Being sued by a disgruntled former nanny

[Angeldust99]

Has this happened to anyone else? It seems like everywhere I turn, I hear stories of disgruntled former employees suing their employers for money - often on made up grounds. It’s scary!

I'm actually wondering if you're genuine now.

Oh I think she is. People find ways to fire women for being pregnant all the time. I once worked with a rotten cunt who made a whole department redundant just to get rid of the pregnant woman.

As an employer you are obliged to stick to the laws that apply to you. I am mystified why @Removingthehat has chosen to show the MN world what a vile person she is.

Yes she needs to sort our care for her child but it doesn't entitle her to break the law and shift someone else in the meantime.

It was a long time ago , Ive not really mentioned it to anyone before I just saw this thread and gave the ‘other side of the story’

There is no other side, no justification, no excuse, nothing that makes your actions acceptable or excusable so I don’t know why you’re bothering to pretend that there is.

I don't it's shitty to sack someone who lied at interview and wouldn't be able to do the job they were employed for.
If you choose to be a nanny, I think you have to accept that it's not like a standard work place - people are relying on you and trusting you with the most important people in their lives. You can't be flaky or dishonest!
In a 'normal' job, if you can't do the work due to pregnancy, there's usually the means to replace you temporarily. That isn't the case for a nanny and if you agree to care for a child with SN and you need to lift them etc, it's not on to expect the parents to pay you anyway and find someone take to temporarily do your job - they can't always do it, hence hiring you in the first place!
I'd have sacked her too!

it's not like a standard work place

This is where you are absolutely wrong @ABirdsEyeView

When you employ a nanny, employment law applies to you, just like it does to any other worker in any other workplace.

I have no idea why so many people fail to grasp this.

That’s your right to that opinion and I accept that. Legally it was questionable (although she hadn’t formally told us) morally we were putting our child’s needs first and who wouldn’t prioritise their vulnerable child ? I panicked and thought that Ds would build a bond with someone who would be leaving soon, that she would be able to lift him or deal with the level of care he would need as it wouldn’t be safe for her and we couldn’t put adjustments in place as then it would be paying double ? Anyways as I said was 8.5 years ago !!! So I’ll step away now

It’s irrelevant if you employ 1, 10 or 100 people. You have responsibilities as an employer no matter how inconvenient that may be for you. If you’re unwilling to accept those responsibilities then don’t become an employer because it is your legal duty. It’s that simple.

Legally you are correct and nobody is claiming otherwise BUT being a Nanny is not really like other jobs in most other ways

It doesn't matter how long ago it was! It's still a completely shitty thing that you did.

Being a police officer isn't really like being a civil servant which isn't really like being a road sweeper. But employment law applies equally to all of them.

Stupid thing to say.

It's not a stupid thing to say - a nanny is working with someone's child to enable the parents to work. There's not a bank of spare nannies to step in like there would be for a civil servant or road sweeper or police officer. If the nanny lies about her capabilities or availability, the parents cannot go to work! They literally depend on her! I consider that to be very different to a 'standard' job, where you can easily get temps to fill in.
While legally it may be the same, it's disingenuous to pretend you can't see a difference.

The nanny shouldn't have lied - she obtained that job under false pretences.

An employer could sack you if you lied about your qualifications - to me this is in the same category.

There's not a bank of spare nannies to step in

Yes there are. That's what the myriad nanny agencies are there for.

I have never known a nanny sue a family and have known some great nanny / emoloyers relationships but have also known some very manipulative employers. Nannies do not have employment support and are frequently expected to work long hours for low salaries. I have seen nannies paid cash in hand, not receiving their full pension contributions, live in nannies not getting time off, being expected to work extra time without extra pay, nannies sharing a room with infants at night and then working all day, families being late home, frequently and then having a handover. It is not easy, financially or emotionally, to take an employer to tribunal which is why few people do.

This is more infuriating than the bloody tree thread recently where every plonker kept chipping in to state what they personally thought that the law should be regarding the disposal of cuttings not what it actually is.

What people think the law should be regarding someone employing a single nanny as opposed to an office of dozens of employees is completely irrelevant because in this regard they have the same legal responsibility not to discriminate against pregnant women. It doesn’t matter if you agree or not, that’s the situation.

Indeed @ChateauMargaux. People seem to think that the nanny is 'one of the family' and therefore that they can treat them however they like.

@Removingthehat didn't have any problems because they lie without remorse. They cannot fathom they were 100% in the wrong and did something awful because they were not caught out. This example demonstrates why employers of nannies are being sued.

Not long until someone chimes in about people being jealous they have nannies. Ignorance is not bliss as aptly demonstrated in this thread.

Ignoring the rudeness.
As someone else just said a Nanny is pretty unusual in that it is almost entirely based on the relationship they have with the child, even if someone else can step in and have that same relationship and then have to step away again if they come back. Its kind of the Nanny saying she will commit to a long term relationship with the child and then going travelling for 6 - 12 months.
Nobody is saying that sacking someone for being PG isn't illegal and if that person HAD been successfully sued then fair enough, it was the risk she took.
If it was my childs welfare vs not sacking some one who may have been unable to do the job she was needed for them I would pick the former every time if I thought I could get away with it

@ABirdsEyeView - a lot of people are getting sued and shocked that their nannies do think it’s a normal work place. Because it is.

and this the big problem, people who hire a nanny and don’t really think that they are now an employer.

there are temp agencies who offer nannies to cover sick leave, as an employer, you do need to consider their sick leave and holidays, just like all other workers.

Thought we could now edit posts? I meant that she wanted net pay and not gross. It was so many years ago, sorry

@wizzywig you can edit posts, but you only have a short window of time to do it - I think it's about 10 minutes.

We know the other side! We know people want to fuck women over for being pregnant because it suits them! That's why we have laws designed to protect workers from people like you.

I can't believe you thought you had some unknown narrative that would get you sympathy! You thought we didn't know why this law exists?

As @BIWI said, you only get a short time to edit your post, although I think it's even shorter than what she said. My experience has been a maximum of about 5 mins

The nanny shouldn't have lied - she obtained that job under false pretences.

You had no right to the information - it would have been illegal to ask - so it's irrelevant. It should not have had any bearing on your decision of whether or not to hire her even if she did volunteer the information.

We have employment laws in this country to protect people. If you don't want to abide by them, don't be an employer.