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

celt262

Treppen wrote: »

€20,000 is nothing to a company though compared to cost of re-hiring / re-tracing etc.

That would depend on the size of the company and there turnover etc. I'm sure they could have done without the inconvenience of all this which could have been easily sorted with a you have been unsuccessful this time letter or email.

Even if they had of sent her for interview the pregnancy would have been noted and would have been the same result.

Smee_Again

celt262 wrote: »

That would depend on the size of the company and there turnover etc. I'm sure they could have done without the inconvenience of all this which could have been easily sorted with a you have been unsuccessful this time letter or email.

Even if they had of sent her for interview the pregnancy would have been noted and would have been the same result.

Le Creme employ over 500 people and are owned by Morgan McKinley, €20K is nothing to them.

celt262

Smee_Again wrote: »

Le Creme employ over 500 people and are owned by Morgan McKinley, €20K is nothing to them.

The post i was replying to said "a" company it may be nothing to them but it would be to a small company.

shtpEdthePlum

The recruitment agency will be fine. Hopefully one thing to come of it will be that people are reticent to seek employment through an agency. They are unnecessary middle men in this day and age. There's no reason for them to be taking a portion of people's wages while the Internet exists as a means of finding exactly the talent needed.

karlitob

screamer wrote: »

No I know that, but it’s now a scenario that worked for future opportunists.

So unscrupulous pregnant women are calling around to recruiters hoping that they’ll break the law by dismissing their appointment to a post/job out of hand because they’re pregnant.

Devilish fiends these pregnant women to think up such a dastardly plan.

Interestingly, all companies have to do is to identify legal reasons to not offer a job to people and not ever say, use or reference their pregnancy.

jrosen

screamer wrote: »

No I know that, but it’s now a scenario that worked for future opportunists.

Possibly, but I hardly think we are going to have a surge of pregnant women trying to screw business over.

jrosen

One thing that this thread highlights is the value of fully paid maternity leave. The options it affords families. I personally have never had paid leave, its not something that exists in my industry. So once my leave was over I had to return to work. We couldnt have afforded at the time for me to take any unpaid leave. My wages were down over 50% by simply being on maternity leave. I had a friend at the time who worked for the same company my husband does. She was fully paid, so she was able to put money aside her whole maternity leave and it allowed her the opportunity to take all the unpaid leave too. She got the guts of one year home with her baby. I got 24 weeks.

statto25

karlitob wrote: »

So unscrupulous pregnant women are calling around to recruiters hoping that they’ll break the law by dismissing their appointment to a post/job out of hand because they’re pregnant.

Devilish fiends these pregnant women to think up such a dastardly plan.

Interestingly, all companies have to do is to identify legal reasons to not offer a job to people and not ever say, use or reference their pregnancy.

Is your entitlement to be outraged blocking your ability to use logic? No one on this thread is saying that pregnant women shouldn't be hired. The topic is a pregnant woman applied for a fix term contract while pregnant and in turn wouldn't be able to fulfill the entire term of that contract consecutively. In turn this would require the company in question having to hire twice should she be given the position. Have we seen the recruiters response word for word or should we just take it they said "you are pregnant so you're not getting the role"

osarusan

screamer wrote: »

No I know that, but it’s now a scenario that worked for future opportunists.

This only 'worked' because the recruitment company f**ked up badly, which they won't do again,and which other recruitment companies have avoided doing all along.

karlitob

statto25 wrote: »

Is your entitlement to be outraged blocking your ability to use logic? No one on this thread is saying that pregnant women shouldn't be hired. The topic is a pregnant woman applied for a fix term contract while pregnant and in turn wouldn't be able to fulfill the entire term of that contract consecutively. In turn this would require the company in question having to hire twice should she be given the position. Have we seen the recruiters response word for word or should we just take it they said "you are pregnant so you're not getting the role"

You or I don’t need to see this recruiters response. The WRC did and they ruled that they broke the law.

So it doesn’t matter what the post was or wasn’t for. They illegally discriminated against this women out of hand on the basis that she was pregnant.



Lots of people on this thread are intimating exactly that point. And also others who have gone off wildly off topic. Read back carefully. So I’ll happily continue to call out stupid comments like ‘floodgates opening’ etc and will continue to respond to posters like you who try to undermine my point by using phrases such as ‘outrage’. Clearly intimating that I’m some form of leftist snowflake who doesn’t understand the challenges of real life business.

So let me type this slowly so your anger doesn’t cloud your logic........Companies are not allowed to break the law.

Mrs OBumble

pwurple wrote: »

I’d love if men also were forced to step up and take their paternity leave. Even better if it was equal to women in duration and pay.

That would solve so much.

It wouldn't get babies breast fed, though, which is the real public health benefit of maternity leave.

screamer

karlitob wrote: »

So unscrupulous pregnant women are calling around to recruiters hoping that they’ll break the law by dismissing their appointment to a post/job out of hand because they’re pregnant.

Devilish fiends these pregnant women to think up such a dastardly plan.

Interestingly, all companies have to do is to identify legal reasons to not offer a job to people and not ever say, use or reference their pregnancy.

You know what, there are some who would do it alright. Like any cohort of humans you’ll always have the opportunists. And yes, I can see many pregnant woman who don’t get offered a role/interview running to lodge a claim on the basis of this case, they may not win, but sure nothing ventured nothing gained. Call out my post if you like, I couldn’t care less, that is my belief, you believe what you like.

statto25

karlitob wrote: »

You or I don’t need to see this recruiters response. The WRC did and they ruled that they broke the law.

So it doesn’t matter what the post was or wasn’t for. They illegally discriminated against this women out of hand on the basis that she was pregnant.



Lots of people on this thread are intimating exactly that point. And also others who have gone off wildly off topic. Read back carefully. So I’ll happily continue to call out stupid comments like ‘floodgates opening’ etc and will continue to respond to posters like you who try to undermine my point by using phrases such as ‘outrage’. Clearly intimating that I’m some form of leftist snowflake who doesn’t understand the challenges of real life business.

So let me type this slowly so your anger doesn’t cloud your logic........Companies are not allowed to break the law.

I'm not angry at all and my use of the word outrage is based on your responses and frequent activity in the thread. Ive not intimated either on your political stance.

The law may have been upheld but her not receiving the post is just on this occasion as she could not fulfill the terms of the contract. If the position was long term/permanent then not considering her for the role is unjust especially if she is the outstanding candidate but in terms of a fixed term/short term, a company is looking for a person for a project/specific task and acknowledging you are going to be a long term absentee during this period should rule you out, man or woman.

BTW the way I cant see you typing slowly, just so you're not wasting your time on my benefit

karlitob

screamer wrote: »

You know what, there are some who would do it alright. Like any cohort of humans you’ll always have the opportunists. And yes, I can see many pregnant woman who don’t get offered a role/interview running to lodge a claim on the basis of this case, they may not win, but sure nothing ventured nothing gained. Call out my post if you like, I couldn’t care less, that is my belief, you believe what you like.

No one cares in what your belief system is - be that divine or legal. No one cares what mine is.

It only matters what the wrc say.

So while their may undoubtedly be opportunists - which isn’t illegal (and don’t confuse that with fraud); refusing a job out of hand because you are pregnant IS illegal. So if the company follows the law, the there is no opportunity for opportunists.

I’m not sure what your difficulty with this point is.


I presume you have some misplaced anger at people - in this instance pregnant women - stacking the deck in their favour. Like the teachers who time their pregnancy so that their leave ends before the summer holidays and then they’ll get more summer holidays.

Antares35

karlitob wrote: »

You have misunderstood. Though it was a very straightforward post.

The post I was replying to was by a sexist woman who states men’s opinion on maternity leave is of lesser value as they ‘physically’ didn’t birth a child. I put forward two real-life but upsetting situations where a women ‘physically’ hasn’t birthed a child.

It was heavily sarcastic. Perhaps you’ve misunderstood the difference between sarcasm and hyperbole in a scramble to be offended. That often happens.

Oh, I was actually with you on this, nodding my head as I read your post, until your reference to "a scramble to be offended" which sort of just detracted from your post tbh. I want offended at all just replying to your post. Why the need for such smarminess? I was genuinely apologetic if I had misunderstood, but your response is just...well, whatever. I'll leave it there.

Antares35

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

It wouldn't get babies breast fed, though, which is the real public health benefit of maternity leave.

There was me thinking my mat leave was to physically recover from a pregnancy, birth, stitches etc. and to bond with and care for my baby.

karlitob

Antares35 wrote: »

Oh, I was actually with you on this, nodding my head as I read your post, until your reference to "a scramble to be offended" which sort of just detracted from your post tbh. I want offended at all just replying to your post. Why the need for such smarminess? I was genuinely apologetic if I had misunderstood, but your response is just...well, whatever. I'll leave it there.

I would say smart-arseness rather than smarminess.

I enjoy not only making a point but I also like to serve the point in an unpalatable way. Especially if I think the other person is trying to do that same. I’m not one for win-win but rather win-lose (as you have noted that you agreed with me in response to the other poster)

It’s a personality trait that I must live with; and you were at the end of it this time.

I do apologise though - I had read your post differently to what you had intended. I’m sorry.

Antares35

karlitob wrote: »

I would say smart-arseness rather than smarminess.

I enjoy not only making a point but I also like to serve the point in an unpalatable way. Especially if I think the other person is trying to do that same. I’m not one for win-win but rather win-lose (as you have noted that you agreed with me in response to the other poster)

It’s a personality trait that I must live with; and you were at the end of it this time.

I do apologise though - I had read your post differently to what you had intended. I’m sorry.

Tbh reading some of your posts I'm not sure we are on completely different pages!

Treppen

statto25 wrote: »

The difference in this case is there was no "might" about it. The lady was pregnant and for a 23 month contact would miss a large period of that time.

No difference, a person with a stick relative could easily be called on to care earlier than expected.

Treppen

statto25 wrote: »

Is your entitlement to be outraged blocking your ability to use logic? No one on this thread is saying that pregnant women shouldn't be hired. The topic is a pregnant woman applied for a fix term contract while pregnant and in turn wouldn't be able to fulfill the entire term of that contract consecutively. In turn this would require the company in question having to hire twice should she be given the position. Have we seen the recruiters response word for word or should we just take it they said "you are pregnant so you're not getting the role"

I think your logic here is faulty.

statto25

Treppen wrote: »

No difference, a person with a stick relative could easily be called on to care earlier than expected.

I understand what you're saying and that is the risk if that situation is disclosed. From a pregnancy point of view you are guaranteed to be absent whereas the sick relative may improve healthwise or not require hands on care.

statto25

Treppen wrote: »

I think your logic here is faulty.

I actually found it hard to word this. Yeah it is a flawed logic. Its situational in my view which is discriminatory but I am looking at it by dissecting the circumstances rather than just looking at upholding the law no matter what.

statto25

karlitob wrote: »

The law WAS upheld. Everything you said after that is moot.

You or I don’t get to decide.

Seems like I didn’t type slowly enough for you.

Dont patronise me please. The law is flawed and doesnt look at the circumstances of both the employer and the perspective employee.

Treppen

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.

You do know she was discriminated against?

For anyone still having trouble , pregnancy falls under gender in the 9 grounds for discrimination.

https://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/employment/equality_in_work/equality_in_the_workplace.html

If people on here are saying that a woman should have less of a chance of being hired, then that's favouring a male candidate. You can't do that... as much as you'd like to.

karlitob

statto25 wrote: »

I actually found it hard to word this. Yeah it is a flawed logic. Its situational in my view which is discriminatory but I am looking at it by dissecting the circumstances rather than just looking at upholding the law no matter what.

All cases before a judge/panel are situational. It’s the whole basis of our justice system. The case is assessed on its merits and the law is applied. The adjudicator has already dissected the circumstances and already ruled on it. Your not needed - not least because you don’t have the circumstances to hand to ‘dissect’.

You don’t like the ruling. But that’s ok.

statto25

karlitob wrote: »

All cases before a judge/panel are situational. It’s the whole basis of our justice system. The case is assessed on its merits and the law is applied. The adjudicator has already dissected the circumstances and already ruled on it. Your not needed - not least because you don’t have the circumstances to hand to ‘dissect’.

You don’t like the ruling. But that’s ok.

Aww thanks for the reassurance, I feel much better now :rolleyes:


BTW smart-ass is too tame a description for your behavior in this thread

karlitob

statto25 wrote: »

Dont patronise me please. The law is flawed and doesnt look at the circumstances of both the employer and the perspective employee.

Nah, I like patronising those who think pregnant women should be discriminated against. I hope you appreciate the irony that I’m discriminating against you based on your views.

No one said that law is flawless.

You are not the arbiter of whether this case - or any like it - does or doesn’t look at both cases. You don’t have the qualifications or authority to do so.

I would presume - acknowledging that I know nothing about the area - that the wrc as a statutory body - could not be constituted by the oireachtas and signed into law by the president if it was unconstitutional. In other words, that the wrc could be established where their due process and fair procedures - the thing they mainly assess - would allow a defendant in a case to be unable to put forward a defence.


The other possibility is that you don’t know the circumstances of this case, that the wrc does and that the company broke the law.

Whether you like the judgment or not doesn’t matter to anyone.

karlitob

statto25 wrote: »

Aww thanks for the reassurance, I feel much better now :rolleyes:


BTW smart-ass is too tame a description for your behavior in this thread

You’re welcome. If there are any other areas where you need me to tell you that your differing opinion to that of a statutory body charged with promoting and encouraging compliance with relevant employment law is not required - especially in the case of discrimination - then I’ll be happy to oblige.

Treppen

statto25 wrote: »

I actually found it hard to word this. Yeah it is a flawed logic. Its situational in my view which is discriminatory but I am looking at it by dissecting the circumstances rather than just looking at upholding the law no matter what.

No, I'm saying that the logic of your assertion that

" No one on this thread is saying that pregnant women shouldn't be hired. "

....is false , because that is exactly what many people are saying and promoting on the thread.

There so blinded, they didn't even have the sense to pre amble their posts with... " I'm not sexist, but..."

GreeBo

shtpEdthePlum wrote: »

BTW women were made quit their jobs when they had a family up until recently.

Define "recently"?