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

karlitob

GreeBo wrote: »

It used to be that gay people couldn't marry and that abortion wasn't an option, laws change.

They certainly do.

So you want to change the law so that pregnant women can be discriminated against.

And - it would seem - that you want the law change so that gays can’t marry and abortion isn’t an option.

I deduced that from the following.
- “I don’t like that law that means you can discriminate against pregnant women”
- “Laws change - like ‘they gays can marry’ now law (which is an example of how discrimination is reduced”
- “Therefore, since I want to discriminate against pregnant women, and there is precedent where discrimination laws changed so that there is less discrimination for a certain cohort based on one part of their identity, then hopefully, those laws can change back to the good old days”


What would you be like if you had to hire a pregnant lesbian?

end of the road

end of the road wrote: »

my argument is fine, no flaws in it what so ever.
ultimately she didn't get the job because she was pregnant, hence the pay out, refusing to employ someone because they are pregnant is grounds for discrimination in this country and that isn't going to change.

Was that reply meant for me? You are correct. They broke the law and got caught. Where is the confusion?

GreeBo

karlitob wrote: »

I know. I disagree with it. And I’m telling you why.

This reminds me of my favourite quote from Brian cox

“The problem with today’s world is that everyone believes they have the right to express their opinion AND have others listen to it.

The correct statement of individual rights is that everyone has the right to an opinion, but crucially, that opinion can be roundly ignored and even made fun of, particularly if it is demonstrably nonsense!
Brian Cox

Your disagreement is based on "IT'S THE LAW", is not what I would call an argument tbh.

karlitob

GreeBo wrote: »

Your disagreement is based on "IT'S THE LAW", is not what I would call an argument tbh.

No it was the response to your question to me as to what companies are supposed to do. My response was to not break the law.

Keep up. It’s not hard.

end of the road

Deleted User wrote: »

Was that reply meant for me? You are correct. They broke the law and got caught. Where is the confusion?

well you are the one who seems to be confused, so you tell me where the confusion is.

the_pen_turner

i fail to see how ruling someone out of a job becasue they cannot do the job should be against the law. unfortinetly it is for some bizare reason.

the law is completely wrong on this

end of the road

end of the road wrote: »

well you are the one who seems to be confused, so you tell me where the confusion is.

Okay, let's take this slow...


You posted a reply to me saying what the company did was illegal. Why? I never said otherwise.


You ignored my first request to explain yourself. Let's see if you can follow a request the second time of asking?

Treppen

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Again, it wasn't 'because she was a woman', sorry this doesnt fit what you are peddling.

So why was the case ruled as discrimination?

Treppen

the_pen_turner wrote: »

i fail to see how ruling someone out of a job becasue they cannot do the job should be against the law. unfortinetly it is for some bizare reason.

the law is completely wrong on this

You can't rule someone out of a job because they are pregnant.

If you say the law is wrong then you would be in favour of ruling sometime out of a job because they were pregnant .
Because only women get pregnant it's discriminating based on their gender.
You can't discriminate based on gender.
If you discriminate based on gender you are saying a man could be better suited to the job.

GreeBo

Treppen wrote: »

You can't rule someone out of a job because they are pregnant.

If you say the law is wrong then you would be in favour of ruling sometime out of a job because they were pregnant .
Because only women get pregnant it's discriminating based on their gender.
You can't discriminate based on gender.
If you discriminate based on gender you are saying a man could be better suited to the job.

No, you'd be in favour of ruling people out who can't fulfill the single most important aspect of the job, namely the ability to turn up.

Your logic leap to make this gender based is flawed. Anyone who can't actually turn up for the period of the contract would be unsuited to the job, be that due to pregnancy or any other condition. Gender is irrelevant.

Treppen

Treppen wrote: »

So why was the case ruled as discrimination?

Pregnancy discrimination comes under gender because only women can become pregnant (currently) and is one of the 9 prescribed. She was decriminated against to the favour of another women. Square that as being discriminated against by reference only to being female.

I digress, but I say currently because while for ever there were two sexes, now transgender is becoming accepted.

It's only a matter of time before a person born and identified as female because of having female sex organs will grow up and identify as a man, be accepted as a man... and will become pregnant while not having fully transitioned.

Treppen

Treppen wrote: »

You can't discriminate based on gender.
If you discriminate based on gender you are saying a man could be better suited to the job.

See - we agree. This person was not considered because the recruiter (probably rightly) concluded that the employer would want a female that wasn't pregnant.

Treppen.

Hypothetical question for you. You work as a shift manager in a multinational coffee franchise.

You're hiring for a 1 year role (permanent employee on one year round the world trip to find themselves, but will come back) you will be responsible for training. During this training, that goes on for two weeks, your tips will be down due to being partially away from full customer service. There is one job going.

You have two candidates. One male, one female. Both gave good interviews and both are objectively scored the same at interview.

The female is just about to leave and says, she really hopes she gets the job, she's really excited by the prospect, almost as excited about the baby she is due to have in 6 months.

To whom do you think you would give the job?

the_pen_turner

Treppen wrote: »

You can't rule someone out of a job because they are pregnant.

If you say the law is wrong then you would be in favour of ruling sometime out of a job because they were pregnant .
Because only women get pregnant it's discriminating based on their gender.
You can't discriminate based on gender.
If you discriminate based on gender you are saying a man could be better suited to the job.

you should be able to rule someone out because they are pregnant, they cannot do the job. firing some because they are pregnant is diferent, this is hiring

i would be 100% in favour of being able to rule someone out for this type of situation.

this isnt a gender based question. its soley based on on ability to do the job. this woman couldnt do the job. that should be enough reason not to hire her.
the gender of the person hired to the job is irrelivent. im sure that person was chosen based on their ability to do the job,

Treppen

GreeBo wrote: »

No, you'd be in favour of ruling people out who can't fulfill the single most important aspect of the job, namely the ability to turn up.

Your logic leap to make this gender based is flawed. Anyone who can't actually turn up for the period of the contract would be unsuited to the job, be that due to pregnancy or any other condition. Gender is irrelevant.

So what was the ruling in the end?
I seem to recall it was discrimination.
Where in the 9 grounds of discrimination did that fall?

Treppen

the_pen_turner wrote: »

you should be able to rule someone out because they are pregnant, they cannot do the job. firing some because they are pregnant is diferent, this is hiring

i would be 100% in favour of being able to rule someone out for this type of situation.

this isnt a gender based question. its soley based on on ability to do the job. this woman couldnt do the job. that should be enough reason not to hire her.
the gender of the person hired to the job is irrelivent. im sure that person was chosen based on their ability to do the job,

No, hiring and firing are not different, they both fall under employment and equality law.... Thankfully.

Treppen

the_pen_turner wrote: »

you should be able to rule someone out because they are pregnant, they cannot do the job. firing some because they are pregnant is diferent, this is hiring

i would be 100% in favour of being able to rule someone out for this type of situation.

this isnt a gender based question. its soley based on on ability to do the job. this woman couldnt do the job. that should be enough reason not to hire her.
the gender of the person hired to the job is irrelivent. im sure that person was chosen based on their ability to do the job,

Says who?
The courts?

the_pen_turner

Treppen wrote: »

Says who?
The courts?

how is it relivent /

Treppen

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Treppen.

Hypothetical question for you. You work as a shift manager in a multinational coffee franchise.

You're hiring for a 1 year role (permanent employee on one year round the world trip to find themselves, but will come back) you will be responsible for training. During this training, that goes on for two weeks, your tips will be down due to being partially away from full customer service. There is one job going.

You have two candidates. One male, one female. Both gave good interviews and both are objectively scored the same at interview.

The female is just about to leave and says, she really hopes she gets the job, she's really excited by the prospect, almost as excited about the baby she is due to have in 6 months.

To whom do you think you would give the job?

I would give the best candidate the job.

Your example is the classic case of discrimination if you tell the candidate you won't be giving them the job due to pregnancy. But by all means give it to the other candidate based on merit and ability.

Go back to the op's scenario. The candidate WAS told that there was a position available for then, but it was rescinded because they were pregnant.

GreeBo

Treppen wrote: »

So what was the ruling in the end?
I seem to recall it was discrimination.
Where in the 9 grounds of discrimination did that fall?

No one is arguing that this isn't discrimination under the current law, the argument is about whether or not the law is correct in this scenario.

the_pen_turner

Treppen wrote: »

No, hiring and firing are not different, they both fall under employment and equality law.... Thankfully.

thats the problem. they shouldnt be.
firing someone who works for you is not the same as not hiring someone who doesnt work for you.

Treppen

Treppen wrote: »

I would give the best candidate the job.

The scenario is based on both candidates being equal in everything bar one being pregnant. We all know what the answer would be in reality, but the mental gymnastics required to deny reality is borne out of genuine grievance. I just think its misplaced in this one specific area.



I do actually have sympathy for the female candidate, but realities will dictate otherwise. To try and balance this out the law doesn't allow discrimination.



In effect the lady in this case is a rare exception where parties were too stupid to do what nearly always happens in this case - the €20k award highlights/reminds employers/agencies to be more careful... and inherently, even if subconsciously, will affect future female candidates when being interviewed (by male and female recruiters). It could be argued it already existed and this case wont make a difference. Maybe.

Strumms

Treppen wrote: »

You can't rule someone out of a job because they are pregnant.

If you say the law is wrong then you would be in favour of ruling sometime out of a job because they were pregnant .
Because only women get pregnant it's discriminating based on their gender.
You can't discriminate based on gender.
If you discriminate based on gender you are saying a man could be better suited to the job.

You can’t, but you should be able to.

If I apply for a job as an accountant... I am a successful candidate pending a medical but it’s a prerequisite that I undergo a medical to assess my ‘fitness for duty’... during the medical the doctor identifies something he has a concern about, I’m sent to hospital, a scan... I’m diagnosed with a condition whereby I will require months of treatment and I’m unable to work as per doctors orders...

I have failed to prove my fitness for duty having failed the medical. The job offer is withdrawn...

A person applying for a job when pregnant is doing so knowing they have a condition and upcoming responsibilities to themselves and their child... they are saying to the potential employer... “ shortly after hiring me, I’ll leave before my training is complete, I’ll return circa a year later, even though you need somebody now, I believe it’s fair on you and your staff, to hire someone who can’t / won’t work for up to a year... I know you and your staff will incur a great burden, financially and regarding manpower... but I don’t care, this is even though I’m only hired, alll about me and MY family, thank you.”

Treppen

[Deleted User] wrote: »

The scenario is based on both candidates being equal in everything bar one being pregnant. We all know what the answer would be in reality, but the mental gymnastics required to deny reality is borne out of genuine grievance. I just think its misplaced in this one specific area.



I do actually have sympathy for the female candidate, but realities will dictate otherwise. To try and balance this out the law doesn't allow discrimination.



In effect the lady in this case is a rare exception where parties were too stupid to do what nearly always happens in this case - the €20k award highlights/reminds employers/agencies to be more careful... and inherently, even if subconsciously, will affect future female candidates when being interviewed (by male and female recruiters). It could be argued it already existed and this case wont make a difference. Maybe.

Ahhh so you are saying women should be treated equally... except when they are pregnant?

Treppen

Strumms wrote: »

You can’t, but you should be able to.

If I apply for a job as an accountant... I am a successful candidate pending a medical but it’s a prerequisite that I undergo a medical to assess my ‘fitness for duty’... during the medical the doctor identifies something he has a concern about, I’m sent to hospital, a scan... I’m diagnosed with a condition whereby I will require months of treatment and I’m unable to work as per doctors orders...

I have failed to prove my fitness for duty having failed the medical. The job offer is withdrawn...

A person applying for a job when pregnant is doing so knowing they have a condition and upcoming responsibilities to themselves and their child... they are saying to the potential employer... “ shortly after hiring me, I’ll leave before my training is complete, I’ll return circa a year later, even though you need somebody now, I believe it’s fair on you and your staff, to hire someone who can’t / won’t work for up to a year... I know you and your staff will incur a great burden, financially and regarding manpower... but don’t care, this is even though I’m only hired, alll about me and MY family, thank you.”

Women have babies every day.
Employers get a temp in the meantime every single day, so what. Just suck it up and get on with it.

Treppen

Treppen wrote: »

Ahhh so you are saying women should be treated equally... except when they are pregnant?

They should be treated equally always - not superior. And that includes their inability to attend for the full length of a contract whereas someone else can.

If you want them to be treated superior then make that case.

GreeBo

Treppen wrote: »

Ahhh so you are saying women should be treated equally... except when they are pregnant?

But in this scenario they aren't equal, one of them knowingly can't actually fulfill the role they are applying for.
It's not like a brief absence during a permanent role, it's a short term contract.

osarusan

For some clearly-defined short term roles (for example, some event is being held that lasts say a week or fornight and will need temporary positions such as hosts, guides, chefs, etc, for that specific time period), I can see the argument that pregnancy shouldn't be exempt as a reason for the (potential future) employee being unable to fulfill the terms of the position.

But I'd imagine there is a lack of appetite to actually touch the protections on pregnancy and maternity leave, so maybe it's preferable to just leave it to those doing the hiring/recruiting to lie judiciously and carefully as they already do (apart from in the case that lead to this thread).

Treppen

the_pen_turner wrote: »

thats the problem. they shouldnt be.
firing someone who works for you is not the same as not hiring someone who doesnt work for you.

They're different scenarios, but the equality and employment legislation applies the same to both.

Firing someone because they are a French is the same as not hiring someone because they are French.

Treppen

osarusan wrote: »

For some clearly-defined short term roles (for example, some event is being held that lasts say a week or fornight and will need temporary positions such as hosts, guides, chefs, etc, for that specific time period), I can see the argument that pregnancy shouldn't be exempt as a reason for the (potential future) employee being unable to fulfill the terms of the position.

But I'd imagine there is a lack of appetite to actually touch the protections on pregnancy and maternity leave, so maybe it's preferable to just leave it to those doing the hiring/recruiting to lie judiciously and carefully as they already do (apart from in the case that lead to this thread).

Well that is just your imagination then.
Maybe people don't want to touch the protections because they see them as correct and just.