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

wench

Had she started the role before becoming pregnant, would it have been reasonable to expect her to go on birth control to ensure she could fulfill the full term of the contract?

Women can become pregnant for over half their working years. Should they have to stay out of the workforce until after menopause so as not to inconvenience employers?

Smee_Again

whomitconcerns wrote: »

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.

Your employer took the piss just as much as your colleague, I don’t blame her for looking out for her own interests. It’s unfortunate you got stuck in the middle but the bigger issue was the inflexible nature of your employer.

shtpEdthePlum

shtpEdthePlum wrote: »

They will owe them a six month contract when their maternity leave is up in most instances.

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

LOL the innocence of the deluded. Did you even consider the company would have any use/need for them in 6 months. Or do you think the company will be obliged to create work for them? Good one!

jrosen

wench wrote: »

Had she started the role before becoming pregnant, would it have been reasonable to expect her to go on birth control to ensure she could fulfill the full term of the contract?

Women can become pregnant for over half their working years. Should they have to stay out of the workforce until after menopause so as not to inconvenience employers?

over the course of their working lifetime maternity leave accounts for a small amount. But with a 23 month contract had she have secured the position she would have been absent for 6 months of that.

There is a bit of a maternity pay issue though, if someone looses their job they wont qualify for state maternity pay if they do not work a certain period before their maternity leave should start.. I had the issue myself. My position was made redundant when I was approx 12 weeks pregnant. I hadn't told anyone. I couldnt secure any work even on a temp basis so even though I had never been out of work before in my life I didnt get state maternity pay.

weisses

wench wrote: »

Had she started the role before becoming pregnant, would it have been reasonable to expect her to go on birth control to ensure she could fulfill the full term of the contract?

Women can become pregnant for over half their working years. Should they have to stay out of the workforce until after menopause so as not to inconvenience employers?

Stop moving the goalposts ... It looks silly

JimmyCorkhill

If it was only a contract role, albeit a 23 month contract role, surely the employer can at any stage give 4 weeks notice or so & vice versa & presumably there was no maternity pay from the company as it is only a contract role?

I'm only assuming the above because - 1. A recruiter got onto me about a 1 year conract role and said either the company or myself can give 3 weeks notice & end it at any stage during the contract & 2. I previously worked for s company 7+ years ago wgere the boss was a lady(who preferred to hire men) and the company did not offer maternity leave/pay apart from any statutory leave/pay.

jrosen

JimmyCorkhill wrote: »

If it was only a contract role, albeit a 23 month contract role, surely the employer can at any stage give 4 weeks notice or so & vice versa & presumably there was no maternity pay from the company as it is only a contract role?

I'm only assuming the above because - 1. A recruiter got onto me about a 1 year conract role and said either the company or myself can give 3 weeks notice & end it at any stage during the contract & 2. I previously worked for s company 7+ years ago wgere the boss was a lady(who preferred to hire men) and the company did not offer maternity leave/pay apart from any statutory leave/pay.

Ive made two assumptions.
The company didnt want to take on this candidate, not simply because she was pregnant but because she wasnt available to fulfill the 23 months and they would have the hassle of training her in, only to have her go some time later and start the process all over again.

Or - the recruitment agency made the call because they didnt want to sour their relationship with the company who had hired them by sending them a temp who couldn't fulfill the contract they needed.

JimmyCorkhill

JimmyCorkhill wrote: »

If it was only a contract role, albeit a 23 month contract role, surely the employer can at any stage give 4 weeks notice or so & vice versa & presumably there was no maternity pay from the company as it is only a contract role?

I'm only assuming the above because - 1. A recruiter got onto me about a 1 year conract role and said either the company or myself can give 3 weeks notice & end it at any stage during the contract & 2. I previously worked for s company 7+ years ago wgere the boss was a lady(who preferred to hire men) and the company did not offer maternity leave/pay apart from any statutory leave/pay.

You would be on dodgy ground if you gave notice after a person said they were pregnant, and rightly so. At minimum you'd have to prove conclusively the reason for giving the notice was for a reason other than pregnancy.

lawred2

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

That was my first thought

Snotty

This isn't a 20k fine for not sending a pregnant woman forward interview, it's a 20k fine for not lying better.

Zebrag

This story reminds me of a girl I knew. She applied for a job knowing she was pregnant. Got accepted and the role was a temporary position for 6 months. It was an admin job to fill in for a maternity leave. For examples sake she was told to start on the Monday and had an introduction, welcome to the team etc and announced she was 4 months pregnant. Skinny thing she was so she was able to cover the bump without suspicion. Previous to that she was already out of work nearly a year with absolutely no intentions of finding a job and then got pregnant and realised, money pays for things. Went looking for a job, got accepted and started. I remember her telling me that she was annoyed at the attitude she recieved telling the job that she was 4 months pregnant. She had 4 months left of the pregnancy and obviously 3 months left in the job before maternity leave. She didn't want to work a month left into the pregnancy and asked her doctor for sick leave until the birth. Had the baby, took the 6 months maternity including another 3 months on top of that for another sick leave and then returned to the job to do another 4 months and left because she didn't want to work and raise a child. Obviously the employer couldn't exactly sack her on her maternity leave and when she returned, when I say they made her life a misery, I think they purposely went out of their way to give herself the option to leave rather than sack her. This was wrong on the employer in any case but when you step to the side and look at it, the employer had a role to fill and unfortunately the candidate they picked, is the person they didn't need at the time.


It's an odd situation and honestly I feel for the company and the girl that the OP wrote about. Although the girl in the article sounds genuine and honestly sounds like she just wants to better herself obviously being pregnant is a motivator to gather a few bob. It's a situation that leaves employers wondering what to do with the position advertised. You can't say no to someone because they are pregnant but in the same breath, the position is advertised for a reason and it doesn't make sense to give it to someone who's mostly like going to be leaving soon. That's not to factor in the days the poor girl probably can't hold herself up, never mind food.

I honestly feel sorry for both parties here. One wants to just get out and work and give herself and child a chance and the other has to fill a role and trying to accommodate everyone. This isn't to do with gender or any forms of diversity but it's to do with, who was right and wrong and I think as a company they had to hold the hands up and say no for obvious reasons. Whether the worded it correctly or not, either ways the poor girl would of been told no. Fair play for being rewarded the amount she was given and fair play to the company for just being out straight. As wrong as they were, I mean what else could they have done?

If it was me applying for a position and announced I was pregnant, yes I would be upset I wasn't allowed to progress but understandably applying for a position and not to long after starting, leaving for however long necessary. I know I will get slated for this post and mostly likely be told to cop on. It would be a different story if I was in the same employment years and then got pregnant and was told to leave, man I would run a muck but if I applied for a position, not in the door a wet day and then announced I was pregnant....

I'm not defending nor am I not opposing to either parties. Yes everyone has a right to work and yes everyone under any circumstances has a right for an opportunity to work. To me is a tough situation for all involved and I hope the girl who was rewarded has a steady and lovely pregnancy knowing that financially she is okay now and hopefully when the time comes she can apply for a role she will be happy in.

That's my 2 cents and I do apologise if anyone disagrees or thinks I'm being rude.

listermint

[Deleted User] wrote: »

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.

It's not the reason more people are put on contracts though. Whatever about this case specifically, note I think she was entirely wrong applying for such a role anyway.

People are being put on contracts because certain employers want to provide as minimal security in a job as possible. They'll will do as much as they can to benefit themselves as is their right to do. But don't think cases like this are the reason. They're simply not.

osarusan

Amazed that a recruitment company wasn't able to deal with this more easily, can't be the first time it has happened.

That said, while employment protection for maternity leave is obviously a good thing, this highlights a flaw in the broad stroke approach to it.

Donald Trump

shtpEdthePlum wrote: »

They will owe them a six month contract when their maternity leave is up in most instances.

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.

Suppose you were planning your wedding for December, and decided that you wanted to splash out and have a professional stylist and make-up person come the day before the wedding, be there on the day of the wedding itself to help the bridal party get ready and do touch-ups during the day and also hang around the following day for the after-party bit as well. There will also be a few preparatory meetings in the weeks leading up to make sure everything is on the same page

She will bring all her own gear and product. Total cost is 2 grand. You agree in writing and pay a deposit. Then the next day she sends a follow up email to say "Thank you for your business and deposit. Oh, by the way, I forgot to mention that I'm a few months pregnant and the baby is due in September so I'll still be on maternity leave in December. But I'll be able to provide the 3 days when I return to work next March because you'll still owe me the contracted work".

Do you think that is how the contract would work?

Smee_Again

Donald Trump wrote: »

Suppose you were planning your wedding for December, and decided that you wanted to splash out and have a professional stylist and make-up person come the day before the wedding, be there on the day of the wedding itself to help the bridal party get ready and do touch-ups during the day and also hang around the following day for the after-party bit as well. There will also be a few preparatory meetings in the weeks leading up to make sure everything is on the same page

She will bring all her own gear and product. Total cost is 2 grand. You agree in writing and pay a deposit. Then the next day she sends a follow up email to say "Thank you for your business and deposit. Oh, by the way, I forgot to mention that I'm a few months pregnant and the baby is due in September so I'll still be on maternity leave in December. But I'll be able to provide the 3 days when I return to work next March because you'll still owe me the contracted work".

Do you think that is how the contract would work?

If you’re going to invent a scenario then at least make one up where it’s an employer/employee relationship.

What you’ve posted has no relevance to the situation at hand.

listermint

listermint wrote: »

It's not the reason more people are put on contracts though. Whatever about this case specifically, note I think she was entirely wrong applying for such a role anyway.

People are being put on contracts because certain employers want to provide as minimal security in a job as possible. They'll will do as much as they can to benefit themselves as is their right to do. But don't think cases like this are the reason. They're simply not.

You miss my point. It's the general laws that make employing people onerous. Contracts make it easier to deal with people. It's more flexible.


This is an example where an employee is of significantly less use to an employer than another MUA, but is compensated simply because she was pregnant.


Now, we know, if only anecdotally that employers (male and female) will discriminate against women in general if they think there's a possibility of them becoming pregnant. In fact I'd say it has been more of an issue with senior female managers I've worked with personally. The more compo cases like this the worse it will be for women applying for jobs. Would you not agree?

Donald Trump

Smee_Again wrote: »

If you’re going to invent a scenario then at least make one up where it’s an employer/employee relationship.

What you’ve posted has no relevance to the situation at hand.

Do you perhaps misunderstand the relationship in the "situation at hand" as being an employer/employee relationship?


My post was in response to someone who appears to think that if someone is offered a short term 6-month contract to do a job, and they go on maternity leave for 6 months instead, that they would be entitled to a different 6 months (in their example)


The use of different mechanisms by eventual employers to avoid employer/employee obligations is a different topic again. 23 months would appear to me to be a deliberate timeframe to avoid some other obligations. That is a different topic.

fits

It was a 23 month contract. She would have been available for a lot or most of it. In my sector it’s pretty much impossible to get longer contracts. Should women just give up working in case they inconvenience their employer?

This thread is a great illustration of people’s real attitudes towards women.

shtpEdthePlum

The make up artist would be self employed.

The person getting married is their client.

They are entitled to maternity benefit from the state, they would not take on clients during this period as it would be reputationally damaging.

A woman who was pregnant applying for a limited contract which would only run for the duration of the pregnancy would be paid by the state for the duration of the pregnancy leave.

Usually an employer has a panel of suitable applicants who also applied for the job so in the event of unforeseen circumstances, they could select the next best, possibly non-pregnant candidate.

Not disclosing pregnancy is a bit disruptive at worst, not the catastrophic criminal act that posters here are attempting to show it up as.

As for the spurious hypotheticals, most of them have more holes in them than a watering can, are completely irrelevant and demonstrate a complete misunderstanding of employment laws.

Smee_Again

Donald Trump wrote: »

Do you perhaps misunderstand the relationship in the "situation at hand" as being an employer/employee relationship?


My post was in response to someone who appears to think that if someone is offered a short term 6-month contract to do a job, and they go on maternity leave for 6 months instead, that they would be entitled to a different 6 months (in their example)


The use of different mechanisms by eventual employers to avoid employer/employee obligations is a different topic again. 23 months would appear to me to be a deliberate timeframe to avoid some other obligations. That is a different topic.

Still no relevance to what you posted.

A contract of employment versus a contract for services, if you’re going to create scenarios then make them comparable and relevant.

Eric Cartman

fits wrote: »

It was a 23 month contract. She would have been available for a lot or most of it. In my sector it’s pretty much impossible to get longer contracts. Should women just give up working in case they inconvenience their employer?

This thread is a great illustration of people’s real attitudes towards women.

childless women do absolutely fine. There are many women only take 6-8 weeks off for a pregnancy , nobody has issue with that , but there are people who take the absoloute piss and employers are wary.

A recruiter I know says his least favourite job to try and hire for is one with a 'full pay' maternity package, you'll get hundreds of applications from women who are visibly pregnant hoping to just work for 2 months and take off 6+ at full pay.

Donald Trump

shtpEdthePlum wrote: »

The make up artist would be self employed.

The person getting married is their client.

They are entitled to maternity benefit from the state, they would not take on clients during this period as it would be reputationally damaging.

A woman who was pregnant applying for a limited contract which would only run for the duration of the pregnancy would be paid by the state for the duration of the pregnancy leave.

Usually an employer has a panel of suitable applicants who also applied for the job so in the event of unforeseen circumstances, they could select the next best, possibly non-pregnant candidate.

Not disclosing pregnancy is a bit disruptive at worst, not the catastrophic criminal act that posters here are attempting to show it up as.

As for the spurious hypotheticals, most of them have more holes in them than a watering can, are completely irrelevant and demonstrate a complete misunderstanding of employment laws.

Speaking of watering can holes, you might want to re-read the story. It was the recruitment agency who was "sued" and found to be at fault. Not the actual company who needed the work done.



There is no way any rational person could come to any conclusion of an employer/employee relationship in the case as it is reported.

Donald Trump

Smee_Again wrote: »

Still no relevance to what you posted.

A contract of employment versus a contract for services, if you’re going to create scenarios then make them comparable and relevant.

See my post immediately above.


There is no contract of employment in this case. The recruitment agency just didn't put forward her CV. She took them to the "court", not the company who needed work done.



There is no evidence that she had a contact of employment with the recruitment agency and it would be highly unlikely that there would be!


(You are conflating two issues here with mixing up my response to the other poster that thinks an employer would still "owe" someone a six month contract)

Smee_Again

Donald Trump wrote: »

See my post immediately above.


There is no contract of employment in this case. The recruitment agency just didn't put forward her CV. She took them to the "court", not the company who needed work done.



There is no evidence that she had a contact of employment with the recruitment agency and it would be highly unlikely that there would be!

We don’t know the particulars but it’s quite common for the recruitment company to be the employer in contract roles.

I’ve direct experience of this having worked as a recruiter with a number of contract staff employed by me (my agency) and hired out to fulfil contracts at various locations.

We were the employer, paid the wages/taxes etc.

Strumms

Strumms wrote: »

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.

The 'courts' had absolutely nothing to do with this at all. Read the report:

"She has since been awarded €20,000 by the Workplace Relations Commission.

Adjudication officer Gaye Cunningham"

Donald Trump

Smee_Again wrote: »

We don’t know the particulars but it’s quite common for the recruitment company to be the employer in contract roles.

Yes - to protect the actual end company from obligations. There are plenty of companies that provide "consultants" for this reason.


Then it depends on the contract between the agency and the person.

fits

Eric Cartman wrote: »

A recruiter I know says his least favourite job to try and hire for is one with a 'full pay' maternity package, you'll get hundreds of applications from women who are visibly pregnant hoping to just work for 2 months and take off 6+ at full pay.

God forbid !

shtpEdthePlum

Donald Trump wrote: »

Speaking of watering can holes, you might want to re-read the story. It was the recruitment agency who was "sued" and found to be at fault. Not the actual company who needed the work done.

There is no way any rational person could come to any conclusion of an employer/employee relationship in the case as it is reported.

Sorry for being so irrational. It was an agency so. Your analogy is remains entirely irrelevant.

Smee_Again

Donald Trump wrote: »

Yes - to protect the actual end company from obligations. There are plenty of companies that provide "consultants" for this reason.


Then it depends on the contract between the agency and the person.

Yes, but it definitely isn’t a contract for service.

So made up scenarios involving such contracts are irrelevant regardless of the point you are replying to.

Donald Trump

shtpEdthePlum wrote: »

Sorry for being so irrational. It was an agency so. Your analogy is remains entirely irrelevant.

Do you still think that if a company organises for someone to fulfil a 6 month role (e.g. cover someone else's maternity leave) and the new temp person also goes on maternity leave very soon after, that the company is obligated to give the temp a different 6 month contract?