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

GreeBo

GreeBo wrote: »

Define "recently"?

This person is being selective in their responses. They also suggested the person would have to work the maternity leave element onto the end of what the company wanted for the contract length.



Being generous I'd suggest they haven't a clue, or, if I were of a suspicious mindset, they are one of Mr Feg's disguises.

Tell me how

Deleted User wrote: »

Anyone that thinks an employer should/would take on a pregnant candidate for contract work with the business disruption/extra costs it would entail would change their minds if they were an employer.

To say otherwise is virtue signalling and such a mindset if genuine would make them unlikely to be suited to being a successful entrepreneur/employer and lead to more people being made unemployed that were unfortunate enough to work for them.

Nearly everything in this post is wrong, but the bit in bold is once again useful in that it shows that someone who accuses others of being virtue signaller is essentially just shining a light on themselves and saying that they are self-focused, selfish and don't have empathy for others.

That aside, this is patently happening in companies all around the country and so your suggestion that people would change their minds if they were employers is nonsense.

statto25

karlitob wrote: »

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.

Say a person with a medical issue, an arm issue perhaps and is due to have major surgery in a number of months applies for a manual handing role. They then disclose a week later that in fact they would be going for this procedure and would be out of work for 6+ months, would the same apply to them?

partyguinness

shtpEdthePlum wrote: »

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.

I am afraid that is rather simplistic. Many candidates still use and register with Agencies.The Agency does not take a portion of the employee's wages- certainly never in my experience anyway.

1. The Agency will agree and pay the employee the agreed rate from the outset say, €10.00 p/h. That is what the employee gets.

2. In turn the Agency will invoice the employer the agreed rate say, €20.00 p/h. So the Agency profits by €10.00 p/h

To be clear the employee was never going to get €20.00 p/h.

Sometimes we have to take on locums and their rates are very high. I know people that made a conscious decision to quit full time work and float around as a locum purely because the money is better with more freedom.

I am no fan of Agencies and they are an absolute last resort but they are still in play.

karlitob

statto25 wrote: »

Say a person with a medical issue, an arm issue perhaps and is due to have major surgery in a number of months applies for a manual handing role. They then disclose a week later that in fact they would be going for this procedure and would be out of work for 6+ months, would the same apply to them?

Sure - let’s the change the whole point of this thread and rebuttals to your need to discriminate. And let’s say an arm issue is in some way related to a pregnancy.

To these new goal posts I would say the same thing - the company should adhere to employment law. I - and clearly you - don’t have knowledge or expertise in employment law. I am sure - based on the legislation and a risk assessment - there are lots of reasons where a pregnant woman, or any number of hypothetical situations you continually come up with when you’ve lost the point, may not be considered for a post.
But in the case of which this thread is about - there wasn’t. They broke the law and discriminated against a pregnant woman out of hand because she was pregnant.
I’m not sure what difficulty you are having with this point. The wrc have already adjudicated in this.
If there was a reason, the company didn’t explain the legal basis that they could refuse her out of hand because she is pregnant.

GreeBo

karlitob wrote: »

Sure - let’s the change the whole point of this thread and rebuttals to your need to discriminate. And let’s say an arm issue is in some way related to a pregnancy.

To these new goal posts I would say the same thing - the company should adhere to employment law. I - and clearly you - don’t have knowledge or expertise in employment law. I am sure - based on the legislation and a risk assessment - there are lots of reasons where a pregnant woman, or any number of hypothetical situations you continually come up with when you’ve lost the point, may not be considered for a post.
But in the case of which this thread is about - there wasn’t. They broke the law and discriminated against a pregnant woman out of hand because she was pregnant.
I’m not sure what difficulty you are having with this point. The wrc have already adjudicated in this.
If there was a reason, the company didn’t explain the legal basis that they could refuse her out of hand because she is pregnant.

I don't think anyone is saying that this isnt legally correct, more that, in this case, the law is an ass.

karlitob

partyguinness wrote: »

I am afraid that is rather simplistic. Many candidates still use and register with Agencies.The Agency does not take a portion of the employee's wages- certainly never in my experience anyway.

1. The Agency will agree and pay the employee the agreed rate from the outset say, €10.00 p/h. That is what the employee gets.

2. In turn the Agency will invoice the employer the agreed rate say, €20.00 p/h. So the Agency profits by €10.00 p/h

To be clear the employee was never going to get €20.00 p/h.

Sometimes we have to take on locums and their rates are very high. I know people that made a conscious decision to quit full time work and float around as a locum purely because the money is better with more freedom.

I am no fan of Agencies and they are an absolute last resort but they are still in play.

Agreed. Far too simplistic.

The Health Service spend lots of money on agency - 5% of salary plus vat.
No one ever highlights that people want to work agency so they don’t have to be committed to a contract. Thereby making the health service the most flexible employee in the state by far - mainly, if not exclusively, for women.
And secondly, the health service doesn’t pay or get hit with maternity, sick leave etc etc that people on this thread seem to have an issue with.

Simplistic comments to complex areas are not that helpful.

karlitob

GreeBo wrote: »

I don't think anyone is saying that this isnt legally correct, more that, in this case, the law is an ass.

Lots of people are intimating exactly that.

And in my view - in this case - the law is not an ass. The recruitment company is.

GreeBo

karlitob wrote: »

And in my view - in this case - the law is not an ass. The recruitment company is.

Because they should have lied to get around the law? To me that would make the law an ass or at least an accessory to being an ass.

Tell me how

Strumms wrote: »

I’d be in agreement with some of that... but.. if you interview a candidate, 88% score in the interview / aptitude test , they are 5 months pregnant... that candidate between training, assimilation, maternity leave will be 12-14 months minimum from being a competent , functioning, up to speed employee... there are implications in teamwork, cost / profit, hiring and training temps etc...

Go with the non pregnant candidate, scores 86%... can start in two weeks... you owe your business, staff, colleagues...the support of enough, qualified and available competent staff... hiring somebody to start a year later when you need them now is crazy... no business, their existing staff and customers should be put under that compliment...

And that is exactly why pregnancy is one of the ways in which you cannot discriminate against someone in relation to hiring, because previously, it was identified and recognized that women were losing out on their access to work and to meaningful careers because some people just dismissed them out of hand.

Society needs pregnant women, they need not to lose out because they are providing this service.

statto25

karlitob wrote: »

Sure - let’s the change the whole point of this thread and rebuttals to your need to discriminate. And let’s say an arm issue is in some way related to a pregnancy.

To these new goal posts I would say the same thing - the company should adhere to employment law. I - and clearly you - don’t have knowledge or expertise in employment law. I am sure - based on the legislation and a risk assessment - there are lots of reasons where a pregnant woman, or any number of hypothetical situations you continually come up with when you’ve lost the point, may not be considered for a post.
But in the case of which this thread is about - there wasn’t. They broke the law and discriminated against a pregnant woman out of hand because she was pregnant.
I’m not sure what difficulty you are having with this point. The wrc have already adjudicated in this.
If there was a reason, the company didn’t explain the legal basis that they could refuse her out of hand because she is pregnant.

The point of this thread is to discuss the awarding of compensation to someone who couldn't fulfill a role she applied for the term advertised. Not that she was pregnant and couldn't fulfill the role but that she was not in a position to and was told as such. The same for the person with the hand issue, they cannot fulfill the role as required so they wouldn't be a suitable candidate based on the information they disclosed after the application process.

My issue isn't pregnancy, hand issues or any other ailment/affiliation or situation. If you cannot fulfill the role as required and in the time stated, you are not suitable, law or no effin law. The law needs to be amended to protect all, candidate, employer and employee alike.

It kinda feels like the agency was trying to do the "decent" thing for both Rauch and their client. The agency could easily have just dropped Rauch from consideration for any roles, but - it seems - they were going to try work with her for shorter term roles. Plus, if the client asked the agency did they know Rauch was pregnant yet still put her forward for a 23 month contract that she wouldn't be able to fulfill - well that doesn't look great for the agency.

The above, obviously, ignores the law and is just based on reality.

partyguinness

The Agency broke/forgot the Golden Rule:-

"Cover your ass"

It is the number 1, 2 and 3 rule in the rule book.

Oranage2

Unless this pregnant woman's plan was to spend the rest of her 'career' on children allowance with a payout then she made a grave career mistake. Basically unemploying now.

partyguinness

Oranage2 wrote: »

Unless this pregnant woman's plan was to spend the rest of her 'career' on children allowance with a payout then she made a grave career mistake. Basically unemploying now.

That sum of money will go a long way in Poland. Several years.

OscarMIlde

Antares35 wrote: »

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.

It's both. The time limit for maternity leave recommendations by the EU was set based on the minimum amount of time a child should be breastfed for. Parental leave is regarded as a separate entity, and should not encroach on the maternity leave benefit for the reason that only a woman can breastfeed the child.

ByTheSea2019

I think there should be some minimum length of service before there is an entitlement to maternity or other types of parental leave, maybe a year or two.

What would be to stop someone working a month, taking the full maternity benefit and leaving.

Antares35

OscarMIlde wrote: »

It's both. The time limit for maternity leave recommendations by the EU was set based on the minimum amount of time a child should be breastfed for. Parental leave is regarded as a separate entity, and should not encroach on the maternity leave benefit for the reason that only a woman can breastfeed the child.

So should women who can't (or simply don't want to) breastfeed only get parental and not mat leave?
Why do adoptive parents get the same entitlement? They can't breastfeed. Is a woman not entitled to time off simply to recover, in particular if she's had a caesarean, which is considered a major surgery.

Breastfeeding dogma still alive and kicking it seems.

Strumms

Tell me how wrote: »

And that is exactly why pregnancy is one of the ways in which you cannot discriminate against someone in relation to hiring, because previously, it was identified and recognized that women were losing out on their access to work and to meaningful careers because some people just dismissed them out of hand.

Society needs pregnant women, they need not to lose out because they are providing this service.

It isn’t discrimination... if you are of a condition on applying for a job whereby on being hired you are shorty after going to be entitled to and avail of ‘up to’ 42 weeks away from the business..... saddling the business and new colleagues with a multitude of inconveniences and stresses... financial burden ( hiring, training and waging temps ).

If I’m a hiring manager, I put an advertisement online today for an accountant ... I’m doing so because I and the company / my department NEED them NOW..So, I’m interviewing and endeavoring to have them hired, trained and in situ in 8 weeks tops from placing the add..

I invest in... hiring them from the interview process, insurance, training courses, P.C. / desk / chair / other office furniture about 6 grand... but I’m being told that they won’t be of the ability to go on any or all of the courses, I’m hiring somebody who I, the company and customers wont have as a fully trained asset for maybe up to a year.... or more.

that adds a significant burden on....

existing staff, current and future customers, finances of the business in general...

A company who is hiring should be of the ability to hire a human being who is in condition and of the ability to work, both then and going forward ... somebody becoming pregnant during their employment should be availed of the complete ranges of legal and personal protections... that the country allows...

Somebody applying for a job while pregnant ? Why would a person apply to enter into a commitment with an employer, staff and their customers which they won’t be available to complete ? Why should they be allowed ?

Antares35

ByTheSea2019 wrote: »

I think there should be some minimum length of service before there is an entitlement to maternity or other types of parental leave, maybe a year or two.

What would be to stop someone working a month, taking the full maternity benefit and leaving.

This IS the case in most companies. This urban legend about women swanning into jobs then taking full paid leave after a month really needs to stop. And statutory pay, like any other social welfare payment, is based on contributions.

Smee_Again

ByTheSea2019 wrote: »

I think there should be some minimum length of service before there is an entitlement to maternity or other types of parental leave, maybe a year or two.

What would be to stop someone working a month, taking the full maternity benefit and leaving.

That’s already up to businesses to decide themselves.

There’s a shocking amount of ignorance or employment rights and responsibilities being displayed in this thread.

jrosen

We are actually looking for a temp at the moment in work to cover maternity leave. If a pregnant person arrived for the interview and wasnt able to cover the 26 weeks there is no way she would be employed. Not because she is pregnant but because she cant cover the time the business needs.

There is discrimination and there is common sense. I think the latter was missing in this particular case.

GreeBo

Antares35 wrote: »

So should women who can't (or simply don't want to) breastfeed only get parental and not mat leave?
Why do adoptive parents get the same entitlement? They can't breastfeed. Is a woman not entitled to time off simply to recover, in particular if she's had a caesarean, which is considered a major surgery.

Breastfeeding dogma still alive and kicking it seems.

Ah hee, I think thats a pretty unfair comment.
The poster said that the time allotted was based on the recommended time a child should be breastfed, presumably because its hard to breastfeed while working.

There is *nothing* to suggest that only breastfeeding, paternal mothers should be entitled to leave and nothing regarding encouraging breastfeeding.

I notice you dont mention equal paternity leave?
The idea that mothers are more important than fathers is still alive and kicking it seems. <-- See how easy and unfair that is to do?

GreeBo

Antares35 wrote: »

This IS the case in most companies. This urban legend about women swanning into jobs then taking full paid leave after a month really needs to stop. And statutory pay, like any other social welfare payment, is based on contributions.

There are however numerous examples of women taking "back to back" maternity leave breaks. That's reality, I'm not saying there is anything wrong with it mind you.

jrosen

GreeBo wrote: »

There are however numerous examples of women taking "back to back" maternity leave breaks. That's reality, I'm not saying there is anything wrong with it mind you.

Funny one of my close friends recently had her 3rd child. She worked for the same company throughout, taking all leave and unpaid leave plus annual leave. She missed approx one year per child and was full paid by the company. She says herself, she will have been paid for 4 years work while taking 3 years off. Great for her, not so great for the company.

Antares35

GreeBo wrote: »

Ah hee, I think thats a pretty unfair comment.
The poster said that the time allotted was based on the recommended time a child should be breastfed, presumably because its hard to breastfeed while working.

There is *nothing* to suggest that only breastfeeding, paternal mothers should be entitled to leave and nothing regarding encouraging breastfeeding.

I notice you dont mention equal paternity leave?
The idea that mothers are more important than fathers is still alive and kicking it seems. <-- See how easy and unfair that is to do?

What about equal paternity? I can mention it if you want, but it wasn't relevant to my point. How do you deduce my position on equal paternity leave? You have no idea what my position is. But for your information, I support a system where leave can be shared among both parents. There is however a mandatory statutory leave period which women have to take, reflective of the simple fact that pregnancy and birth are undertaken by women and they therefore need time to recover - that is a separate necessity to caring for ones child which imo can be done by either parent.

Antares35

GreeBo wrote: »

There are however numerous examples of women taking "back to back" maternity leave breaks. That's reality, I'm not saying there is anything wrong with it mind you.

True. I think any employer taking on a woman of a certain age will simply be aware of and most likely expect something like this. Since women of childbearing age are recruited every day, it's clear that most employers don't see it as a huge concern. Then you have to think, is it better to get it all out of the way in one go, or go back to work, get settled back in etc then go out on leave again. Also, every situation is different with some women taking more or less leave than others.

I found myself in a position where I had an unplanned pregnancy before returning to work from mat leave. I spent the first half of my pregnancy lying awake at night worrying about how my employer would take it. I felt like it was taking the proverbial. Even though everyone said the same thing to me - there isn't anything they can do, you're protected by legislation etc. Which of course I know, but I think my worry was not from thinking about what they could or could not "do to me" for getting pregnant again, but just being judged on a human level, and the fear they would think I did it intentionally.

In any event I've had discussions with them and they're fine, and I'm taking minimal leave this time (mandatory statutory leave plus two weeks parental) then I'll be back. Some people have said I'm mad, that I should "take my entitlement" etc but I actually don't want to. Everything moves so fast, and I found it hard to get back up to speed etc. this time around. Plus, I really like my boss and company and job and I feel like taking less leave is the right thing for me, notwithstanding that I could take more.

OscarMIlde

Antares35 wrote: »

So should women who can't (or simply don't want to) breastfeed only get parental and not mat leave?
Why do adoptive parents get the same entitlement? They can't breastfeed. Is a woman not entitled to time off simply to recover, in particular if she's had a caesarean, which is considered a major surgery.

Breastfeeding dogma still alive and kicking it seems.

No, all women who have a child are entitled to mat leave. The duration of maternity leave has been recommended to encompass at a minimum the amount of time it is recommended to breastfeed a child. This is to ensure both the welfare of the mother AND the child.

Tell me how

Tell me how wrote: »

Nearly everything in this post is wrong, but the bit in bold is once again useful in that it shows that someone who accuses others of being virtue signaller is essentially just shining a light on themselves and saying that they are self-focused, selfish and don't have empathy for others.

That aside, this is patently happening in companies all around the country and so your suggestion that people would change their minds if they were employers is nonsense.

What are you on about? Try and make sense, man!

Treppen

Treppen wrote: »

Humans get pregnant, society needs it, get over it.

What if I had a parent who was terminally ill, should I reveal that in a job interview, that I might need time in the future to look after them.

"such a mindset if genuine would make them unlikely to be suited to being a successful entrepreneur/employer ".

Are you an expert on what makes someone a successful entrepreneur or employer?

And are you really saying that taking on women would hinder this perceived success?

Expert, not sure I'd call myself that. But, I have worked for some of the largest companies in the world and have over 20 years senior management experience.


No, taking on women has proved to be very beneficial to companies, especially at boardroom level.


What we are talking about here is a contract job. If someone is going to be missing for 6 months of a contract then that's not going to be seen as a good thing either by male or female recruiters.



Same applies if during a 23 month contract a man/woman said, oh, yes I've a 6 month round the word trip starting in 4 months time, I trust that's okay.



And no, I wouldn't reveal that in an interview either. Neither should a woman. As I said above I wouldn't blame a pregnant woman applying for a job/even a contract job. But, NEITHER would I blame an employer for using that as a reason not to hire them. That's real life. And no, of course they wont admit it.