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!

@Removingthehat - we know. Employers who only have a few staff so avoid employing women in their late 20s/early 30s to avoid maternity leave issues.

Small businesses who wouldn’t admit it, but wouldn’t chose someone with disabilities just in case they need more time off/are slightly less productive.

Small businesses who avoid older people who might have more health issues.

Work place discrimination is perfectly normal and employment laws exist because really only large companies would chose to treat their staff well without them.

the problem is you don’t see yourself as an employer as you aren’t a business.

Nannies do need more protection- it’s an industry where the majority of workers are female and don’t work for large companies so get treated like shit by employers. Like you did. (I’m sure you don’t think you are a bad person.)

Bullshit. A nanny has to be suitable for the family - they aren't interchangeable with one thing just as good as another. Particularly if you're talking about a family whose child has additional needs.
Most parents also want to get to know the person looking after their child - it's a big thing to trust someone with your dc. Most parents don't just want some random from an agency.

I think location is also pretty relevant here. I wouldn't fancy my chances of getting anyone from an agency to turn up here at short notice/for occasional days or for a temp job.

Both!

But it is like a standard workplace. And if you are employing a nanny and you don’t like the responsibilities of being an employer or the nanny being temporarily available due to illness, pregnancy etc, then you need to find a different form of childcare.

I think there's basically an inherent tension in employing a nanny, where the parent will almost want too much - eg as you said, a long term relationship with their child - but on the other side - for the nanny - they will of course consider it a job.

As in any job, a nanny can get sick, hand in their notice, find a better offer, or get pregnant. Just because it is in the care sector doesn't mean they nanny shouldn't be able to be fully protected, even though the fallout for the employer has the potential to be more devastating than in another sector.

It's such a big risk really, and it's almost natural for parents to feel nervous when entrusting their precious child to someone, particularly if they have SEN and maybe a nursery setting isn't appropriate.

That said, if you're an employer you need to be aware of all the risk factors in employing someone, and the poster who let the nanny go acted badly.

I think that anyone who says they wouldn't take a nanny's pregnancy into account at interview stage is lying. If you need someone to care for your child so you can work, you aren't going to risk your own income by hiring someone who won't be able to do the job they are signing up for. It's not like illness or an accident - pregnancy is a deliberate choice. It's morally wrong to take a job when you know from the get go that you can't actually do it!

I think when a woman is established in her job and then decides to have a family, it's right and proper that laws kick in to protect her. But taking a job that you know you won't be able to do because you're already pregnant, is morally wrong to me.

But the OP doesn't know if the nanny knew she was pregnant at interview stage. Besides - just as people say they'd do anything for their child - even fire someone - so might a pregnant interviewee think they're taking a job to protect their future child from financial risk. It cuts both ways. And pregnancy of course is not always a deliberate choice.

But women need to be (recently) employed in order to qualify for SMP. And life isn't always that tidy. I've known women who have been in the same job for ten years and who have then fallen pregnant, only to be made redundant. They have no choice but to find a new employer and then once employed to have to tell that new employer that they will shortly be going on mat leave.

These women are also just trying to do the best for themselves and their families, and it's right that they are protected against unlawful firing.

I think working as a nanny is different. Have total sympathy for any woman who has been made redundant and needs another job asap for SMP and a large company/public sector role could easily accommodate the mat leave. But a family employing a nanny can't really. In taking a job she knows she can't do, she's compromising the employment of another woman (because let's face it, when childcare falls through it's usually the mum whose job suffers). If the argument is that everyone is going to do what's best for themselves, then the poster who sacked the nanny is no more in the wrong than the nanny.
Idk, I just think you have to be honest when you take a job and not withhold information that affects ability to do what you're hired for.

I think working as a nanny is different.

Tough. The law says otherwise. If you don't want to abide by it, don't hire a nanny.

If the argument is that everyone is going to do what's best for themselves, then the poster who sacked the nanny is no more in the wrong than the nanny

I agree. I personally find it quite shady to hide a pregnancy from any new employer. I'm well past child bearing age now but its something I wouldn't have felt comfortable doing. Others choose differently.

In this case though the poster needed someone reliable. Her child is a person with feelings, not a product or whatever. It's not the same as a business. She didn't want him getting attached to someone who would disappear in weeks. You can all berate her for it but chances are, in the same scenario at least a few posters would have done the same thing. Easy to be on your high horse when you're not in the situation.

Yeah, half the police force are just agency temps…

Lets not forget the previous poster did not sack the Nanny because she was pregnant, it was because she thought the Nanny might be pregnant.

"Yeah, half the police force are just agency temps…"

That's not really that I meant. If a police officer goes on mat leave or cannot do aspects of their job due to pregnancy, there are other officers on site who can assist. Or be brought in where necessary.

So not only are you admitting to sacking her for being pregnant, you lied under oath in an employment tribunal? You realise you are admitting perjury for which the usual sentence is prison?

The difference is it’s legal not to mention being pregnant. It’s unlawful to sack someone for being pregnant. It’s actually illegal to lie under oath (it’s perjury and people usually go to prison for it)

But it isn't even clear if the nanny knew she was pregnant. Regardless of whether or not you think it's a business, it was someone's job, they were an employee and reliant on a salary and was legally entitled to protection.

Having the right and it being right to do something, are not always the same.

Sure, for a nanny established in her job, she should have rights regarding time off for maternity appts and not be sacked because she is pregnant. That's different to taking a job and not disclosing that you won't actually be there to do it, or can't undertake certain tasks for safety reasons.
It's wrong imo to take on a job and practically the first thing you do is start claiming from the employer, before you've barely done any work!

The parents are reliant on their salaries too. Hence the hiring of a nanny in the first place.

Gosh.
If a woman is 10 weeks pregnant and currently unemployed is it unethical for her to seek employment because she'd only be letting her employer down in 30 weeks time?
Is she supposed to live on benefits throughout her pregnancy? Unemployment benefits are not routinely given to those who aren't actively seeking work.
Or would you prefer that she lives without need of food or shelter?

And if one of them was fired on the suspicion of being pregnant - what then? Should it just be people working as nannies that can be treated badly? Nannies don't have to love their charges, and they don't have to forego their employment rights just because parents want them to. If you don't want to have an employee and for them to have rights, then use another form of childcare!

Everyone is reliant on their salaries. That's why we have employment law.

@DexaVooveQhodu if she's taking a job as a nanny then I think she ought to disclose that to a potential employer. A nanny works with a child for a limited number of years, usually. If the nanny is going to miss a large chunk of that time by being on mat leave herself, or won't be able to do the work, then imo she's taking a job under false pretences. It's not the same as taking a job in a large business or public sector, where that specific employee isnt so essential or there's easily available cover.

Employment law is created to cover the majority but it's not perfect for all situations.

What happens when the baby is born and it's time to return to work? Do the family who employed the nanny cover all the additional costs/work associated with the pregnancy only for the nanny to quit at the end? I can't see a nanny leaving her own child in a nursery and then going to work looking after someone else's child, so I'm guessing she'll want to bring her baby to work. What if the family don't want that?
It's really not the same as other jobs, regardless of what the law says.

@ABirdsEyeView you didn't answer my questions. Do you think a nanny should have no right to eat or pay rent during her pregnancy?

You are right that there are the risks you outline. Equally the nanny may have a mum who is on standby to provide childcare to her grandchild, or a partner who works nights and weekends. The law says that the employer takes the risk in these situations rather than having the right to discriminate against a woman who is pregnant because her right to earn a living and be able to eat and house herself is more important than the employer's right to an uninterrupted service. If the employer discriminates against the pregnant woman and employs a currently-unpregnant woman, that 2nd woman could get pregnant the next day after starting work and the illegal discrimination would have gained nothing. If you don't want the risks inherent in being an employer the solution is to not be an employer and to use a different childcare model instead, rather than wanting special rules that mean you are allowed to ignore the Equalities Act for the protected characteristic of maternity status.

I did answer your questions. But to clarify, no I don't think a nanny should take a job if she is already pregnant, without disclosing that to the employer because it's not a small amount of interrupted service, it's a fundamental inability to do the job she's been hired for, which is to be present when the parents are at work. It's not like being in an office, where you can catch up later!
Obviously different if a nanny isn't newly employed and then during her employment gets pregnant.
I think it comes down to honesty - I just think it's wrong to take a job and promise all sorts at the interview, (maybe take a role from another candidate who could have delivered) when you already know you will want loads of time off and might only be there a few months before going on leave.

I have actually been in the nanny's position. I got my first professional job when I was pregnant - I took a maternity cover, so I was going on leave when the person I replaced was returning. I was teaching at that point and I scheduled as many of my appointments as possible for after work (tbf teaching hours do lend themselves to being able to do this sometimes). I think you do owe an employer a proper commitment.