Job Offer withdrawn after informing employer that I am pregnant.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 Since then I have had the job offer withdrawn as they felt that I “misled them” and wasn’t honest.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

I see none of the 'won't hire a pregnant woman' crew have advised how they are trying to subtly ascertain if any male applicants are fathers to be and planning to share parental leave because obviously the training and induction processes are apparently so arduous that any risk of absence must be factored into recruitment decisions.

ACAS all the way! Go for it. You are in a very strong position and they deserve to have the book thrown at them. Good luck.

Really surprising. Thanks for keeping us posted op.

@blockyy how is OP taking the piss? She needed a job, like most women before they go on maternity leave. She was offered employment and it was withdrawn as she was pregnant - that's discrimination.

Would you feel the same way if an offer of employment was withdrawn after finding out the employee had cancer? I doubt it.

Many people leave jobs within a few weeks or months, at whatever age. Maternity leave is paid by the government so it's not as if the employer will be largely out of pocket either.

Depending on the employee it involves drs appointments, classes and then maternity eave and involves hiring temporary staff or making other arrangements. These bring costs, inconvenience and often when they want to return part time then have to consider the request and how we make it work. Sometimes it does , but not always.

Doctors appointments are hardly every week are they, so they same as an employee being off for annual leave in terms of disruptions to the business. As has been said, many people want temporary contracts. As for your last point, employers have to consider flexible working but they don't have to grant it if it doesn't work for the business needs.

And also a question to the women on here who don't like hiring pregnant women.

What is your thought on hiring a man , whose wife is pregant, or will become pregnant next year. Will you hire him? He is entitled to long leave off aswell

Thanks for fighting for our rights op.
I am female and not had children, but I truest believe children are a shared responsibility and women's right should not suffer because they are the sex that gives birth to our next generation.

blockyy yes I work! I’ve worked for the last 15yrs in finance in London. Never had to disclose medical information. In fact the only companies I know who do such a thing are American -and given the American stance on Mat leave and annual leave I wouldn’t work for one

I think this thread unfortunately shines a light on the extent of internalised misogyny and how rampant it is...

Wow I've just RTFT and I am absolutely shocked and disgusted with this!
Good luck in October OP - people/companies like this need to be called out on this type of behaviour.

Well done you! Keep fighting!

I think this thread unfortunately shines a light on the extent of internalised misogyny and how rampant it is...

This 100%

What is your thought on hiring a man , whose wife is pregant, or will become pregnant next year. Will you hire him? He is entitled to long leave off aswell

As I've said, if it was next year then of course because at least he'd have got his feet under the table.

If he told me at interview he was planning on taking the normal 2 weeks in a few months time - fine.

If he said his wife was 7 months pregnant and in 3 months time he planned to take 6 months off - no. Why would anyone hire him

If a woman, very heavily pregnant said she was only planning to take 6 weeks / 2 months off (like I did) then come back full time, then yeah I'd definitely hire her.

Why is so hard for people to understand that if a small business wants someone (of any sex!!!) for three months then they'd just advertise a temp role?

If I was advertising for a permanent contact then I would hope that person intended to stay for at least a year. There are no guarantees but you can hope to minimise the risk.

If a man told me he had imminent plans to take a career break and travel in asia, I wouldn't hire him either I'm sorry but in most cases pregnancy is a choice, same as going travelling for a year. If the man who wanted to go travelling lost is job and needed a new one, I'd advise him to look for a temporary 3 - 6 month contract too!

Have u been able to find a job now the babe is born x

Wow, @Blockyy. What a vile human being you are.

'Why not start as a cleaner, take in ironing, childmind? If all that fails then go on UC like anyone else has to'

You think this is all women are good for?! I mean no disrespect to those incredibly hard-working people who do these roles but how dare you!

I have a friend of a friend who suffered similar treatment to the OP. She was previously a CTO with a fantastic track record. She handed in her notice after formally receiving a job offer elsewhere that was rescinded based solely on the fact the she was pregnant. She had a large mortgage and outgoings that wouldn't have been covered with a minimum wage role. Given her qualifications, skills and experience she deserved that job but instead she was screwed over financially by that company. You really think that's ok?!

There are words for people like you but I won't repeat them on here.

Why is so hard for people to understand that if a small business wants someone (of any sex!!!) for three months then they'd just advertise a temp role?

This.

I’m not misogynistic I’m just realistic on how taking on a pregnant woman would effect my business. My business comes before any one that could be a potential employer - pregnant or not.

It massively depends also what the job role was, ( which she won’t state) if op was expected to be on her feet all day, carrying and lighting heavy objects, she would needs to be put on reduced roles meaning some one would have to pick up her slack or some one else brought in. How much onsite training would she need? What will the work flow be like during training and when maternity cover comes in how long with their training take. Also could this role be done remotely from home?

Sometimes some businesses just can’t take that disruption and instead of people screaming ‘Don’t have a business then’ people need to show a bit of common sense.

MN is very anti business.

@Summersunandoranges if the role just involves lifting and carrying heavy objects which was impossible for a pregnant woman to do from a health and safety POV, I believe (from various courses I have attended) the employer is allowed to discriminate if they potential employee has a condition which means they can't possibly do the role. For instance, they can reject a blind person for a proofreading job because it means they are incapable of doing it.

@MarieG10

I'm not sure what industry you work in, but I guess not one with a high skill set level as in mine we struggle to recruit...we are high pay, high skill set

If you really worked in a high skill level industry where it’s difficult to recruit you’d understand that for the right candidate maternity leave is a tiny blip.

I work in an industry where recruiting is tough - the right candidate might come round very periodically (and we typically conduct exec searches across the EU) if I found the right candidate and she then took mat leave I’d still be happy that we’d secured her for the years that follow.

You have to hire pregnant women anyway. No one cares if it is a minor inconvenience to you, no one! Suck it up

You don’t have to hire anyone

I’d be interested to see if there was this much uproar if this post was about a woman who was due to have a knee operation that would take her out of the work place for up to a year.

I know having a bad knee isn’t a protected by law but it’s the same thing to employers.

@Summersunandoranges yes but you can't discriminate against pregant woman.

Oh well, the business people who think on here that they can discriminate against pregnant women, will get sued eventually.

I don't think that a newly hired person who then needs to go off for a year is a minor inconvenience especially to a small firm.

There are some right twats on this thread but I think OP is great.

@viviennemary But they won't be paying that person!

What is the inconvenience?

And loads of people want to work maternity contracts

@Viviennemary you are talking like a woman takes a job - and then fecks off for a year with the employer's pay.

You do know that the government pays maternity benefit, right. It costs the employer nothing. Nothing!

And it is very easy to hire some one for maternity contract

*I’d be interested to see if there was this much uproar if this post was about a woman who was due to have a knee operation that would take her out of the work place for up to a year.

I know having a bad knee isn’t a protected by law but it’s the same thing to employers.*

What sort of operation would take someone out of the workplace for a year? Even if that was the case, they would likely be put on statutory sick pay anyway, or be working at home.