Recruiter ordered to pay woman €20,000 after ‘discrimination’ due to her pregnancy

Renault 5

In January last year, Ewelina Rauch updated her CV after a recruiter at her agency told her there was a 23-month contract she might be interested in.

A week later, she told them she was pregnant.

The same day, she got an email indicating that her name would no longer be put forward for the job.

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/i-felt-it-was-cruel-because-i-was-in-the-most-vulnerable-place-being-pregnant-recruiter-ordered-to-pay-woman-20000-after-discrimination-due-to-her-pregnancy-40201215.html

I know that based on discrimination laws she was right to win

But in fairness to companies, Why would they want to hire someone on a 23 month contract as they need to fill a role only for that employee to be missing for a large part of the duration of the contract and need to hire a second person to fulfil that role.

I dont think its fair on companies as well as the employee.

timmyntc

Renault 5 wrote: »

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/i-felt-it-was-cruel-because-i-was-in-the-most-vulnerable-place-being-pregnant-recruiter-ordered-to-pay-woman-20000-after-discrimination-due-to-her-pregnancy-40201215.html

I know that based on discrimination laws she was right to win

But in fairness to companies, Why would they want to hire someone on a 23 month contract as I need to fill a role only for that employee to be missing for a large part of the duration of the contract and need to hire a second person to fulfil that role.

I dont think its fair on companies as well as the employee.

Totally understandable from their POV - but at the same time they should have been shrewd enough to know not to tell her! Just say she was unsuccessful or they hired someone else

Renault 5

timmyntc wrote: »

Totally understandable from their POV - but at the same time they should have been shrewd enough to know not to tell her! Just say she was unsuccessful or they hired someone else

Which I would say is the common workaround. But the fact that you need do it is bad.

celt262

timmyntc wrote: »

Totally understandable from their POV - but at the same time they should have been shrewd enough to know not to tell her! Just say she was unsuccessful or they hired someone else

Expensive lesson they will know what to do the next time !

Smee_Again

Hard to see how the decision not to put her forward for the role was for any other reason than her being pregnant.

“In regard to the role – it is a 23-months contract. We can put you forward for shorter roles up until May,” it read.

This is not how you would communicate to a candidate that they didn't possess the skills for the job.

McFly85

The recruiter should have told her someone else got the job alright, but I think if someone is pregnant then it’s fair to ask the due date and the amount of maternity leave they plan to take, especially for contract roles.

Haven’t a clue why that was figured to be worth 20k though.

suicide_circus

The trick is to lie

Donald Trump

I saw that story and I understood it that it wasn't a regular hiring but a contract through an agency.

Company come to agency and says "we need a temporary contract worker for 23 months". The agency then supplies a contractor to do it. If the agency supplied a worker whom they definitely know is emigrating to Australia in three months then the company would be rightfully pissed off. So why should one expect any difference if the company are sent a person whom the agency knows will disappear for at least 6 months in a few months.

It's not a regular employer/employee relationship. She shouldn't have been given compensation.

JustAThought

Maybe instead of the 20k they should have given her the job - and made her do it. At least the SW will take her compensation into consideration & deduct it from her ‘benefits’ - she’d have earned more working. Can’t see too many q’ing up to give her a job next now that she’s pulled that stunt. Name all over the papers.

colm_mcm

She has a job now according to her Facebook. She also won 2 court cases in 2020 apparently.

Stihl waters

Ewelina Rauch will find it hard to get a job in the future, if I was looking for someone to fill a role and googled her name after an interview I'd be crossing her off the list, 20 grand won't be long going if she can't find work

Smee_Again

JustAThought wrote: »

Maybe instead of the 20k they should have given her the job - and made her do it. At least the SW will take her compensation into consideration & deduct it from her ‘benefits’ - she’d have earned more working. Can’t see too many q’ing up to give her a job next now that she’s pulled that stunt. Name all over the papers.

How is she the bad person here?

You’ve made it sound like giving her the job is some sort of punishment or gotcha of her when it’s literally what she wanted in the first place.

Donald Trump

Smee_Again wrote: »

How is she the bad person here?

You’ve made it sound like giving her the job is some sort of punishment or gotcha of her when it’s literally what she wanted in the first place.

The article gives the impression that the recruitment agency just didn't forward her CV to the hiring company and that is why she was able to sue them.

blanch152

Donald Trump wrote: »

I saw that story and I understood it that it wasn't a regular hiring but a contract through an agency.

Company come to agency and says "we need a temporary contract worker for 23 months". The agency then supplies a contractor to do it. If the agency supplied a worker whom they definitely know is emigrating to Australia in three months then the company would be rightfully pissed off. So why should one expect any difference if the company are sent a person whom the agency knows will disappear for at least 6 months in a few months.

It's not a regular employer/employee relationship. She shouldn't have been given compensation.

Because under employment law, you are allowed to discriminate against people who you know are emigrating to Australia in three months, but you are not allowed to discriminate against pregnant women.

Simple as that.

Some poor underpaid graduate got the sack for writing that email.

Donald Trump

blanch152 wrote: »

Because under employment law, you are allowed to discriminate against people who you know are emigrating to Australia in three months, but you are not allowed to discriminate against pregnant women.

Simple as that.

It is not discrimination when it means it is definite that she can't do the task. It would be different if they refused to give it to her out of a worry that she might become pregnant. The lady wasn't employed. She wasn't even dealing with the employer. It was the recruitment agency who didn't forward on her CV for the position. It's a contract position. It wouldn't have the same benefits as an actual staff role.



Do you not think it would be dishonest on her part to accept a short term role when she knows in advance that she won't be around to actually do the job?

LillySV

Stihl waters wrote: »

Ewelina Rauch will find it hard to get a job in the future, if I was looking for someone to fill a role and googled her name after an interview I'd be crossing her off the list, 20 grand won't be long going if she can't find work

i hope so....although id say she be as happy on welfare

Strumms

Renault 5 wrote: »

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/i-felt-it-was-cruel-because-i-was-in-the-most-vulnerable-place-being-pregnant-recruiter-ordered-to-pay-woman-20000-after-discrimination-due-to-her-pregnancy-40201215.html

I know that based on discrimination laws she was right to win

But in fairness to companies, Why would they want to hire someone on a 23 month contract as they need to fill a role only for that employee to be missing for a large part of the duration of the contract and need to hire a second person to fulfil that role.

I dont think its fair on companies as well as the employee.

She’s not available to work and fulfill the entirety of contract, she shouldn’t be awarded it...nor should she apply for it.

That’s not discrimination.

The courts of course couldn’t give a fûck about the current employees there...who might have had hopes of a pay rise... the customers whom might have to pay more now as the company will need to get a temp in plus pay this person...

The courts are discriminating against customers, current employees and employer... what a fûcking absolute kip this country is now.

JustAThought

JustAThought wrote: »

At least the SW will take her compensation into consideration & deduct it from her ‘benefits’

In my best panto voice: "Oh no they won't".



She will have a difficult time landing any future serious jobs, I'd imagine though, once any prospective employer googles her fairly unique name and this story pops up.

Dublin Lad2021

I think it's disappointing considering MM stated that they closer examined her background after getting her CV and realising she wasn't a good enough fit for the role, nothing to do with pregnancy. I think the agency should appeal the decision.

And this is the reason lots more people are put on contracts. Being an employer is a nightmare... I know this is slightly different, but the environment is the same and its a case of whats the minimum amount of permanent employees can I take on more so than planning for growth.

This person has a very stand out name in an Irish context and posed for pictures. She's probably done multiples of the award in damages to her career in Ireland.

HansKroenke

Renault 5 wrote: »

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/i-felt-it-was-cruel-because-i-was-in-the-most-vulnerable-place-being-pregnant-recruiter-ordered-to-pay-woman-20000-after-discrimination-due-to-her-pregnancy-40201215.html

I know that based on discrimination laws she was right to win

But in fairness to companies, Why would they want to hire someone on a 23 month contract as they need to fill a role only for that employee to be missing for a large part of the duration of the contract and need to hire a second person to fulfil that role.

I dont think its fair on companies as well as the employee.

To be honest, I would question the integrity of the person bringing such a claim in the first place. Not to tar all make up artists with the same brush, but in my experience they are attention seeking and not the most upstanding members of society. My prejudice with this lady being a MUA does not appear to be unfounded from what I am reading about her.

redzerdrog

The recruiter should be sacked for incompetence

shtpEdthePlum

The comments in here are absolutely vile.

You'd swear the stork brings the baby, in some of the feeble minds on display here.

How the hell are women supposed to actually survive when Irish men are like this. You people actually disgust me. In any other developed country there wouldn't be such begrudgery that you lack the ability to push an actual other human person out of your body. I'll ask again, how the actual f are women supposed to live in a country where a load of the opposite sex are jealous of their reproductive abilities and believe they should be punished.

In Ireland, pregnancy is treated like a massive inconvenience. Like in America where human life is regarded as commonplace and not worthy of any protections, in Ireland we have historically put mothers and babies in septic tanks and prioritised profit over people.

Almost everyone who replied to this thread so far showed jealousy, hatred and spite. Are you related to any women? What if she needed a job and the agency wouldn't give her information to Facebook or whoever, because they didn't want the massive corporation to have the inconvenience of employing her during maternity leave, enabling her to support her newborn baby? Would you think it's completely acceptable if it was your wife or sister or daughter who was discriminated against on this basis?

I don't know why I do it to myself going on these threads, but I just feel glad not to know any horrible people who think that pregnant women are like scroungers. What a sh!t opinion. Take a look at yourself.

jrosen

Its frustrating to see the outcome, she was put forward for a 23 month contract which she simply wouldnt have been able to commit too. The agency was foolish though, could have handled it better and avoided this.

karlitob

shtpEdthePlum wrote: »

The comments in here are absolutely vile.

You'd swear the stork brings the baby, in some of the feeble minds on display here.

How the hell are women supposed to actually survive when Irish men are like this. You people actually disgust me. In any other developed country there wouldn't be such begrudgery that you lack the ability to push an actual other human person out of your body. I'll ask again, how the actual f are women supposed to live in a country where a load of the opposite sex are jealous of their reproductive abilities and believe they should be punished.

In Ireland, pregnancy is treated like a massive inconvenience. Like in America where human life is regarded as commonplace and not worthy of any protections, in Ireland we have historically put mothers and babies in septic tanks and prioritised profit over people.

Almost everyone who replied to this thread so far showed jealousy, hatred and spite. Are you related to any women? What if she needed a job and the agency wouldn't give her information to Facebook or whoever, because they didn't want the massive corporation to have the inconvenience of employing her during maternity leave, enabling her to support her newborn baby? Would you think it's completely acceptable if it was your wife or sister or daughter who was discriminated against on this basis?

I don't know why I do it to myself going on these threads, but I just feel glad not to know any horrible people who think that pregnant women are like scroungers. What a sh!t opinion. Take a look at yourself.

It must be hard to be angry all the time.

It must be hard to think every man is sexist and be unable to square that with your own sexist post.

You don’t know if all these posters are men.

Even if they are they don’t represent all men.

The other half of the species in ireland don’t know that this thread is here so as to offer a different opinion to those posters mouthing off.

I see no problem with what she did. The company broke the law - simple as. (See.....now you can’t say ‘men’ collectively now.)

I work closely with nurses - lots of them. Healthcare is 90% female workforce. If you think only some men get their noses put out of joint that women in work get pregnant then you need to take the blinkers off. You would never catch a lad speak out loud the stuff I’ve heard nurses say about their pregnant colleagues. Disgusting stuff.

Finally - cop onto yourself and get off your high horse. You’ll fall and hurt yourself.

Natterjack from Kerry

shtpEdthePlum wrote: »

The comments in here are absolutely vile.

How the hell are women supposed to actually survive when Irish men are like this. You people actually disgust me. In any other developed country there wouldn't be such begrudgery that you lack the ability to push an actual other human person out of your body. I'll ask again, how the actual f are women supposed to live in a country where a load of the opposite sex are jealous of their reproductive abilities and believe they should be punished.

Where would you draw the line ?

Contract position is for 6 months.
- We are pleased to offer you the position Ms X
- Thanks. I accept.
- Great, we will see on Monday so.
- Super, by the way, I am on maternity leave from Tuesday. For 6 months.

Of course employers have to lie somewhat but its easily done and only common sense.

shtpEdthePlum

The woman will owe the company the six months they took when their maternity leave is up.

You honestly think the woman can just walk in, take maternity leave and then never fulfil the contract?

Also the state pays for maternity leave in that instance so the company is literally losing nothing and will have a panel of replacements.

I think it's a misunderstanding of actual contracts and pay that has some of you petals unsettled.

Smee_Again

Natterjack from Kerry wrote: »

Where would you draw the line ?

Contract position is for 6 months.
- We are pleased to offer you the position Ms X
- Thanks. I accept.
- Great, we will see on Monday so.
- Super, by the way, I am on maternity leave from Tuesday. For 6 months.

Of course employers have to lie somewhat but its easily done and only common sense.

That’s a price the company has to pay in order to protect the rights of ALL pregnant women.

It’s unfortunate we need anti discrimination law to protect certain sections of society but imagine how poorly pregnant women would be treated if the people in this thread were decision makers where they worked.

whomitconcerns

I had someone on my team before, specialising in another European language. She went on maternity leave. I still had to carry her target.. But that's life, can't hire temps in my former company. She returned after her leave, worked a week and booked her holidays for a month or so. Came back worked a couple of months, told me she was pregnant and went back on maternity leave a month later..... Came back the second time, took more holidays, then handed in her notice... So basically I carried the can for 2 years for her....

Devils advocate.. Yes of course the company could have changed the rules and allowed temps.. But global company global rules..

My person took the pi££ but 99% of the time is not like that. And that's why the protections exist.

Natterjack from Kerry

Smee_Again wrote: »

That’s a price the company has to pay in order to protect the rights of ALL pregnant women.

I am saying the company wouldnt pay the price. An innocent booboo was made by the recruiter in this case, which exposes why 999 times out of 1000, the different wording or handling would have been used and there would be no issue. The company would get someone who can do the job and there is no more about it.