Job Offer withdrawn after informing employer that I am pregnant.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 Since then I have had the job offer withdrawn as they felt that I “misled them” and wasn’t honest.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.

There's very little more embarrassing than people that grandstand with an opinion gleaned from their husband's job.

Ever been involved in a family business? I guarantee it isn’t just her husband’s job.

I do wonder why some posters think this a an appropriate place to rant about how unfair the law is and how more should be done to help small businesses.

What do you think the relevance of that is to the OP? Do you think she should personally accept being discriminated against in order to do her bit to help small businesses?

It's utterly depressing that so many women's reaction to a clear cut case of pregnancy discrimination is to explain how hard it is for male small business owners

Cohle, so all small business owners, are male, are they? nice bit of sexism there, ironically.
I think most of the posters on this thread would regard themselves as empathetic, but only if they agree with the argument.
Pps who have got experience of running businesses are shouted down and sworn at because they have an alternative point of view.
And yes, I know it's like, the law.
A pp gave a very good account on how covering a maternity leave is not just the money, but no-one wants to know.
How many of the vocal posters on here shouting about their rights and urging the Op to take this company to the cleaners work for a small or even a medium business?
And as for that stupid argument dragged out time and time again 'if you can't afford (insert anything here) you are not a viable business', that just proves to me how out of touch some on here are.

is to explain how hard it is for male small business owners

What? Are you kidding, why do you think business owners are Male?

I do wonder why some posters think this a an appropriate place to rant about how unfair the law is and how more should be done to help small businesses.

This arose because of the question over morality v legality of when you have to tell an employer.

What do you think the relevance of that is to the OP? Do you think she should personally accept being discriminated against in order to do her bit to help small businesses?
The OP should absolutely take her case forward. Nobody has suggested she shouldn’t because it is her responsibility to help small businesses. Are you suggesting MN isn’t a place of debate?

It's utterly depressing that so many women's reaction to a clear cut case of pregnancy discrimination is to explain how hard it is for male small business owners
It’s equally hard for my sister who took over my father’s business. But as I said, refusing to acknowledge the problems won’t make the issue go away.

So what sort of "compensation" could she hope for given that she obviously doesn't want to work for them now?

@Yabbers this is the legal board. Morality means diddly squat and there shouldn't be a debate. It should be beaded on factual information. If posters what a debate they should go to the appropriate boards.

If they are a small business (I can't see that as confirmed anywhere in the thread) then it's even more outrageous that they don't bat an eyelid over outing another member of staff for having addiction issues! It's clear they have no regard for anyone's rights and as such only a matter of time before they are taken to court by someone

What? Are you kidding, why do you think business owners are Male?

I don't. Obviously. I was referring to the specific posters who have referred to the small businesses owned by their husband (Sunshine) and father (Yabbers) respectively.

I thought it was telling that many of the posters who think the OP has behaved "immorally" seem very focused on the impact on men. There are lots of female small business owners but we don't seem to have any of them here criticising the OP funnily enough.

Are you suggesting MN isn’t a place of debate?

I'm suggesting that the legal board isn't the appropriate place for a wider debate on the impact abiding by non-discriminatory hiring practices has on small businesses.

The OP is asking for legal advice about her particular situation.

I'm suggesting that the legal board isn't the appropriate place for a wider debate on the impact abiding by non-discriminatory hiring practices has on small businesses.

🙄

It’s the Internet. Expect debate.

"BizzzzyBee

It was shitty behaviour but the point is without a signed contract there was nothing that could be done. My solicitor said they can decline to employ you, or say they will but then change their minds, and it’s not illegal unless you have a signed contract."
As long as they don't discriminate!

I would be outraged if this was me. They are clearly discriminating. However I wouldn't want to work for a company like this to be honest.

All the people handwringing for small business owners, what would be your reactions be if the OP had not known she were pregnant when offered the job, took it then found she was 10 weeks gone? Or took the job and got pregnant very shortly after? Or she was diagnosed with cancer and had to keep taking time off for treatments and tests? Or a million other scenarios that could have impacted her job.

Shit happens, if you’re not prepared to take on all that being a business owner big or small implies and factor in all eventualities with regard to business and employment law, inconvenient, expensive and complicated though they be like VAT or liability insurance cover or health and safety legislation or EU standard compliance - if you can’t do all that then you shouldn’t be in business.

I was pregnant when I started my job in 2014. Because of this very fact I was only entitled to SMP which was a very tiny fraction of my salary due to it being capped. My employers where happy to get Mat cover for me (I took 6 months) and had no issue with the fact I told them 3 weeks after I started. I was 12 weeks when I told them and they appreciated my honesty.

That is what a good company does. You should have waited until you signed the contract but I understand why you didn't. They are not allowed to use the reason that you didn't tell them about the pregnancy as a reason not to hire you, you are protected from that.

Hi OP, if you do decide to take this further you might want to request the thread is removed as you have some very specific details on here, including screen shots of their emails. Good luck with whatever you decide to do

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.

That’s a really good point. I do wonder, given the professional situation you outline, the work background a candidate would be likely to have and the conversations that would be likely to be had, how many pregnant women would put themselves forward for a role in those circumstances? Can’t we trust women themselves to make decisions that are in everyone’s best interests much of the time? It wouldn’t make for a very pleasant experience for a pregnant employee as well as causing big issues for the employer.

The debate is nonsensical and a waste of time.

The law is the law and opinions won’t change it.

Her emails are enough proof of a job offer. Aside from the eye-twitching grammar of the exchange, and the bizarre references to addiction and feminism () it’s sex discrimination.

My only point of dissent @Char1997 is to keep your expectations low.

People have mentioned “cleaning up” and “taking every penny”. In my experience (relevant) you won’t get much in a pay-out.

The “loss of earnings” someone mentioned upthread is wobbly and very subjective.

My point is that just because a law is broken doesn’t mean compensation will be a lot. So don’t start googling islands for sale just yet!

@Yabbers is it a permanent position? If so then there will invariably be other contracts to work on after maternity, if you are temp for the duration then that's a much larger consideration. In any case, if you found out you were pregnant just before your first day would you feel happy with them rescinding the offer?

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.

Very unusual to only give 4 weeks notice of maternity leave. This would mean notifying your employer of pregnancy at 25 weeks (the latest you can inform them) and then taking leave at 29 weeks (the earliest you can start maternity leave barring any complications). This would be very odd and would show that you definitely weren't invested in the job anyway so (speculating here) would be unlikely to be in role with 3 months notice etc etc

Obviously it's possible just a highly unlikely scenario

@Sandybval It's a permanent position. The gamble the company take is that there will be future projects after this one. If there aren't it would mean redundancy. It's not unusual in my industry for this type of hiring to happen when projects are won. But they need me now, for this project. If I weren't available it would be a problem.

How would I feel? Conflicted. Legally I know they would be wrong, I would feel it was unfair, but I would understand why it was difficult for them. I would choose to tell them, as I did about another issue I didn't have to disclose at interview. My view is, if that's their attitude I don't want to work for them anyway. I have the luxury to do that because there is a buoyant market for my position.

I do understand that is a risk and certainly don't envy anyone job seeking in that position.

This would mean notifying your employer of pregnancy at 25 weeks (the latest you can inform them) and then taking leave at 29 weeks

This is what happened to me as my daughter was born at 29 weeks.

This is what happened to me as my daughter was born at 29 weeks

A friend's daughter was born at 24+1, she was planning on telling her employer the next day! Obviously there's exceptions but to plan it so that your employer only has 4 weeks notice I would think was odd.

Sorry, that sounded a bit 'Johnny-two-sheds', not intentional

Tough one! Their letter of withdrawal, admittedly; is rather poorly executed.

However, although this situation seems unfair on their behalf, personally I would've have informed them, of your pregnancy, during the interview. That way they would have had the choice whether to take you on or not? I'm assuming you were pregnant at the time?

Jenu have you anything sensible to say?