Job Offer withdrawn after informing employer that I am pregnant.

[Char1997]

Hi all,

I originally posted this on as a pregnancy thread. As the situation has evolved I have been advised to post on here. I was offered a job yesterday afternoon and although I know I was under no obligation to inform them, I told the employer that I was expecting in December. Since then I have had the job offer withdrawn as they felt that I “misled them” and wasn’t honest. Is anyone able to give me some advice if I were to take this further.

Hmm I'm a bit unsure about whether OP should take the job or not, if it's reoffered to her. She should definitely get legal advice on how it may impact a claim, however I would be concerned that you couldn't possibly trust the employer to treat her fairly going forwards as they've already proven they are discriminatory. What's to stop them from coming up with any excuse to dismiss, months down the line even if she's good at her job ? I know that could happen to anyone but surely there is a much higher risk it would happen to OP.

I think the employer has behaved badly - and stupidly. But I don’t think you’ve been entirely straight either - you should have waited till you had to tell them or told them at interview, telling them just after interview and before you’ve signed contract was daft, as an employer it would have made me question your judgement.

Yeah but the thing is, having your judgement questioned by an eejit on the Internet doesn't carry the same potential financial sanctions as having your judgement questioned by an employment tribunal. So "as an employer" you'd be very well advised to wind your neck in and worry about your own judgement (for instance, you could ask yourself on what fucking planet should she have told them at interview?)

Why are people comparing it to sickness as not even relevant. This is not an employee who is trained going off sick

This is a new starter with presumably no training who needs to go off 3 months later for possibly upto a year! It’s taking the piss! You’ll win because they’ve not been clever about their wording but I totally get why they wouldn’t employ you if they had 2 otherwise comparable candidates

While I have sympathy for an employer who takes on a pregnant woman unknowingly (it can screw with budgets and does cost money) they were incredibly stupid to put down in writing their reason for retracting the job offer is in anyway linked to your pregnancy - even if they are trying to link it to honesty and not the pregnancy it's self.

You have been discriminated against and this is totally wrong. Go to ACAS and they can guide you on what to do next.

While I have sympathy for an employer who takes on a pregnant woman unknowingly (it can screw with budgets and does cost money)

Money which can be wholly reimbursed to them (and then some, in some cases) unless they choose to enhance it, which they're at perfect liberty not to do. So why on earth would you have 'sympathy' for them? It's entirely their own fault if their budgets don't allow for employing humans whose bodies fulfil the normal range of functions.

And sunshine which bit of the comparison to sickness where sickness is more inconvenient, unpredictable and costly are you struggling with?

I am frequently saddened when I hear such blatent discrimination both of pregnant women/ those on maternity and part time workers. I thought we'd moved on but clearly not. I guess I am just very lucky with my employer, but it's quite shocking that in 2019 these things are still issues.

Chame- I’m questioning her judgement because getting a job is her priority. We all know that some businesses discriminate against pregnant women so it was daft, naive, of op to tell them before she had the full protection of a written offer and earlier than she needed. Did she think they’d be pleased? Luckily for her they wrote some ridiculous emails and it sounds like as a result she may get the job (but soured from the start). A more savvy company could easily have withdrawn the offer at this stage without incriminating themselves. I’m not saying companies SHOULD discriminate against pregnant women, but they do, so we need to take advantage of the legal protections we have and not give away our rights needlessly. I also think it’s naive not to be able to understand why the employer is pissed off! You don’t set out to employ someone for such a short time!

Most small businesses only offer statutory and anecdotally they seem to suffer less long periods of sickness for this reason. Most of my friends work for similar companies and are never off sick more than day or two etc. My employer offers 6 months full pay and people are off long term all the time. Coincidence?

Sick may cost them more but your average woman under say 40 is less likely to be seen to be off for a year sick. Plus even more less likely for that to happen straight away. I don’t get why people can’t see it from employers side too at all. This is not a colleague who’s worked for years suddenly going off with serious illness. This is a planned absence, why would the business bother with the hassle!

Good luck! Hope you get some compensation for this. Who in their right mind would tell an employer they were pg at interview stage. We all know you would never have been offered that job and they would have made some excuse up as to why you weren't a suitable candidate or somebody else fit the criteria better. That's why we have these laws to protect us and you have a good case here. They are in the wrong and trying to blame & shame you. You did the decent thing telling them early but we're under no obligation to do so. You have a good case here. Find yourself an employment solicitor and iron this out with them. Even for the principle rather than compensation. Alternatively you could try writing to them yourself explaining why you think their decision was unreasonable and actually illegal.

Oh I see you did write to them already. Good for you!! I like what you wrote. It was really clear and showed them that you have done nothing wrong. They are clearly in the wrong here. I guess your next steps depend upon how they handle this. They are in danger of a legal case if they continue to be shitty about this.

Most small businesses only offer statutory and anecdotally they seem to suffer less long periods of sickness for this reason. Most of my friends work for similar companies and are never off sick more than day or two etc. My employer offers 6 months full pay and people are off long term all the time. Coincidence?

Sorry, what's your angle here - do you think that people whose employers only pay statutory sick pay are actually healthier as a population than those whose employers pay more than that? Or do you just think it's a good thing for the workforce if ill people continue to work when they're not well enough, for fear of financial hardship? And where are you getting this notion you seem to have that only employees who've served their employers loyally for years get ill? Would that be your husband again?

"this is a planned absence, why would the business bother with the hassle!"
Because it's illegal? Ffs.

I wouldn't go with the job now even if they offered it up again. Too much risk that they'll wait a suitable amount of time before ditching the OP because her services are "no longer required" or fabricate some sort of misconduct allegation to get shot of her. She's made it clear she's not a walkover and ime employers who are willing to discriminate also don't want someone who "knows their rights".

Re. any award, there was a story in the local news today about a graduate with autism who was awarded 18k for loss of earnings and injury to feelings. He wasn't even offered an interview with BT due to the fact an online test put him an a significant disadvantage and didn't allow him to progress to the next (interview) round of recruitment, and this was considered discrimination on the grounds of disability. Now BT are a massive company and a completely different kettle of fish to the firm it sounds like OP was involved with, but it's not right to say that she has to prove a concrete loss per se- he didn't even have a job offer, informal or not.

All those people saying a pregnant woman is “morally obliged” to disclose their pregnancy before interview, would you expect a man with a pregnant partner to do the same?
Ugh this thread is depressing.

Apologies if this was said before, OP would not be entitled to statutory maternity pay through company due to start date, unless company pays full pay for maternity leave (company maternity pay - which would then result in loss for them). Wondering if this company has a fully functioning HR as who would put themselves in this position with such clear evidence of discrimination.

yes take it further as it's clearly sex discrim. But unless you are a squillion a year banker don't get too excited about your massive payout. It won't be worth that much.

I don’t get why people can’t see it from employers side too at all. This is not a colleague who’s worked for years suddenly going off with serious illness. This is a planned absence, why would the business bother with the hassle!

Because a woman is more than her pregnancy/maternity leave. She may be overwhelmingly the best candidate for the job. The inconvenience of finding maternity cover may be far less inconvenient than hiring a less good person who underperforms and has to be fired, or damages your business, and then new recruitment done anyway. The woman you hire will not always be pregnant or on maternity leave. You may be hiring your best ever employee. If small businesses, who receive great financial support from the government, are not strategic enough to view a pregnant woman as more than a forthcoming period of absence (and so many women don’t take a year, for many reasons) then they risk damaging themselves and losing out on great candidates.

Also, whilst legally and I think morally in the right to pursue this I do agree that the way the legislation works is very difficult for small businesses (which we are constantly told are the backbone of our economy). Yes the nhs can afford to pay for people's leave butnin a small business the disruption together with the financial implications can leave other employees in a precarious position, particularly as there is no certainty that the employee will return. And I say this as someone who has taken 4 extended maternity leaves with enhanced benefits. I'm not sure what the answer is - I suspect it's high quality inexpensive childcare.

@stupidboyman the government pays for maternity allowance and SMP, the OP wouldn't get SMP but even if she did the employer would claim that back off the government.

Double - except this particular company clearly doesn’t think so or they wouldn’t have withdrawn the offer. I fail to see how we can expect companies not to be annoyed if they offer someone a job and the very next day they say they’re pregnant- it’s taking the piss! I can see how that would come across as less than honest. If she had waited till she had to tell that would at least have been in line with legislation but this is somewhere between the two and is IMO a rather odd thing to do. Maybe second choice was also v good and now they are regretting not choosing them.

Argh. Seriously!!! Are we still fighting this battle. If you are a woman under 45 then this is your battle too. If you want any rights in the workplace and to be employed on your merits then you should be outraged at this.

Small businesses are massively protected due to being able to claim SMP and as others have said OP would probably get MA which is claimed directly from the government rather than the company.
And why should the company ‘bother’ with her? Because it’s the frigging law! If they break this because it’s an inconvenience should they be allowed to ignore minimum wage because they “can’t afford it” or discriminate on someone because of the colour of their skin because some of their elderly customers are racist?

Those who think that pregnant women should declare their pregnancy at every job interview and therefore rule themselves out of most jobs - should pregnant women claim benefits instead of working if they find themselves out of work?

And those who think it's reasonable for companies to avoid hiring women in their 20s and 30s - do you not think that they are potentially missing out on some first rate employees?

This is awful and if Charl had for example disclosed after signing a contract they would not have been able to withdraw. However, guaranteed that her treatment once in post, and after disclosing pregnancy would have been discriminatory- they would likely have managed her out legally at a point where she had no employee rights.

Women are truly weighted against in the workplace during and after pregnancy years. This is surely all of our problems and must change.

Maybe second choice was also v good and now they are regretting not choosing them.

Maybe they interview well and are disastrous in the job? Recruitment is always, always a risk and can lead to disaster from many unexpected directions.

And why on earth is it ‘better’ for a woman to wait until the last legal point to tell her employer she’s pregnant, rather than as soon as she’s in post? The more preparation time the better.

And how do you feel about employing disabled people who might need reasonable adjustments made at your expense? Presumably that's also too costly and stressful. What about your Health and Safety obligations? Are they not worth the hassle either?

Many small business owners will say they are not. My dad used to run a business and we fought all the time over the fact he was open about the fact he wouldn’t employ a woman. When I pointed out he had one male employee always on the sick (MH issues) and surely he shouldn’t employ men either, he said if he had known about the MH issues he wouldn’t have hired him either. Regardless of the costs he could claim back, having someone who would disappear from his team of 8 people was a real struggle as it isn’t as simple as picking up the slack or getting maternity cover. The jobs involve going into potentially risky situations so as soon as someone was pregnant, it was possible a risk assessment would preclude them from being able to do their job.

I completely understood where he was coming from and although I disagreed with him, I’m not sure I can definitely say I wouldn’t feel the same way if I ran a small business. On the other hand, he would be the first to come out fighting for me if I had been declined a job simply because I was a woman. If someone like me, who is pro women’s equality, fought my way up the ladder in a very male dominated industry, can see the complexity of the issue, I’m thinking that something more needs to be done to help small businesses in this. I’m just not sure what that is.

Because a woman is more than her pregnancy/maternity leave. She may be overwhelmingly the best candidate for the job. The inconvenience of finding maternity cover may be far less inconvenient than hiring a less good person who underperforms and has to be fired, or damages your business

But if a business, especially a small business is looking for an employee, it is because they have a need for them now, not just in 12 months time.

I’ll give you an example. I start a new job at the end of next month. My new employer was looking for someone because they have just won a contract for a project that is lasting 18 months, starting in September. They have submitted my CV to the client as I have been approved and security checked for the project. If I start and in October say I’m going on ML in 4 weeks, I will have spent a month doing all the start up stuff on the project, becoming familiar with it, getting to know the project and the client. They then have 4 weeks to replace me. Most people in my situation are on 3 months notice, so they have to find someone who isn’t (less likely to be experience enough) or have someone fill in until a new person starts, jeopardising their other contracts, then start a new person for however long I’m off, with me returning to finish the project off. The client has no continuity of personnel (something most clients insist on) the employer has been put in a really difficult situation and I’m probably not going to be considered reliable for a long while. It has nothing to do with the impact of paying SMP.

I absolutely think women shouldn’t be discriminated against, but by failing to accept how it can impact on a business we will remain in the situation where businesses find other reasons not to employ women and everyone loses out. There needs to be an open discussion about the difficulties, so these issues can be properly resolved. Only then will we be less likely to be seen as a problem.