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

Treppen

Deleted User wrote: »

The scenario is based on both candidates being equal in everything bar one being pregnant.

The second half of your sentence contradicts the first.

osarusan

Treppen wrote: »

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

I think the point being made is that not everybody sees them as correct and just in all cases. Here's an example of the 'event' I hypothesized in my earlier post:

The 2023 Special Olympics will be held in Berlin from June 16-25. Imagine that was being held in Ireland, and recruitment for various temporary positions was taking place in Jan/Feb 2023. A woman applies for a position as, say, a venue host for the event. She fulfils all the criteria perfectly, better than any other candidate. However, she tells the recruiters that she is pregnant and her due date is June 10 2023.

I don't think everybody (maybe not even a majority) would consider it correct and just that the recruiters have to hire the person who was the best candidate, and then have to find cover for her as she'll be on maternity leave.

At the moment, they will just lie and say that she didn't get it for some other reason. If they don't do that carefully enough, they could open themselves up to legal action, as happened in the case that sparked this thread.

That's not an ideal situation (certainly not for those telling the lies). What other options are there?

the_pen_turner

Treppen wrote: »

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.

It shouldn't apply the same to both

Being French has no bearing on their ability to do the job. Being pregnant does

runawaybishop

osarusan wrote: »

That's not an ideal situation (certainly not for those telling the lies). What other options are there?

Allow the leave to be transferable to the other partner. It would, possibly, alleviate this.

Strumms

Treppen wrote: »

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.

Me too. The ‘BEST’ candidate is someone with the experience, expertises, skillsets, good health and in a condition suiting their availability to come into work and do the job that you hire them to do..

The person was not fired because of pregnancy, that would be unsatisfactory
.. however they failed to enable themselves to be hired because they were pregnant and therefore unable to meet their commitments to their employer, colleagues and customers,,,, rescinding an offer is not the same as being fired.

I’m hiring an accountant, I’m doing so because they are needed NOW. if the pregnant person is not in a condition to start work or ‘stay’ in work ... go away on training courses, on the job training and are up and running and a contributing member of the team from almost the get go and going forward... I’m not going to hire them...

Treppen

Treppen wrote: »

The second half of your sentence contradicts the first.

You do realise what the word 'bar' means. I guess not or you are winding us up. I now suspect the latter.