Did I do anything wrong here?

[AirborneElephant]

Background: I manage a team. Our work is “project” based, so people get assigned to a number of projects. The leadership team (international) meet bi-weekly to discuss workload and allocations. The projects in this story are all equally “prestigious”.

Onto the issue. A few months ago one of my team told me she was pregnant. I did all the usual HR stuff, sent her the various policies, asked her if she needed any adaptations, all good. I didn’t tell anyone as it is obviously confidential, other team members didn’t mention it so I assumed she wanted to wait a while. A couple of weeks ago she started wearing a baby on board badge on her jacket. Not particularly discretely, she will walk in with it on, leave the jacket on the back of her chair with the badge showing ect. Great, I thought, she’s clearly now told people.

So at this week’s meeting I suggested she should not be on project A, as it finishes after her due date. Instead I suggested she should be on B which finishes earlier. One of the overseas LT then contacted her after the meeting to congratulate her on the pregnancy. She was furious with me and accused me of breaking her confidence.

I’m not worried about the legal HR side, I had an emergency meeting with HR yesterday and they are happy both that the information was no longer confidential and that in any case I used it in a way that was entirely legitimate. But I’m stewing over it. I normally have a really good relationship with my team so this blindsided me. Did I do anything wrong here or should I chalk this one up to pregnancy worries / hormones?

Is this wording better?

You excluded her from project A due to her pregnancy and informed her of this in a public way in a meeting of her peers?

Projects by their nature have timing issues and management need to look at staffing but also not develop a system where handover is not possible at any stage of the process.

But the issue is the OP took a personal issue which only women can have which leads to direct and indirect discrimination and told the team that her due date not the Mat leave date was the reason she was being excluded from some projects.

To put it another way if it was a man who was taking time off to be in the delivery room and look after his partner would the OP be using the term "due date" or just saying "you will be off around that week".

And as part of an international team she may be more aware of people (including staff) who object to women in the workforce.

I get why you made the assumption it was open for discussion, she wore a badge.

For those asking they're for the London underground so pregnant women are offered a seat without people not seeing the bump.

However, it was probably good practice to mention the change in work stream for that reason to her privately pre-meeting first.

I think no need to make it too profound but apologise for discussing her pregnancy openly in the first instance and assure her the timings work really well, that's all. I'd keep it friendly and polite and move on.

You've already ok'ed it with HR, it's not operational. This is just about valuing a colleague's feelings. If I'm honest you sound very professional, I just think you dropped the ball slightly in terms of courtesy. People may not agree but I think I'd run a personal matter past the individual first and not necessarily go into the reason for the change publicly until they're comfortable.

It is not about sense though. And nor is it about preference. It is about the fact that the OP suggested / allocated work based on pregnancy, did so publically and without reference to the individual in the first place. You do not know that she will not be there to complete the project. Nor does the OP. That is an assumption. I don't need to spell out that pregnancy and giving birth are not the same thing, do I? Nor that assuming someone will take anything more than the minimum statutory maternity leave is foolish? Or that projects do not always run to timescale? The OP has based her actions, in public, on assumptions that she cannot be certain of. "I think your skills are better aligned to Project B" is a factual statement which the OP could prove. "I think you should work on project B because you are pregnant" is discrimination - even if it is sensible!

A public transport user?

Travel on a busy bus or train etc and not wanting to be bumped by backpacks and bags?

Needing people to give up a seat so she can make it to work without having to get off every three stops and recover from motion sickness?

Have you noticed the West has become rather hostile to the idea that pregnancy and pregnant women sometimes needs that little extra support?

"I think you should work on project B because you are pregnant" is discrimination - even if it is sensible!

I disagree. You are entitled to prioritise business needs over individual preferences without it being discrimination. Allocating a task to Person A, who you have a reasonable expectation at the time of allocation will be able to work on it until the point of delivery, over Person B who is planning to no longer be working at the point of delivery, is a reasonable business decision. It does not become an unreasonable decision just because Person B is pregnant, as the same decision would have been made for business needs if Person B was working a notice period/was due to transfer to a new department/was planning a sabbatical etc.

But she did not prioritise business needs over individual preferences because she did not ask about preferences. Or circumstances. The OP leapt straight to "you can't do it because you are pregnant". And the difference is that being pregnant is a protected characteristic; working ones notice or planning a sabbatical is not.

This. In a meeting of MY peers, I chose not to assign her to A, but to assign her to B. Because having her on A will cause problems for the project, and potentially for her as it will be crunch time around her due date. I told her about the project allocation in the normal way in our (separate) team meeting, with no reference to why. She has no problem with the project allocation, it was being congratulated by the other LT member she objected to.

A and B are broadly equivalent. If A was important to her development, was particularly prestigious ect then I would have had a different conversation in the resourcing meeting as I’m very aware of not refusing her opportunities due to her pregnancy.

You don’t live in London I assume? They’re provided by TFL and pretty common on the tube. People like me stand up and offer a seat when they see one.

I never ask for preferences for regular project allocation, that would be really bad management. Each team member is allocated to many projects a year, and a few at any given time. I do ensure I record and allocate opportunities fairly, including specific D&I reviews which the whole leadership team do regularly. I have regular one on one development meetings with each of my team when we discuss what sort of projects they might want to do for any given reason, and any problems they have with other projects. Again, the issue is not the project choice.

The badge in question https://tfl.gov.uk/transport-accessibility/baby-on-board

It's not the end of the world (in terms of how it was managed) but with this confirmation of how the discussions went I agree it should have been the other way round (speak to her then the meeting).

I don't think her pregnancy needed to be mentioned. She was a good fit for that project. However if it did, say if you needed to make a case for her being on that project, you should have checked whether it was common knowledge. If so, that she was aware you were taking into account her due dates.

I'm not HR (in fact have retained entirely from management). However I think you acted in good faith and may not have broken any policy according to your HR but got this a bit wrong. It's not about hormones so don't dismiss her that way, it's about maintaining good relationships and discretion.

I'd apologise, explain your reasons for the allocation and your assumption. I expect she will be fine but make it right. Don't hide behind HR.

Thank you, I completely agree with this. And for what it’s worth so does my HR. It is absolutely discrimination to deny someone an opportunity due to pregnancy. But it is not discrimination to allocate regular scheduled work around expected absence, even where that absence is due to pregnancy.

@AirborneElephant "I never ask for preferences for regular project allocation....Again, the issue is not the project choice."

I think you are missing the point. You got away with it, but (it now transpires) that you told a bunch of peers/managers that she is pregnant (which wasn't appropriate - it was none of their business why you might have allocated the projects in specific ways); and you told them that the reason you had made that decision was because of her pregnancy. I agree with @Catlord - you didn't mean to do anything wrong, there was no ill-intent - but this could very easily have blown up in your face. A litigatious employee could have made hay based on this. She doesn't seem to have any intention of doing so, but isn't it best to be warned that what you did could have had serious outcomes, so it doesn't happen again? It is always wise to ensure that decisions do not, in any shape or form, appear to be based on protected characteristics.

Thanks Catlord, I agree and I’m happy to apologise even though I think it’s a bit silly. I could have avoided any mention, It only came up in the meeting casually and I said it because I assumed the badge meant she was now open about her pregnancy. The conversation was along the lines of “how about Jane for A? No, she’ll be off by then, you can have Mary and we’ll put Jane on B. Oh really, is she leaving? No, she’ll be on maternity leave.”

In the meeting of your peers so one level above her you told them that she is not been given project A due to her pregnancy due date. But could be given project B.

You "suggested" twice not "said" or "informed" so someone asked.

And made a second announcement into her peer group.

And you only reply to posts supporting your view point.

I think she fully understands the culture of your organisation. HR did not educate you on how to present her expected leave. And you continue to fail to see any issue with your conduct.

I don’t necessarily want to label her a precious nightmare just yet,

That ^ is a tone you may need to think about.

I disagree with you on this. The decision was made because she will not be there to complete the project. That is not discrimination, it is regular business scheduling. It’s only unlawful discrimination if she is negatively impacted as a result of the decision. It’s a bit like saying you can’t reallocate the “closing up” task in a shop despite the fact you know Sheila has to leave early for a maternity appointment.

I do agree I could have given no reason, probably should have done, and have taken that approach many times in the past for various employees. but at what point does that stop? The day before her due date?

I’m not intentionally only replying to posts that support my view. I have already admitted it was a mistake to mention the pregnancy, a mistake I made because she is publicly announcing it herself every time she comes into the office, so it’s hard to see how it is now considered confidential. But I am very clear that the decision itself is not illegal discrimination, and I have had legal advice about that both before and after this particular incident.

My use of “suggested” vs “told” is just phrasing. I get the final decision, but the point of the resourcing meeting is for all the LT to agree that we have the right skillsets and resources on each project. And for those that have asked about reallocation / transfer yes we do that as well, but it wastes a lot of time so we try to avoid it.

Oh, and I didn’t make a second announcement to her peer group. I said nothing to her peer group, just gave the allocations as normal and discussed workloads and issues.

She may well be wearing a badge in the office, but her overseas colleagues- (LT?) presumably don't see this so were unaware. Hence congratulating her. Its for HER to tell others, not you, but what is done is done.

I agree with apologising, and the fact she was wearing a badge you assumed she was happy for the entire company to know- even those abroad who couldn't see it.

I’m not intentionally only replying to posts that support my view.

Its a tell all the same

I have already admitted it was a mistake to mention the pregnancy, a mistake I made because she is publicly announcing it herself every time she comes into the office, so it’s hard to see how it is now considered confidential.

This ^ is a yes but statement.

Its the context and you said yourself that it was disclosed into a group of non-office based staff

But I am very clear that the decision itself is not illegal discrimination, and I have had legal advice about that both before and after this particular incident.

And yet you were not given advice on now not to be quotable saying its because she is pregnant so you were very poorly advised.

And FYI HR staff can be very ill trained on the legal side of HRM. And the personal/ medical data obtained did not need to be disclosed in the way you disclosed it. Other staff obtaining the same data from an "independent" source is not a reason to disclose her data without her permission.

I’m not worried about the legal HR side, I had an emergency meeting with HR yesterday and they are happy both that the information was no longer confidential and that in any case I used it in a way that was entirely legitimate

And you needed to check if you missteped

The other TL only needed to know she would be unavailable. You got the data for OH reasons and then made assumptions on how you could use the data without asking permission and now have to rely on a secondary processing basis to justify your choice.

Not actionable discrimination is different from not being discrimination.

So whats the plan for her handover?
When will the temp arrive to provide Mat cover?

My use of “suggested” vs “told” is just phrasing. I get the final decision, but the point of the resourcing meeting is for all the LT to agree that we have the right skillsets and resources on each project. And for those that have asked about reallocation / transfer yes we do that as well, but it wastes a lot of time so we try to avoid it.

Language choice

So at this week’s meeting I suggested she should not be on project A, as it finishes after her due date. Instead I suggested she should be on B which finishes earlier.

The conversation was along the lines of
[ not you: ] “how about Jane for A?
[ you : ] No, she’ll be off by then, you can have Mary and we’ll put Jane on B.
[ not you:1 ] Oh really, is she leaving?
[ you: ] No, she’ll be on maternity leave.”

And again was the data disclosed as a casual throw away comment when she'll be on leave would have done just as well?

Oh, and I didn’t make a second announcement to her peer group. I said nothing to her peer group, just gave the allocations as normal and discussed workloads and issues.

You think your prior action has been kept confidential by the other TLs when she heard about what you did third hand?

And FIY all projects are political somebodys pet project won and somebody lost one when the resources were being divided up.

You appear to be young and have missteped and she is not in a great position to voice any objection. She is aware that she is at a vulnerable stage in her career and you are not able to recognise why.

I think you need to be more professional about it given you did make an assumption (and maybe she forgot to take it off, but also who wears one of those if they aren't very pregnant 🙄) @EarringsandLipstickhas made a good suggestion. You did stuff up, so own it. Particularly bad given you're in HR!

It’s only unlawful discrimination if she is negatively impacted as a result of the decision.

You really need to get a better understanding of the law because (a) that is not true and (b) the interpretation of "negative impact" is not what you think it is.

But since you have known that you were absolutely correct and did nothing wrong ever since you first posted, and only want to hear what you want to hear, you carry on. Perhaps next time the recipient of your management decisions won't be quite as understanding. After all, you are being deliberately goady now about her pregnancy - you know very well what the answer to your remarkably foolish question is. You don't take this at all seriously, but one day you may have to.

Ok, people are really starting to make stuff up now, so I’m out. I’m not in HR, I’m not young, and I said right from the start that I’m not asking for HR advice. Forgive me if I take advice from my highly experienced HR business partner rather than randoms on the internet.

I was asking the emotional rather than legal question of whether people thought that publicly announcing your pregnancy would normally be taken as a sign you are ok for it to be discussed. Clearly some do and some don’t, which has given me a better view on how to handle things next week, so thank you to all who have contributed.