of a meeting with one lady yesterday, she tells me that she's 12 weeks pregnant and anticipates starting her Maternity leave around mid-July. She said she found out at 5 weeks - so she'd have known she was pregnant at interview.

I'm now stuck in a difficult position - the business is already going to struggle financially for the first few years (it's not quite a non-profit, but it's close) and I'm now facing having to extend someone's training at least 6 months past everyone else's as well as find temporary cover, which is expensive. She may well choose not to return after her maternity. I turned down other applicants who applied after her job offer was made.

I guess there isn't a AIBU, because I'm not going to do anything, but I feel really deceived and a bit stressed about the whole thing.
I know everyone is entitled to get pregnant etc. But I wasn't anticipating someone going on ML before they'd even qualified, or finished their probation.

I can both sides. As McOrange says a woman can't sit around for 7 months, if made redundant once pregnant.

But a business can't afford to keep someone who can't complete the training and might not even return.

thats a point op what if you support her delay her training then she decides she doesnt want to come back after all

LittleRoundRobin unfortunately many women get made redundant while pregnant.

I don't buy this. ^ As has been said on here already, many women will take an employer to court for getting rid of her whilst she is pregnant. No way will any employer dismiss a pregnant woman from her job. Only if she has a 0 hours contract, would they be able to dismiss her from the job.

@LittleRoundRobin- whether you buy it or not, it does happen. It happened to me. I was a permanent employee and pregnant. Yes, employers can absolutely do this and do do this. Do you know how stressful it is to take an established company to court? And expensive? And when you are about to give birth or have just given birth?

You are so pathetically naive to think it doesn't happen.

Parenthood isn’t a protected characteristic. We seem to have begun conflating sex based discrimination with inconveniences inherent with having small children. The former is the employers issue. The latter is, and should be, the parents issue

Exactly this

Fortunately nobody's argued that women should have no maternity rights, but as I've said it's a question of balance and the bigger picture, which for most rational people involves not shouting "discrimination!!" the instant something doesn't suit

Incredibly, though, there are those who press for parenthood to be made a protected characteristic - presumably the same ones who wanted leave extending because some baby classes had been missed during lockdown - and it really doesn't bear thinking about

No way will any employer dismiss a pregnant woman from her job

Not at all; it happens all the time and in fact I've done it myself, admittedly under some pretty extreme circumstances

Nobody pretends it's easy though, and nor should it be, but what happens all too often is that employers "let things go" for fear of getting tied up even in hopeless cases because they know it'll cost money and effort better spent on the business

And unfortunately this is something the minority of genuine pisstakers take advantage of

'No way will any employer dismiss a pregnant woman from her job'

Rubbish.

@LetHimHaveIt

'No way will any employer dismiss a pregnant woman from her job'

Rubbish.

Indeed. It happened to me. I was shown a very detailed org chart of what the new structure would look like, but was the only person in my team made redundant. I was offered a decent settlement agreement to leave but basically told if I didn’t take it then my role would be made redundant.

I spoke to Pregnant Then Screwed who said this happens a lot. So much in fact that that’s why the organisation was set up.

I have also been made redundant while pregnant that my employer didn’t know about. I’d have been fucked if I didn’t take a new job while pregnant.

The other interesting thing here is the level of loyalty that so many posters are showing to an organisation who has zero loyalty to them. Being absolutely clear, if a business needs to make a decision they will do so for the best reason. They won’t be polite and show loyalty to employees. Why should employees not do the same to businesses, and put themselves first, while acting legally?

@McOrange

I agree that employers would commonly make pregnant women or women in mat leave redundant if they could legally do so. It’s right and proper that protections are in place. Also I agree that women should be allowed to take new employment while pregnant. But better they select a role where the impact will be minimised and where they plan to dedicate significant time once back, as doing so benefits all women. We are far from sex equality and it sets us all back when individuals behave badly.

Mind you I would also prefer to be able to talk to all my staff about their broad life plans (albeit plans don’t always work out) so that we can plan the team accordingly over many years. It would make life much easier and would mean women aren’t discriminated against from 18 until they have their second child, or reach 45 - whichever comes first. Would be far better to be able to discuss openly with managers; if only both managers and women could be trusted to not take the piss or misuse the information.

It seems like employers on this thread are annoyed they aren't given the opportunity to discriminate against pregnant women at interview. Is it any wonder they don't tell you, when they know full well you would do so?

I'm not sure how that's manipulative or deceptive, when their argument is the employer wanted to be deceptive first.

@BethTTC

It seems like employers on this thread are annoyed they aren't given the opportunity to discriminate against pregnant women at interview. Is it any wonder they don't tell you, when they know full well you would do so?

I'm not sure how that's manipulative or deceptive, when their argument is the employer wanted to be deceptive first.

Employers don’t want to be deceptive. How on earth did you manage to extrapolate that?

@BethTTC

Given the workplace is a market where one trades labour for money, it’s reasonable that the buyer expects they are purchasing labour of the variety the business requires. As opposed to the other type of labour. Nothing deceptive about that.

However if the seller knows that they won’t be able to work for long before needing extended leave, that is less than ideal. It’s unreasonable when it’s a small startup covering major training overheads and childbirth will exclude you from even attending the training.

Anyone who thinks their manager was ‘thrilled’ at their pregnancy is deluded. Though my staff all likely think I was ‘super thrilled’ too…….

@Blossomtoes

Apparently, expecting people you pay for work to do some actual work is ‘deceptive’.

To be fair I do agree women TTC or who know they're pregnant shouldn't apply for jobs with clear time-sensitive training programmes or anything else that would mean they can't actually do the job. We wouldn't apply for heavy lifting manual jobs in early pregnancy, would we?

OP, you say she knew at the point of interview but I'm guessing, as she was only 5 weeks then, she didn't know when she applied?

Employers just want to not hire you if you're pregnant, basically. Maternity discrimination, plain and simple.

And, to be fair, she's told OP before she's signed a contract, knowing OP could withdraw the offer. So she's not exactly done anything wrong.

@bcc89

Employers just want to not hire you if you're pregnant, basically. Maternity discrimination, plain and simple.

There's a difference between not wanting to hire someone and not hiring someone.

@bcc89

Employers just want to not hire you if you're pregnant, basically. Maternity discrimination, plain and simple.

Why would you want to hire someone who’s just about to disappear for a year? Why do you think employers hire people? Because they enjoy repeatedly going through the recruitment process for shits and giggles?

@blossomtoes

Not hiring the best candidate for the job just because she's pregnant is deceptive, discriminatory and wrong.

I don't really understand how we accuse women of a myriad of misogynistic tropes just because they dared to need a new job in pregnancy, but don't say the same about the MULTIPLE employers on this thread admitting they wouldn't employ a pregnant woman. Is it any wonder they 'deceive' an employer, when the alternative is being discriminated against?

It seems to me the double standard here is that we let businesses get away with practices that we rip women apart for.

@bcc89

Employers just want to not hire you if you're pregnant, basically. Maternity discrimination, plain and simple.

Why would you hire someone who will be gone for extended periods of time and not be able to work? Then you have to find another person to cover them. Pay 2 people to do 1 persons job. Are you for real?

[quote BethTTC]@blossomtoes

Not hiring the best candidate for the job just because she's pregnant is deceptive, discriminatory and wrong.

I don't really understand how we accuse women of a myriad of misogynistic tropes just because they dared to need a new job in pregnancy, but don't say the same about the MULTIPLE employers on this thread admitting they wouldn't employ a pregnant woman. Is it any wonder they 'deceive' an employer, when the alternative is being discriminated against?

It seems to me the double standard here is that we let businesses get away with practices that we rip women apart for.[/quote]
Because businesses aren’t benevolent organisations, a lot of people on this thread don’t seem to be able to process this fact.

They have zero duty to consider the woman’s feelings or affirm her life choices, only to act within the law.

There’s a wider conversation to be had about work/life balance and how motherhood can put careers at disadvantage etc, but that simply isn’t something that fledgling businesses need to be taking a stand on.

@Lifeisnteasy

*Because businesses aren’t benevolent organisations, a lot of people on this thread don’t seem to be able to process this fact.

They have zero duty to consider the woman’s feelings or affirm her life choices, only to act within the law.*

'Because women aren’t benevolent beings, a lot of people on this thread don’t seem to be able to process this fact.

They have zero duty to consider the business's feelings or affirm their business choices, only to act within the law.'

You see the double standard? Business's are ok to act this way, but women are not? I don't see any women mentioned in the thread acting outside the law, and they definitely don't have to consider their bosses feelings.

You see the double standard? Business's are ok to act this way, but women are not? I don't see any women mentioned in the thread acting outside the law, and they definitely don't have to consider their bosses feelings.

This.... agree with @BethTTC on this

[quote BethTTC]@Lifeisnteasy

*Because businesses aren’t benevolent organisations, a lot of people on this thread don’t seem to be able to process this fact.

They have zero duty to consider the woman’s feelings or affirm her life choices, only to act within the law.*

'Because women aren’t benevolent beings, a lot of people on this thread don’t seem to be able to process this fact.

They have zero duty to consider the business's feelings or affirm their business choices, only to act within the law.'

You see the double standard? Business's are ok to act this way, but women are not? I don't see any women mentioned in the thread acting outside the law, and they definitely don't have to consider their bosses feelings.[/quote]
There isn’t a double standard. Women are entitled to seek employment & hide their pregnancy, employers are entitled to be pissed off about it.

Not hiring the best candidate for the job just because she's pregnant is deceptive, discriminatory and wrong

Pregnancy in many cases means she’s not the best candidate for the job. The best candidate is the person who’ll actually be present and doing the work.

You would be sued - and rightly so