Fired for possibly becoming pregnant??

ButterflyGirl23

Hi
I think i was just let go because i could be getting pregnant soon...

I started an admin job two months ago. It was going very well, i got on well with everybody, was never late or sick and did everything that was asked of me.

On Monday, the manager took me aside and fired me. He said the company wanted to remain small and wanted to be more sales orientated. I got a bit of a fright and asked him was there anything that i had done wrong. He assured me it was nothing that i did and said that the company was been restructured.

He said it was not his decision and that it came from a manager that i haven't really dealt with much. I left in tears and the next day heard that the other admin staff (two of which that were hired after me and that i trained) were in shock and the engineers were all confused and askng questions of what is going on.

My manager couldn't give me a straight answer and noone in the office knew what was going on. My manager assured me it was not his decision and was out of his hands. The sales thing makes no sense as i made more sales last month than any of the other admin staff.

My confidance had been severly knocked and moving forward, i know that in a new position, i will not feel very confidant.

The only reason i can think of is that they found out i was newly married and hoping to start a family soon. I was on 6 months probation, do i have any comeback fron this or should i just move on?

Peregrine

Moved from Careers & Jobs Discussion to Work Problems. Please read their charter before posting. Thanks.

Stheno

To be honest no.

If you were pregnant they couldn't fire you without reason, but as you are not pregnant as per your post, you are still on probation and can be let go.

I'd half wonder if you are overthinking this, and wondering if that's why they decided to let you go, when they told you they wanted to keep the headcount low?

davo10

You think you are being discriminated against because you are "thinking" of becoming pregnant? How is this possible if you are neither actually pregnant nor has your employer been informed that you are pregnant?

Mrs OBumble

davo10 wrote: »

You think you are being discriminated against because you are "thinking" of becoming pregnant? How is this possible if you are neither actually pregnant nor has your employer been informed that you are pregnant?

It's highly possible: senior manager gets wind of newly married and planning to have kids, and says "get rid of her now, we won't be able to once she's up the duff". Junior manager has to do what he's told.

Totally unable to be proven, of course.

And not even illegal: you're not allowed to discriminate against someone because they're pregant, but can because they're fat, ugly, plan to travel, etc.


OP - just move on. If they're the sort that would do this, then they're not the sort who you want to be working for. Good luck with the job hunting, just keep believing that there IS a better job out there which you 100% deserve to get.

davo10

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

It's highly possible: senior manager gets wind of newly married and planning to have kids, and says "get rid of her now, we won't be able to once she's up the duff". .

I asked how is it possible that the op feels she is being discriminated against based on pregnancy, when she is not pregnant.

Vallorrous

I think if the fact she was a newlwed woman was a bar to her being employed, surely they wouldn't have hired OP in the first place? Sometimes companies restructure for unfathomable reasons, I think you had a lucky escape OP! Also if you believe they were discriminating against you, it's unlikely they'd have let you pass probation anyway so it's best they tell you straight out x

barneystinson

davo10 wrote: »

I asked how is it possible that the op feels she is being discriminated against based on pregnancy, when she is not pregnant.

See the question mark in the OP and thread title - she's asking questions, not purporting to know the answers...

Mrs OBumble

davo10 wrote: »

I asked how is it possible that the op feels she is being discriminated against based on pregnancy, when she is not pregnant.

Maybe you're on mobile, and cannot see the thread-subject which is "Fired for possibly becoming pregnant??"

livedadream

ButterflyGirl23 wrote: »

Hi
I think i was just let go because i could be getting pregnant soon...

I started an admin job two months ago. It was going very well, i got on well with everybody, was never late or sick and did everything that was asked of me.

On Monday, the manager took me aside and fired me. He said the company wanted to remain small and wanted to be more sales orientated. I got a bit of a fright and asked him was there anything that i had done wrong. He assured me it was nothing that i did and said that the company was been restructured.

He said it was not his decision and that it came from a manager that i haven't really dealt with much. I left in tears and the next day heard that the other admin staff (two of which that were hired after me and that i trained) were in shock and the engineers were all confused and askng questions of what is going on.

My manager couldn't give me a straight answer and noone in the office knew what was going on. My manager assured me it was not his decision and was out of his hands. The sales thing makes no sense as i made more sales last month than any of the other admin staff.



The only reason i can think of is that they found out i was newly married and hoping to start a family soon. I was on 6 months probation, do i have any comeback fron this or should i just move on?

Firstly, you wernt fired, you just didnt pass your probationary period.
either way i know it is upsetting and even worse when the company wont give you a reason.

Dont let is knock your confidence and try not to over think it, try to think of it as a two way street.

during your probation you can be let go for any reason, i dont want to go putting ideas in your head but some of the reasons i have seen people not complete their probation are:

someone didnt like them and it was easier to get rid of them than the person complaining
the org couldnt afford them after hiring them
they were late/sick/moany (i know you said you wernt im just giving examples)
not the right fit with the org

there are literally a million reasons why this happens.

try not to over think it.

there is no way you were let go for getting married. even the most backward of companies arnt that stupid.

unless you were wandering around the office talking about how much you were loving being married and couldnt wait to start popping out babies and taking all the maternity leave in the world i cant see how that would come into it.

(on the downside, i have seen people not complete probation because their manager thought they had a poor attitude, were too annoying, talked too much, wound people up etc etc)

davo10

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

Maybe you're on mobile, and cannot see the thread-subject which is "Fired for possibly becoming pregnant??"

Yip, and further down in the first post she said she is "hoping to start a family soon". Either way is immaterial as sh is not pregnant so cannot be discriminated against as the condition for discrimination does not exist. Simples really.

livedadream

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

Maybe you're on mobile, and cannot see the thread-subject which is "Fired for possibly becoming pregnant??"

ah (and this is me playing devils advocate) sure then none of us women would get hired because we are fertile and could possibly get pregnant at some stage in our 40 odd year working life.

Sunny Dayz

I doubt very much they fired you because you might get pregnant, nobody is that stupid. You don't sack someone because they might end up taking 6 months unpaid leave sometime in the future.
You say you have been there two months. And you have trained up 2 newer staff since you started. I'm guessing so that you are fairly qualified, competent in your job and can command a higher salary. Is it perhaps that you were brought in to train up the department and once you trained up the other two people, you were let go? If you earn a higher salary, and you have trained these tow other people, have you effectively trained them to do your role.
Unfortunately I've seen people dismissed, just because. In one place I worked a number of us were on fixed term contracts all finishing at the same time, I wasn't kept on because my salary was higher and I didn't kiss the manager's a$$. Other less competent and cheaper staff were kept on.

Mrs OBumble

livedadream wrote: »

ah (and this is me playing devils advocate) sure then none of us women would get hired because we are fertile and could possibly get pregnant at some stage in our 40 odd year working life.

The OPs chances of getting pregnant are several zilion times larger than my chances, at this point in time. And I still have 20 years of working life left.

livedadream

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

The OPs chances of getting pregnant are several zilion times larger than my chances, at this point in time. And I still have 20 years of working life left.

yeah but does that mean that someone shouldnt hire her over you because you are several zillion time less to get boxed?

no, because that would be riduclious...

in real life people dont think that way, you dont see a ring on a young girls finger and say, jesus she must be riding all around herself now shes married and is sure to get knocked up, better not hire her, ill hire that man over there, he has no responsibilities forthcoming.

aphex™

davo10 wrote: »

Yip, and further down in the first post she said she is "hoping to start a family soon". Either way is immaterial as sh is not pregnant so cannot be discriminated against as the condition for discrimination does not exist. Simples really.

A solicitor should be sought as you can rephrase that. She is a female of child-bearing age. And all that imples re. starting a family.

Still hard to prove in court as they didn't have to produce evidence because of the probation period stuff. Might be worth trying to gently rattle their cages a bit tho.

livedadream

aphex™ wrote: »

A solicitor should be sought as you can rephrase that. She is a female of child-bearing age. And all that imples re. starting a family.

Still hard to prove in court as they didn't have to produce evidence because of the probation period stuff. Might be worth trying to gently rattle their cages a bit tho.

a solicitors advice shouldnt be sought, she was on probation, she isnt pregnant. She did not pass her probationary period and no reason needs to be given by an employer for this.

this stuff drives me demented, she wasnt discriminated against, yes she's peeved off and yes maybe they could have handled it better but they did nothing legally or ethically wrong.

Bandana boy

It seems a bit of a jump from somebody 2 months into a probationary period being let go too its because I might get pregnant !

Surely if they were likely to discriminate because of this factor , it would have shown in there not hiring a Women of childbearing age in the first place .

I would say 2 months in the far more likelihood is performance issues with OP or a downturn in prospects for the company.
You will find managers who do not legally have to give a reason or justify letting somebody go they will do so in the least confrontational manner possible.

Carlos Orange

livedadream wrote: »

this stuff drives me demented, she wasnt discriminated against, yes she's peeved off and yes maybe they could have handled it better but they did nothing legally or ethically wrong.

Nobody really knows one way or the other whether the company has done anything ethically wrong. The OP sounds more confused than peeved and is clutching at straws. They may be right or they may be wrong. Either way, it is what they can prove that matters. Probably better to just take it on the chin and move on.

Irish_Elect_Eng

Frankly, No, it is very unlikely that you were let go for possibly becoming pregnant.

(1) Most likely, the company is telling the truth small company, hired one person to many in your role. Let you go to spend money elsewhere.

(2) Or you were not what they were looking for, either personally or professionally it was felt that you were not a good fit for their team or company.

Don't over-analyse.... Move on.

Dial Hard

livedadream wrote:

in real life people dont think that way, you dont see a ring on a young girls finger and say, jesus she must be riding all around herself now shes married and is sure to get knocked up, better not hire her, ill hire that man over there, he has no responsibilities forthcoming.

You're extremely naive if you think that *exactly* that kind of factoring-in doesn't come into hiring decisions. People in this very forum have said time and again that, all other factors being equal, they'd hire a man in the "likely to be starting a family soon" demographic over a woman.

wokingvoter

aphex™ wrote: »

A solicitor should be sought as you can rephrase that. She is a female of child-bearing age. And all that imples re. starting a family.

Still hard to prove in court as they didn't have to produce evidence because of the probation period stuff. Might be worth trying to gently rattle their cages a bit tho.

What manner should this cage rattling take do you advise?

davo10

wokingvoter wrote: »

What manner should this cage rattling take do you advise?

I wondered that, the obvious reply from the employer would be " how could we have discriminated against you based on pregnancy when we didn't know you were pregnant and you don't know if you are pregnant?" The mind boggles.

Stealthfins

I'd suggest going to a solicitor,she definitely has a case because her productivity was above others.

She trained in other members of staff,a friend of mine was a union member and was let go because he was a union member.
The people left on weren't in the union and under qualified for their roll's.


The company couldn't prove they let him go because he was in the union and was well up on employment legislation.

So they lost out big time,there's senior council and solicitors who'd make mince meat out of her employer's.

davo10

Stealthfins wrote: »

I'd suggest going to a solicitor,she definitely has a case because her productivity was above others.

She trained in other members of staff,a friend of mine was a union member and was let go because he was a union member.
The people left on weren't in the union and under qualified for their roll's.


The company couldn't prove they let him go because he was in the union and was well up on employment legislation.

So they lost out big time,there's senior council and solicitors who'd make mince meat out of her employer's.

She definitely has a case? What case? She was still on probation, she was employed for less than one year so doesn't have the protection of the UDA nor the ET, and is not pregnant as far as the employer knows, so what case do you feel she "definitely" has? Which Senior Council would take on a case of an employee let go after 8 weeks with no grounds for claiming discrimination?

RainyDay

Irish_Elect_Eng wrote: »

(1) Most likely, the company is telling the truth small company, hired one person to many in your role. Let you go to spend money elsewhere.

Hard to see how a company could come to this conclusion after two months, unless they are just total wasters. What has changed from two months ago when she was given the job?

OP - did you leave another job to start this one? If so, it is very, very bad form to let you go for the reason given.

Stheno

RainyDay wrote: »

Hard to see how a company could come to this conclusion after two months, unless they are just total wasters. What has changed from two months ago when she was given the job?

OP - did you leave another job to start this one? If so, it is very, very bad form to let you go for the reason given.

OP said there was a restructure going on?

livedadream

Dial Hard wrote: »

You're extremely naive if you think that *exactly* that kind of factoring-in doesn't come into hiring decisions. People in this very forum have said time and again that, all other factors being equal, they'd hire a man in the "likely to be starting a family soon" demographic over a woman.

like i said 'in real life'

boards.ie is no where near to real life, people can say whatever they want here with no repercussions.

posters saying that in boards doesnt mean they do it in real life, no one is that stupid or misguided.

RainyDay

Stheno wrote: »

OP said there was a restructure going on?

A restructuring that was unknown at the time she was offered the job or started? Something smells here.

uck51js9zml2yt

RainyDay wrote: »

A restructuring that was unknown at the time she was offered the job or started? Something smells here.

Like what ?

There may be a myriad of reasons why the OP had her contract terminated. The facts are she was still in her probationary period and they had every right to do what they did.
She may have been unsuitable, didn't gel with the team or just be an excess to requirements. We don't know and only have one side of the story.

There's no smoking gun here!

RainyDay

Yareli Shy Stockiness wrote: »

Like what ?

There may be a myriad of reasons why the OP had her contract terminated. The facts are she was still in her probationary period and they had every right to do what they did.
She may have been unsuitable, didn't gel with the team or just be an excess to requirements. We don't know and only have one side of the story.

There's no smoking gun here!

Funny how you highlight how little we know about this case, but yet you are absolutely convinced that there is no problem here. You're right, we don't really know what or why, but something does smell.

How could she be 'excess to requirements' just 2 months after being hired? If she was unsuitable, they should have told her what the problems were, and given her the chance to fix them.