Is this discrimination?

[Daisychain185]

I am one of four senior leaders where I work, in the company structure we are all equal and directly beneath the boss who owns the company, and everyone else is less senior than us.

The boss wants to sell the company over the next 10 years through an employee share scheme, which he is offering to the four of us, where we would each get given 2-3% of the company a year. This is in exchange for us committing to working full time plus overtime which has been suggested will come to 50-60 hours a week.

However, I currently work 4 days a week (I have a toddler) and will be going on maternity leave for my second baby at the end of the year. He has said that unless I commit to the 50-60 hour weeks on my return, the scheme won't be open to me. This isn't something I want to commit to when I return from mat leave with 2 small children.

He is not open to me being given a proportionate percentage of shares to my colleagues based on the number of hours I can commit to, it's all or nothing.

Is this discrimination? Or is he within his rights to include or exclude whoever he wants based on whatever he wants?

I am a loyal and committed employee with high career ambitions, but I feel if this opportunity isn't open to me whilst working my current hours my future at the company is probably over.

@Daisychain185 pregnant then screwed are a great group who will be able to advise you (for free). Acas might also be a useful resource 🙂

You need specialist advice. Your second point about restructuring while on mat leave is 100% discrimination, the first needs an expert opinion.

He sounds like an arsehole though and not trustworthy. I would start to plan an exit as if you fight your corner it's likely to destroy your future with the company anyway.

It's not indirect discrimination. Being a parent isn't a protected characteristic. Men are parents too post the expiration of paternity rights (which are piss poor). It's an offer that allows for your maternity rights. I still think it's a crap offer because on its merits there are too many variables beyond your control, the transfer period is too long and if you you have to walk after a few years, you'll likely lose your iptipns and be required to return the shares at par value. I can see why the owner thinks it is generous, but it isn't. If you want to work with other participants, why not group together, get funding and do an MBO?

There will also be a very difficult crossover point when the current owner loses control but may struggle with the loss of influence, especially if decisions with which he disagrees begin to pass.

"Pregnancy and maternity" is a protected characteristic.

It could also be sex discrimination as women are more likely to be part time.

Well you could knock me down with a feather... not.

So none of them are likely to have their careers hindered by giving birth, are they? If they have kids, I dare say their partners will be picking up the slack on the childcare front, leaving them to advance their careers.

I'd say you have a clear case for sex discrimination here. They are imposing conditions with which the others can comply, and you can't.

I think it's confusing as it's more a share transaction rather than an employment issue.

It's being given the ability to buy shares by paying for it via overtime (rather than cash)

Shareholders can usually sell to whoever they want.

Now a share option plan can discriminate but usually that's just to levels of staff. It there isn't usually any reason why one can't say "John is good and let's give him more options". It's a usually very discretionary.

And one can do unapproved options as you wishes, subject to agreement with shareholders.

But wouldn't he just say I am choosing not to comply?

You could take it to a solicitor and be told it's discriminatory based on being pg, which is your protected characteristic in this context.

what would you do with that information? What does it matter? There are lots of discriminatory acts taking place every day in corporate life, hence why pregnantthenscrewed exists, because it happens so often and people get away with murder.

the prospect of spending money getting legal advice, chasing it through a Tribunal and ending up stressed and exhausted when you have other family priorities, would be madness, especially when you've said you're not really that interested - this must surely influence your actions here?

the prospect of spending money getting legal advice, chasing it through a Tribunal and ending up stressed and exhausted when you have other family priorities, would be madness, especially when you've said you're not really that interested - this must surely influence your actions here?
If she's got a good-enough case then she can put the frighteners on the employer but then settle before it gets to tribunals, etc. It's what I did years ago. Got a new job fairly soon after but meanwhile got a tidy pay-out.
Imagine how pleased OP would be to get a lump sum for not doing something she was never going to do anyway!

Wow. Just wow.

I think I'd want to be pretty sure that work was trying to screw me over before I did this, and that's definitely unclear from the posts so far. Shown by the number of posters that think this unclear wrt discrimination.

It would make OPs work life pretty uncomfortable. Also may be hard for the business to bear financially even just legal fees if case isn't taken forward. I'd want to be sure they were actually ill intentioned first, as correcting this should be the intention, not the money.

OP I think you are getting some really varied (and some quite concerning) advice here. I'd definitely consult an employment lawyer here.

Perhaps also do some more digging with boss and in your gut to assess whether they are trying to do the right thing. Particularly if you're not interested in the offer anyway. And try not to let this give you the ick with work, it's hard to come back from.

Yes, of course it's discriminatory. Sounds almost like it's concocted to exclude you. I'd be getting some legal advice. It may come with your house insurance.

It feels like it's concocted to exclude me. Which is strange as my boss has always been extremely complimentary about the skills I bring to the business so I would have thought he would want to retain me. He would have known his requirement for such a huge sacrifice of (initially partly unpaid) time is likely to exclude me as I have always been a big advocate of work life balance for myself and the colleagues I manage - in my experience it creates better and more well rounded employees who work harder in the time they are actually paid.

He has a massive chip on his shoulder about the rights women have surrounding pregnancy and maternity (e.g. accruing annual leave on mat leave). So in that respect his stipulations don't surprise me.

I won't be suing him for this as I don't have the time, money or appetite, and ultimately as PPs have said, the scheme is not financially attractive. However, for me it's about establishing whether there is anything discriminatory about his proposal. If I can establish this through some informal legal advice (if this is possible) I will call him out on it. At this point the relationship will likely be soured and I will probably resign. If the opportunity to reach the top in this company isn't available to me on terms I can accommodate taking into account my home circumstances, I will progress my career elsewhere.

It's a shame as I have a lot to bring to the company and the whole thing feels very short sighted and inflexible of him.

But he is making it difficult for you to comply due to your circumstances, which do not apply to the other staff because they are male.

However, for me it's about establishing whether there is anything discriminatory about his proposal. If I can establish this through some informal legal advice (if this is possible) I will call him out on it. At this point the relationship will likely be soured and I will probably resign.

If he were a decent boss, he'd be glad to have it pointed out.

I assume he's had a lawyer go through what he's offering?

From what you've said he will only be happy if you accept going full-time with overtime, or you stay part-time and are happy to receive no shares and for other people to be promote over you. It mostly sounds like he wants people to do more work for free with the gamble that getting shares will pay off in the future. Will he really be okay with giving up full control and having decisions go against him?

You definitely need specialist advice.

I mean there are also separate employment issues.
Doing free overtime for a reward 10 years hence? Have to be very after tight -risking minimum wage legislation potentially (my partner works for a start up where they all ( the owners) earn 20k /min wage and probably do more than standard hours but that's not in writing)

Offering one person a chance to buy into the company other another is common -depends on the skills they want to attract and how replaceable they are.

It would be interesting to see if it's discriminatory as such. Same as say offering partnerships to people in law /accounting -that may not be a totally fair process -sone people can't afford the buy in or just not be offered it as they aren't the star performers? Or go off long term sick at some point?

Also looking at the first post

He is choosing to sell his shares to people over a few years (payment being in overtime)

So it's not new shares being issued via a share option plan.

He will need significant legal and tax advice on how to make that work.
But he could also agree to give shares to his mate Bob for nothing and his brother. If he is giving away his assets for free he could pick how he wanted to distribute them. In his private life he can discriminate so it's interesting how this intersects with his business life.

He would be better off just agreeing unofficially to do this and it's discretionary. Of course employees may not want to work extra hours for no agreed in writing reward.

But is the company worth anything if he sells it to 3-4 people -who do those people sell it to? Is it highly profitable/asset rich? Or just had value in a sell out to a huge company (and what are chances of that?)

I think your approach is sensible and realistic OP. It sounds like ultimately it's his loss. And if he openly expresses such discriminatory views he's not to be trusted.

I can't believe anyone would want to sign up for that scheme. A mandatory 50-60 hours a week for years on end, with possibly no reward?

I work for a start-up. I took a lower salary in exchange for shares, with the understanding I'd get a market rate salary once the company is more on its feet (a few years). It's a gamble - I may never see any money from the shares, unless the company is sold, or we go on the stock market. That, I was prepared to do, it's a marginal financial risk - endless overtime, no way.

I think you're better off out of it OP, his scheme is flawed.