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!

Nothing to stop the nanny if already of from seeking new work in another field. Or from telling the potential employer - I mean if it's no big deal and totally legit, then the parents will hire her anyway, right?

This makes no sense. You're on here defending firing women for being pregnant so clearly it is a big deal and there's very much a reason for them not to tell you.

You are legally required to give your employer at least 15 weeks' notice of your due date once you know you are pregnant so you will get time to replace her. Most jobs only require four. Hell, there are senior jobs that require only 12. You lot are acting as if there are no laws protecting your interests either. In reality, pregnancy requires you to get more notice than you'd probably get if your nanny just left because she didn't want to work for you any more. Contracts can differ, obviously, but 15 weeks' notice at least is not something to complain about.

Of course people think nannying is different. Every employer thinks their role is different and they should be allowed to fuck women over if it suits them. You are all wrong. Discrimination is illegal, direct or indirect. There are laws to protect people and their livelihoods from sexist and discriminatory people. If you don't want to abide by those laws, don't become an employer.

Indeed @NonPlayerCharacter

What's even more dispiriting is seeing women so easily dismiss the rights of other women.

I bet every single one of you who is suggesting that this kind of behaviour is acceptable would have been outraged if you had been fired when you were pregnant.

Most people don't take a job knowing they are going to need a lot of time off within a few months. Sure, a person could get a job and then leave with a month notice, but it's not usual. A pregnant woman taking a job as a nanny is well aware she will need cover for frequent medical appointments (that the parents may struggle to find) and will definitely be on mat leave within a few months. I maintain it's dishonest to commit to something you know from the outset you can't do!
It's entirely different to being an established employee and then needing mat leave.

It's not (to me) sacking someone because they are pregnant - it's sacking someone who has lied at interview about their capability and availability and who fundamentally cannot do the job they were hired for.
I don't think the parents should be paying for a service they aren't getting and never had a chance of getting. Which is reliable long term care for their child who has additional needs.

I've been a pregnant employee and I strongly believe in not taking the piss - I scheduled as many of my appointments as I could for outside work hours. And I told my employer at interview. I'm not advocating that people do something that I wasn't prepared to do myself.

It's CF territory to take a job you know you can't do and it's the attitude of "I'm legally entitled", which contributes to women not being offered jobs (when there's a male candidate). We are seen as a risk. Maternity laws came from a really good place but they aren't great in all situations and have some unintended consequences.

I think that anyone who says they would happily suck it up and cover their newly employed nanny's medical appts and mat leave, even though they hired her specifically so they could work without worrying about childcare, is lying.

Parents do not have to pay to cover all of mat leave. If the nanny is entitled to SMP then an advance can be claimed from HMRC for 103%. If the nanny is not, then it is up to them to claim maternity allowance for their period of absence.

Yes, it means that you have to find cover for that period but you have far more notice to do it than if they handed in their notice (15weeks vs 4weeks).

And yes, it's extra work, but that is your duty as an employer and by signing up to being an employer you have to abide by all the additional impacts of that. All childcare provision has their benefits and risks and within all of those settings there are people who may not act in the best way that causes an issue.

Often there isn't a perfect solution but if you choose a nanny then you have to accept the risks that come with it and the legal responsibility.

As an employer of a nanny it is so disappointing when I hear of other nanny families trying to cut corners - when they absolutely would not accept it from their own employment! Sadly, many nanny's feel they have no choice but to agree as they don't have the means to challenge it. And because of that, bad (and illegal in some cases) employment practice is allowed to continue.

It's not (to me) sacking someone because they are pregnant - it's sacking someone who has lied at interview about their capability and availability and who fundamentally cannot do the job they were hired for.

Good Lord, your misunderstanding and personal preferences don't trump the law! It would be illegal to ask someone at interview if they are or plan to get pregnant because it's illegal to base your decision on that, so the fact that she "lied" at interview (we don't know when she found out she was pregnant) is irrelevant because you wouldn't be allowed to use the information anyway. And she can do the job, she just needs maternity leave from it.

I suppose I shouldn't be surprised that people think the law is optional for them. No wonder women and minorities get fucked over all the time. For shame.

"And she can do the job, she just needs maternity leave from it."

She's literally not doing the job if she's on mat leave. And it's a new job - she will have barely been there at all before needing leave.

Of course you can't ask at an interview if someone is pg. But if you are the interviewee and you are promising all sorts of commitments that you know full well you won't be able to follow through on, that's wrong, regardless of the legal protections in doing so. If she found out she was pg after starting work, that's a bit different because she hasn't deliberately misled the parents hiring her at the interview.

@NonPlayerCharacter you can think it awful, but I bet in the parents shoes you'd be pissed off too, if your newly hired nanny, who was supposed to make your life easier, suddenly required cover for appointments and then for mat leave.
The parents have to leave the job open for her, even though she doesn't have to make a commitment to come back, which creates additional problems for the parents in getting a temporary nanny.

The irony of this thread is that the OP has not been back and there is a significant possibility that it has nothing to do with pregnancy!

@ABirdsEyeView , you can babble and pontificate and display your ignorance, sexism and willingness to act illegally for your interests all day long (and I expect you will) but none of it makes any difference.

It is sexist, indirect discrimination and illegal to fire a woman for being pregnant, no matter how much you really want to, and your babble and pontificating won't wash with a tribunal. Just do as the other illegally acting employer did and make sure you find a loophole or don't get caught, because however right you think you are, the fact (remember those?) is that you're not.

Just because it's legal to take a job you know you won't be present to actually do, and make that your employer's problem, that doesn't make it morally right.
But you can crack on and hire a pregnant nanny if you want and then suck up the costs and hassle of her not being around to do the very thing you hired her for. Bet you wouldn't irl though, despite all your outrage on here.
Most people want to get the service they paid for and was agreed to and that's not considered unreasonable.

Why are you so hot on defending this? Really weird.

@PuddlesPityParty it's not weird to reply to posts that directly address me. I think it's polite to reply.

It is a bit when you’re just hell bent on justifying discrimination

I think that anyone who says they would happily suck it up and cover their newly employed nanny's medical appts and mat leave, even though they hired her specifically so they could work without worrying about childcare, is lying.

You can think this as much as you like @ABirdsEyeView, but it's exactly what we did with our second nanny. Who came back to work for us, with her own baby, after her maternity leave. And overall worked for us for 7 years until my DC were old enough for us to no longer need childcare.

What you 'believe' is irrelevant - the law is not. It has been said countless times that the nanny may not have known she was pregnant at interview, so in fact most of what you have said is irrelevant.
You work - do you think you should have legal protection? If so, then that needs to be extended to everyone. If everyone had your attitude it would deny many mothers the opportunity to be financially independent.

You talk sexist, discriminatory, self serving nonsense attempting to justify illegal employment practices on the Internet because you have good manners?