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.

If she's the best person for the job, then she's still the best person for the job even if she has to take maternity leave.

Is she though? It appears she cannot complete the training for the role she was offered, so she's not the best person anymore.

it was made very clear in the advert and at interview that everyone would need to get qualified within 12-14 months.

Again, this woman cannot do that. So employ someone who can.

Is a job offer the same as a legally binding contract?

I know people who have had job offers withdrawn for all sorts of reasons including changing financial circumstances and needing to recruit fewer people.

Is it a full time role OP?

I'd be clear with the applicant now as to whether the business can support her going PT on her return from maternity if that's what she is intending on.

'Not at all. You're just projecting your own issues onto this woman, and now me. It's hilarious.'

Makes a change from 'disgusting', I suppose 🙄

Why could you not hire people who were already qualified?

@PersonaNonGarter

Don’t put her on the training course - ask her to move to an administrative role. You’d be within your rights to say you’d like training to be completed in a oner not interrupted by mat leave.

That way if she doesn’t come back you haven’t paid for training.

You would absolutely not be "within your rights" to do this. Utter nonsense

I think that when the pay gap is discussed this thread will be a good illustration of the reasons why.
That and why parental leave similar to maternity leave is the way to go if we do want to level the field in any way.

OP, don't forget to forbid your employees to engage in any dangerous activities that could lead to hospitalization. Say... driving. Just in case any of them isn't able to complete the training in good time.

I stared a new job at 14 weeks pregnant I'm still there 8 years later after a 4 month maternity leave

to address this comment
Either you think women of childbearing age should have the same career opportunities or you don't.

I think that's a bit inflammatory, as it's not as straight forward as that. I honestly don't know what the answer to protecting women's careers is, but it does feel detrimental to the business (and subsequently the careers of at least 4 other women) to be accomodating one woman.

Like I say, I'm not planning on retracting her offer - but it's something that took me by surprise and I'm trying to process my own feelings around it.

I think she was a fool for telling you this early, I'd have held off until I was in the role. I interviewed about 6 weeks pregnant (having miscarried at 8 weeks the month before) last year. There was no way I was telling anyone I was pregnant until I legally had to. My new boss found out at 25 weeks. Big organisation so no issue for them and they didn't have to pay me maternity pay as I was already pregnant. Your attitude stinks to be honest, why not just avoid hiring women aged 20-40? The thing is any woman of child bearing age you employ could fall pregnant in that first year, hasn't this crossed your mind before? Maybe just hire men or women over 40, oh wait a minute that'd be discrimination. People suggesting you withdraw your offer obviously have no clue.

I hired someone under similar circumstances, to work in a charity that constantly struggled to make ends meet using local authority funding. I was really glad that she hadn't mentioned her pregnancy as we wanted to choose the best candidate for the job and didn't want to be at risk of accidental discrimination by taking her pregnancy into account when making our decision.

She started, took maternity leave soon after and then came back and is still there although I have moved on, so I do understand the pressures of taking someone on under these circumstances, but I still feel it's a bit off to think of her as deceitful.

Women are already at a disadvantage in the workplace, without having to disclose intensely personal medical information at interview stage that may allow them to be discriminated against and, sadly, may not be relevant by the time the job is actually available.

Have you discussed the situation with the candidate? We did just this and she used some KIT days to complete mandatory training (to maintain registration) and actively sought out opportunities to be involved in future planning while on maternity leave (at her request - we didn't expect her to deal with any work-related matters, but she was keen, which cemented our belief that the decision was the correct one). If you approach it from the point of view that you are dealing with an unforeseen circumstance that can be resolved together, you are more likely to find a solution that works for everyone involved.

At twelve weeks and not yet working with you she could have concealed the pregnancy for many weeks to come. TBH I think it's to her credit that she has disclosed the pregnancy now, especially if you are in a jurisdiction where pregnancy is not a protected characteristic.

@Lweji

I think that when the pay gap is discussed this thread will be a good illustration of the reasons why. That and why parental leave similar to maternity leave is the way to go if we do want to level the field in any way.

OP, don't forget to forbid your employees to engage in any dangerous activities that could lead to hospitalization. Say... driving. Just in case any of them isn't able to complete the training in good time.

Have you read all my posts?

@KatherineJaneway

Why could you not hire people who were already qualified?

Lack of availability.

'People suggesting you withdraw your offer obviously have no clue.'

Oh, I dunno: those who bothered to read that the OP isn't in the UK have some clue . . .

@EatDrinkEatDrink

I think she was a fool for telling you this early, I'd have held off until I was in the role. I interviewed about 6 weeks pregnant (having miscarried at 8 weeks the month before) last year. There was no way I was telling anyone I was pregnant until I legally had to. My new boss found out at 25 weeks. Big organisation so no issue for them and they didn't have to pay me maternity pay as I was already pregnant. Your attitude stinks to be honest, why not just avoid hiring women aged 20-40? The thing is any woman of child bearing age you employ could fall pregnant in that first year, hasn't this crossed your mind before? Maybe just hire men or women over 40, oh wait a minute that'd be discrimination. People suggesting you withdraw your offer obviously have no clue.

Absolutely agree

I wonder what any of the women on this thread would think if they were made redundant just as they were pregnant and forced to find another role. Or would they just stay off, without taking any role, being supported by the inevitably rich husbands of the subservient women of MN?

Absolutely shitty of her to do this. She shouldve informed you before taking the offer.

@UnshakenNeedsStirring If she'd done that she'd not have got a job/probably many firms would've turned her down.

I have a mental health disability and I could never mention it in an interview or I'd be likely to never get a job (except maybe if it was the council fulfilling a quota maybe.) The same goes for this. So it'dve been daft of her to have mention it.

I ran a very small business a few years ago, with two male employees. Turned out one was alcoholic, discovered after a series of absences when he went AWOL. I couldn't run the business with only 50% of the workforce available randomly for some of the time, so I sacked him after due warnings. His mother then threatened to take the business to an employment tribunal because he was unwell (and I suppose alcoholism is an illness), so I just gave up in the end and wound the company up. What I'm trying to point out is that very small businesses, micro-businesses, often operate on a knife-edge, especially at the start, and have absolutely no slack when it comes to employees; one person being absent for an extended period for whatever reason can jeopardise the whole show. I think you're doing the right thing morally not to withdraw your offer, but I very much sympathise with you over the problem you find yourself with.

I would not want her working for me. Deceitful is an understatement.

@FlimFlamJimJams

to address this comment Either you think women of childbearing age should have the same career opportunities or you don't.

I think that's a bit inflammatory, as it's not as straight forward as that. I honestly don't know what the answer to protecting women's careers is, but it does feel detrimental to the business (and subsequently the careers of at least 4 other women) to be accomodating one woman.

Like I say, I'm not planning on retracting her offer - but it's something that took me by surprise and I'm trying to process my own feelings around it.

It absolutely is as straightforward as that.

If you live in a country where she is not protected - withdraw the offer if you want to. Don't moan about women getting pregnant and also wanting careers.

@RoomOfRequirement

Joy. Another of these disgusting threads for people to come and spew their misogyny in.

She's 12 weeks. Your business is not ready if it cannot support this. What if she were only 8 now? Or got pregnant next week? Were you going to have a ban on women having lives outside of your company for the first year?

Christ alive! Do you actually live in the real world?

Say you were a chimney sweep. You find, due to a sudden resurgence of chimneys being opened up ( a real analogy!) that you e got too many customers. You decide to expand. You advertise.
You interview.
You select a candidate.
Then you get told that the candidate is pregnant.

You can't afford to cover mat leave.

Is it really fair?

See how she performs first. If it seems her performance is suffering, take detailed performance notes, have regular reviews, & just extend probation. You should probably link probation to the successful passing of the qualification anyway.

If you can legally withdraw and want to, then do it.
I'm not saying this is right but if it is right for your business then do it.
Also, paying 3 times more than the going rate! There's a reason why they have the rates they do.
Your bottom line is already affected.
Which country is it?

I work with someone who had had 3 pregnancies/babies in the last 5 years. The impact on my work place's finance and other staff is immense. This person is now pregnant again. She never fully commits, sees plans through, or has the insight that comes from sticking with projects long term. She is incompetent at times. She is totally protected by law.
I have no sympathy with Boris Johnson, whom I consider an imposter. I think of this colleague as one too.
The rights of everyone need to be balanced, not just the desires of one individual who desires to have children.
Colleagues who don't have children feel especially pissed off and I don't blame them.
If I ran my own business, I'd be annoyed too. There is an element of self interest and game playing here or playing the system. If "the system" was all powerful and money was no object, this strategic financial survival would be fine.
But "the system" being played is fellow human beings. So yeah, you can do this and get away with it, but you clearly know there's a cost to others.