Community Chat

[itiswhatitis]

---

@Isobel Archer wrote:

---

@itiswhatitis wrote:

---

@NYC Susan wrote:

---

@itiswhatitis wrote:

---

@NYC Susan wrote:

---

@Isobel Archer wrote:

She doesn't have to tell them she is pregnanat - even if she knows - when she is interviewed.  And they are not allowed to either ask her - or use that as a reason not to hire her (unless she is applying for a  a job where she would be exposing her baby to harm.)

 She would be eligible for FMLA just as any other person would who needed it once she is hired.  She would be eligible for additional sick leave benefits based on longevity on the same basis as other employees

So legally her pregnancy cannot be used against her.

However, as noted, employers and coworkers are not automotons and have been known to react emotionally when they think they have been manipulated.  As a former HR exec, I am well aware of the fact that the biggest reason people are fired is that the boss does not like them (often for legitimate reasons) and/or that coworkers dislike the person so much it makes the boss's life unbearable.  Now of course that is never the reason given - and it is very easy to find another reason - and very difficult - and tme consuming - to prove that the actual reason is illegal.

If she is hired and then very quickly needs all sorts of accommodation for a condition that no matter what she says, people believe she knew about - and this occurs before she has had a chance to prove herself as a valuable member of the team - then yes there could be a bad outcome. 

Unfortunately not everyone is excited and pleased about having to work extra hours to compensate for a new arrival who now needs extended leave - particularly if they have already been doing that for some  time due to the vacancy and now expect relief. Of course, this could be the case with someone who suddenly had an accident or got sick, but again, even then if the person just arrived, the reaction might not actually be any better - human nature being what it is.

Yes employees have "rights," but when they impinge on and extract a cost from others, a sense that the situation is unduly "unfair" to those others can have an impact as well.

---

Great post.  I agree 100%.  

---

@NYC Susan it's wrong though.....

However, as noted, employers and coworkers are not automotons and have been known to react emotionally when they think they have been manipulated.  As a former HR exec, I am well aware of the fact that the biggest reason people are fired is that the boss does not like them (often for legitimate reasons) and/or that coworkers dislike the person so much it makes the boss's life unbearable. 

The above ^^^^^ is illegal.

Now of course that is never the reason given - and it is very easy to find another reason - and very difficult - and tme consuming - to prove that the actual reason is illegal.  It's not hard to determine if a woman is pregnant and then took a leave of absence.  It is, however much more difficult to prove, race and age discrimination though.

If she is hired and then very quickly needs all sorts of accommodation for a condition that no matter what she says, people believe she knew about - and this occurs before she has had a chance to prove herself as a valuable member of the team - then yes there could be a bad outcome. 

---

In an at-will state, it's legal to fire anyone for any reason.  It also depends on whether or not the employee has a contract.  It's not as simple as "The above is illegal."

@Isobel Archer clearly has a lot of experience, and she articulated some important points very nicely, IMO.

---

Sure, that's what she says @NYC Susan.  However, the law is the law.  Go read it for yourself at EEOC.  I have "experience as well."  If you doubt what I say go read and learn......

---

Then I'm sure you also know these cases can take months to years to litigate - during which time you would be unemployed.  Good luck with that.

---

Yes, sometimes they can and sometimes they don't.  You should read the latest results (stats) at EEOC for 2016 @Isobel Archer.  Most grievances were "retaliation", which too is against the law.  You can't get mad at someone who brings a complaint against you to EEOC and then retaliate.  That's the crux of it where sex (pregnancy discrimination) occurs.

I believe all women should support one another for matters such as this in the work place.  Women are the back bones of our society and under no circumstances should they be treated differently because they carry the child.  It hurts me to hear other women lower other women to nothing but a pair of hands in the work place as though they have no right to procreate (but should be more concerned with their jobs).  It's hard enough for women wearing all these hats to begin with.

I'm team #women.....

[NYC Susan]

---

@itiswhatitis wrote:

---

@NYC Susan wrote:

---

@itiswhatitis wrote:

---

@NYC Susan wrote:

---

@Isobel Archer wrote:

She doesn't have to tell them she is pregnanat - even if she knows - when she is interviewed.  And they are not allowed to either ask her - or use that as a reason not to hire her (unless she is applying for a  a job where she would be exposing her baby to harm.)

 She would be eligible for FMLA just as any other person would who needed it once she is hired.  She would be eligible for additional sick leave benefits based on longevity on the same basis as other employees

So legally her pregnancy cannot be used against her.

However, as noted, employers and coworkers are not automotons and have been known to react emotionally when they think they have been manipulated.  As a former HR exec, I am well aware of the fact that the biggest reason people are fired is that the boss does not like them (often for legitimate reasons) and/or that coworkers dislike the person so much it makes the boss's life unbearable.  Now of course that is never the reason given - and it is very easy to find another reason - and very difficult - and tme consuming - to prove that the actual reason is illegal.

If she is hired and then very quickly needs all sorts of accommodation for a condition that no matter what she says, people believe she knew about - and this occurs before she has had a chance to prove herself as a valuable member of the team - then yes there could be a bad outcome. 

Unfortunately not everyone is excited and pleased about having to work extra hours to compensate for a new arrival who now needs extended leave - particularly if they have already been doing that for some  time due to the vacancy and now expect relief. Of course, this could be the case with someone who suddenly had an accident or got sick, but again, even then if the person just arrived, the reaction might not actually be any better - human nature being what it is.

Yes employees have "rights," but when they impinge on and extract a cost from others, a sense that the situation is unduly "unfair" to those others can have an impact as well.

---

Great post.  I agree 100%.  

---

@NYC Susan it's wrong though.....

However, as noted, employers and coworkers are not automotons and have been known to react emotionally when they think they have been manipulated.  As a former HR exec, I am well aware of the fact that the biggest reason people are fired is that the boss does not like them (often for legitimate reasons) and/or that coworkers dislike the person so much it makes the boss's life unbearable. 

The above ^^^^^ is illegal.

Now of course that is never the reason given - and it is very easy to find another reason - and very difficult - and tme consuming - to prove that the actual reason is illegal.  It's not hard to determine if a woman is pregnant and then took a leave of absence.  It is, however much more difficult to prove, race and age discrimination though.

If she is hired and then very quickly needs all sorts of accommodation for a condition that no matter what she says, people believe she knew about - and this occurs before she has had a chance to prove herself as a valuable member of the team - then yes there could be a bad outcome. 

---

In an at-will state, it's legal to fire anyone for any reason.  It also depends on whether or not the employee has a contract.  It's not as simple as "The above is illegal."

@Isobel Archer clearly has a lot of experience, and she articulated some important points very nicely, IMO.

---

Sure, that's what she says @NYC Susan.  However, the law is the law.  Go read it for yourself at EEOC.  I have "experience as well."  If you doubt what I say go read and learn......

---

I'm well-versed in the law.  And @Isobel Archer brought up some very good points.  Her post went beyond the legal aspect.

 I've read this entire thread, and I disagree with some of what you've written, but I don't intend to get into a back-and-forth about it.  My post was intended simply to let Isobel Archer know that I thought her post was a good one.

[Isobel Archer]

---

@itiswhatitis wrote:

---

@Isobel Archer wrote:

---

@itiswhatitis wrote:

---

@NYC Susan wrote:

---

@itiswhatitis wrote:

---

@NYC Susan wrote:

---

@Isobel Archer wrote:

She doesn't have to tell them she is pregnanat - even if she knows - when she is interviewed.  And they are not allowed to either ask her - or use that as a reason not to hire her (unless she is applying for a  a job where she would be exposing her baby to harm.)

 She would be eligible for FMLA just as any other person would who needed it once she is hired.  She would be eligible for additional sick leave benefits based on longevity on the same basis as other employees

So legally her pregnancy cannot be used against her.

However, as noted, employers and coworkers are not automotons and have been known to react emotionally when they think they have been manipulated.  As a former HR exec, I am well aware of the fact that the biggest reason people are fired is that the boss does not like them (often for legitimate reasons) and/or that coworkers dislike the person so much it makes the boss's life unbearable.  Now of course that is never the reason given - and it is very easy to find another reason - and very difficult - and tme consuming - to prove that the actual reason is illegal.

If she is hired and then very quickly needs all sorts of accommodation for a condition that no matter what she says, people believe she knew about - and this occurs before she has had a chance to prove herself as a valuable member of the team - then yes there could be a bad outcome. 

Unfortunately not everyone is excited and pleased about having to work extra hours to compensate for a new arrival who now needs extended leave - particularly if they have already been doing that for some  time due to the vacancy and now expect relief. Of course, this could be the case with someone who suddenly had an accident or got sick, but again, even then if the person just arrived, the reaction might not actually be any better - human nature being what it is.

Yes employees have "rights," but when they impinge on and extract a cost from others, a sense that the situation is unduly "unfair" to those others can have an impact as well.

---

Great post.  I agree 100%.  

---

@NYC Susan it's wrong though.....

However, as noted, employers and coworkers are not automotons and have been known to react emotionally when they think they have been manipulated.  As a former HR exec, I am well aware of the fact that the biggest reason people are fired is that the boss does not like them (often for legitimate reasons) and/or that coworkers dislike the person so much it makes the boss's life unbearable. 

The above ^^^^^ is illegal.

Now of course that is never the reason given - and it is very easy to find another reason - and very difficult - and tme consuming - to prove that the actual reason is illegal.  It's not hard to determine if a woman is pregnant and then took a leave of absence.  It is, however much more difficult to prove, race and age discrimination though.

If she is hired and then very quickly needs all sorts of accommodation for a condition that no matter what she says, people believe she knew about - and this occurs before she has had a chance to prove herself as a valuable member of the team - then yes there could be a bad outcome. 

---

In an at-will state, it's legal to fire anyone for any reason.  It also depends on whether or not the employee has a contract.  It's not as simple as "The above is illegal."

@Isobel Archer clearly has a lot of experience, and she articulated some important points very nicely, IMO.

---

Sure, that's what she says @NYC Susan.  However, the law is the law.  Go read it for yourself at EEOC.  I have "experience as well."  If you doubt what I say go read and learn......

---

Then I'm sure you also know these cases can take months to years to litigate - during which time you would be unemployed.  Good luck with that.

---

Yes, sometimes they can and sometimes they don't.  You should read the latest results (stats) at EEOC for 2016 @Isobel Archer.  Most grievances were "retaliation", which too is against the law.  You can't get mad at someone who brings a complaint against you to EEOC and then retaliate.  That's the crux of it where sex (pregnancy discrimination) occurs.

I believe all women should support one another for matters such as this in the work place.  Women are the back bones of our society and under no circumstances should they be treated differently because they carry the child.  It hurts me to hear other women lower other women to nothing but a pair of hands in the work place as though they have no right to procreate (but should be more concerned with their jobs).  It's hard enough for women wearing all these hats to begin with.

I'm team #women.....

---

My previous post tells you how I would handle the situation.

While I agree that women should support each other - as well as supporting male coworkers, you might also consider that the person who will bear the brunt of taking on the additional work while she is on maternity leave may be a single mother - or father - who, in addition to their own job now has to take time away from their kids to do this.

Things are not always simple and it's not only pregnant women who have needs in the workplace.

[itiswhatitis]

---

@NYC Susan wrote:

---

@itiswhatitis wrote:

---

@NYC Susan wrote:

---

@itiswhatitis wrote:

---

@NYC Susan wrote:

---

@Isobel Archer wrote:

She doesn't have to tell them she is pregnanat - even if she knows - when she is interviewed.  And they are not allowed to either ask her - or use that as a reason not to hire her (unless she is applying for a  a job where she would be exposing her baby to harm.)

 She would be eligible for FMLA just as any other person would who needed it once she is hired.  She would be eligible for additional sick leave benefits based on longevity on the same basis as other employees

So legally her pregnancy cannot be used against her.

However, as noted, employers and coworkers are not automotons and have been known to react emotionally when they think they have been manipulated.  As a former HR exec, I am well aware of the fact that the biggest reason people are fired is that the boss does not like them (often for legitimate reasons) and/or that coworkers dislike the person so much it makes the boss's life unbearable.  Now of course that is never the reason given - and it is very easy to find another reason - and very difficult - and tme consuming - to prove that the actual reason is illegal.

If she is hired and then very quickly needs all sorts of accommodation for a condition that no matter what she says, people believe she knew about - and this occurs before she has had a chance to prove herself as a valuable member of the team - then yes there could be a bad outcome. 

Unfortunately not everyone is excited and pleased about having to work extra hours to compensate for a new arrival who now needs extended leave - particularly if they have already been doing that for some  time due to the vacancy and now expect relief. Of course, this could be the case with someone who suddenly had an accident or got sick, but again, even then if the person just arrived, the reaction might not actually be any better - human nature being what it is.

Yes employees have "rights," but when they impinge on and extract a cost from others, a sense that the situation is unduly "unfair" to those others can have an impact as well.

---

Great post.  I agree 100%.  

---

@NYC Susan it's wrong though.....

However, as noted, employers and coworkers are not automotons and have been known to react emotionally when they think they have been manipulated.  As a former HR exec, I am well aware of the fact that the biggest reason people are fired is that the boss does not like them (often for legitimate reasons) and/or that coworkers dislike the person so much it makes the boss's life unbearable. 

The above ^^^^^ is illegal.

Now of course that is never the reason given - and it is very easy to find another reason - and very difficult - and tme consuming - to prove that the actual reason is illegal.  It's not hard to determine if a woman is pregnant and then took a leave of absence.  It is, however much more difficult to prove, race and age discrimination though.

If she is hired and then very quickly needs all sorts of accommodation for a condition that no matter what she says, people believe she knew about - and this occurs before she has had a chance to prove herself as a valuable member of the team - then yes there could be a bad outcome. 

---

In an at-will state, it's legal to fire anyone for any reason.  It also depends on whether or not the employee has a contract.  It's not as simple as "The above is illegal."

@Isobel Archer clearly has a lot of experience, and she articulated some important points very nicely, IMO.

---

Sure, that's what she says @NYC Susan.  However, the law is the law.  Go read it for yourself at EEOC.  I have "experience as well."  If you doubt what I say go read and learn......

---

I'm well-versed in the law.  And @Isobel Archer brought up some very good points.  Her post went beyond the legal aspect.

 I've read this entire thread, and I disagree with some of what you've written, but I don't intend to get into a back-and-forth about it.  My post was intended simply to let Isobel Archer know that I thought her post was a good one.

---

@NYC Susan, what I've offered is not opinion (we all have those).  What I stated about the legalities are FACT.  I don't care about your opinion.  I care that you know the facts.  That's what "I do.....

Done.

[Lipstickdiva]

---

@Mominohio wrote:

---

@itiswhatitis wrote:

---

@Sooner wrote:

Another consideration:  Aside from the law and what is legal, how would your new employer and fellow workers feel about it?  It might make for not-so-great a work atmosphere afterward if people were resentful of your taking the job and then them having to take up the slack.

---

This is irrelevant to her rights.  People would be mad at other co-workers for myriad reasons.  Having a baby is no different.

---

It might be irrelevant to her rights but very relevant to the kind of working conditions she might be placing herself in.

There are so many ways that both employers and employees can make your work life either enjoyable or miserable.

---

Exactly.  I used to work with a woman who left for another job.  She loved it at first then got herself into a bad situation by gossiping and her life at work was made so miserable, she ended up quitting.

[itiswhatitis]

---

@Isobel Archer wrote:

---

@itiswhatitis wrote:

---

@Isobel Archer wrote:

---

@itiswhatitis wrote:

---

@NYC Susan wrote:

---

@itiswhatitis wrote:

---

@NYC Susan wrote:

---

@Isobel Archer wrote:

She doesn't have to tell them she is pregnanat - even if she knows - when she is interviewed.  And they are not allowed to either ask her - or use that as a reason not to hire her (unless she is applying for a  a job where she would be exposing her baby to harm.)

 She would be eligible for FMLA just as any other person would who needed it once she is hired.  She would be eligible for additional sick leave benefits based on longevity on the same basis as other employees

So legally her pregnancy cannot be used against her.

However, as noted, employers and coworkers are not automotons and have been known to react emotionally when they think they have been manipulated.  As a former HR exec, I am well aware of the fact that the biggest reason people are fired is that the boss does not like them (often for legitimate reasons) and/or that coworkers dislike the person so much it makes the boss's life unbearable.  Now of course that is never the reason given - and it is very easy to find another reason - and very difficult - and tme consuming - to prove that the actual reason is illegal.

If she is hired and then very quickly needs all sorts of accommodation for a condition that no matter what she says, people believe she knew about - and this occurs before she has had a chance to prove herself as a valuable member of the team - then yes there could be a bad outcome. 

Unfortunately not everyone is excited and pleased about having to work extra hours to compensate for a new arrival who now needs extended leave - particularly if they have already been doing that for some  time due to the vacancy and now expect relief. Of course, this could be the case with someone who suddenly had an accident or got sick, but again, even then if the person just arrived, the reaction might not actually be any better - human nature being what it is.

Yes employees have "rights," but when they impinge on and extract a cost from others, a sense that the situation is unduly "unfair" to those others can have an impact as well.

---

Great post.  I agree 100%.  

---

@NYC Susan it's wrong though.....

However, as noted, employers and coworkers are not automotons and have been known to react emotionally when they think they have been manipulated.  As a former HR exec, I am well aware of the fact that the biggest reason people are fired is that the boss does not like them (often for legitimate reasons) and/or that coworkers dislike the person so much it makes the boss's life unbearable. 

The above ^^^^^ is illegal.

Now of course that is never the reason given - and it is very easy to find another reason - and very difficult - and tme consuming - to prove that the actual reason is illegal.  It's not hard to determine if a woman is pregnant and then took a leave of absence.  It is, however much more difficult to prove, race and age discrimination though.

If she is hired and then very quickly needs all sorts of accommodation for a condition that no matter what she says, people believe she knew about - and this occurs before she has had a chance to prove herself as a valuable member of the team - then yes there could be a bad outcome. 

---

In an at-will state, it's legal to fire anyone for any reason.  It also depends on whether or not the employee has a contract.  It's not as simple as "The above is illegal."

@Isobel Archer clearly has a lot of experience, and she articulated some important points very nicely, IMO.

---

Sure, that's what she says @NYC Susan.  However, the law is the law.  Go read it for yourself at EEOC.  I have "experience as well."  If you doubt what I say go read and learn......

---

Then I'm sure you also know these cases can take months to years to litigate - during which time you would be unemployed.  Good luck with that.

---

Yes, sometimes they can and sometimes they don't.  You should read the latest results (stats) at EEOC for 2016 @Isobel Archer.  Most grievances were "retaliation", which too is against the law.  You can't get mad at someone who brings a complaint against you to EEOC and then retaliate.  That's the crux of it where sex (pregnancy discrimination) occurs.

I believe all women should support one another for matters such as this in the work place.  Women are the back bones of our society and under no circumstances should they be treated differently because they carry the child.  It hurts me to hear other women lower other women to nothing but a pair of hands in the work place as though they have no right to procreate (but should be more concerned with their jobs).  It's hard enough for women wearing all these hats to begin with.

I'm team #women.....

---

My previous post tells you how I would handle the situation.

While I agree that women should support each other - as well as supporting male coworkers, you might also consider that the person who will bear the brunt of taking on the additional work while she is on maternity leave may be a single mother - or father - who, in addition to their own job now has to take time away from their kids to do this.

Things are not always simple and it's not only pregnant women who have needs in the workplace.

---

@Isobel Archer I see nowhere where you would have handled the situation.  I did read your take on it in the work place.  You said nothing about ensuring that women get fairly treated.  You talked about how you could see potential harm and disdain from remaining co-workers.  

I read where you said bosses typically fire people they don't like.  That's a no brainer to me, as many other reasons for dismissal could be illegal.  Yes it's hard to prove some cases.  Doesn't mean a woman should not take that route for herself or for other women.

Your whole post upthread seemed to side with the employer (rightfully so....since HR staff have the best interest of the EMPLOYER in mind and not the employee.

I'm done.  It is against the law to discriminate against women who are of child bearing age.

It is against the law for an employer to retaliate against an employer for lodging a complaint.

It is against the law to discriminate on the basis of age; religion; race, national origin, sexual orientation, marital status and PREGNANCY.

Done...

[Lipstickdiva]

Facts schmacts.  If you think employers don't fire people for being too old, being a woman, and other various illegal reasons, and get away with it, you are very naive.

And if you think it's easy to prove in court that you were fired for an illegal reason, you have no idea what is going on. 

Those are some of the hardest lawsuits to win because it is so hard to prove.    

[Sooner]

---

@itiswhatitis wrote:

---

@Isobel Archer wrote:

---

@itiswhatitis wrote:

---

@NYC Susan wrote:

---

@itiswhatitis wrote:

---

@NYC Susan wrote:

---

@Isobel Archer wrote:

She doesn't have to tell them she is pregnanat - even if she knows - when she is interviewed.  And they are not allowed to either ask her - or use that as a reason not to hire her (unless she is applying for a  a job where she would be exposing her baby to harm.)

 She would be eligible for FMLA just as any other person would who needed it once she is hired.  She would be eligible for additional sick leave benefits based on longevity on the same basis as other employees

So legally her pregnancy cannot be used against her.

However, as noted, employers and coworkers are not automotons and have been known to react emotionally when they think they have been manipulated.  As a former HR exec, I am well aware of the fact that the biggest reason people are fired is that the boss does not like them (often for legitimate reasons) and/or that coworkers dislike the person so much it makes the boss's life unbearable.  Now of course that is never the reason given - and it is very easy to find another reason - and very difficult - and tme consuming - to prove that the actual reason is illegal.

If she is hired and then very quickly needs all sorts of accommodation for a condition that no matter what she says, people believe she knew about - and this occurs before she has had a chance to prove herself as a valuable member of the team - then yes there could be a bad outcome. 

Unfortunately not everyone is excited and pleased about having to work extra hours to compensate for a new arrival who now needs extended leave - particularly if they have already been doing that for some  time due to the vacancy and now expect relief. Of course, this could be the case with someone who suddenly had an accident or got sick, but again, even then if the person just arrived, the reaction might not actually be any better - human nature being what it is.

Yes employees have "rights," but when they impinge on and extract a cost from others, a sense that the situation is unduly "unfair" to those others can have an impact as well.

---

Great post.  I agree 100%.  

---

@NYC Susan it's wrong though.....

However, as noted, employers and coworkers are not automotons and have been known to react emotionally when they think they have been manipulated.  As a former HR exec, I am well aware of the fact that the biggest reason people are fired is that the boss does not like them (often for legitimate reasons) and/or that coworkers dislike the person so much it makes the boss's life unbearable. 

The above ^^^^^ is illegal.

Now of course that is never the reason given - and it is very easy to find another reason - and very difficult - and tme consuming - to prove that the actual reason is illegal.  It's not hard to determine if a woman is pregnant and then took a leave of absence.  It is, however much more difficult to prove, race and age discrimination though.

If she is hired and then very quickly needs all sorts of accommodation for a condition that no matter what she says, people believe she knew about - and this occurs before she has had a chance to prove herself as a valuable member of the team - then yes there could be a bad outcome. 

---

In an at-will state, it's legal to fire anyone for any reason.  It also depends on whether or not the employee has a contract.  It's not as simple as "The above is illegal."

@Isobel Archer clearly has a lot of experience, and she articulated some important points very nicely, IMO.

---

Sure, that's what she says @NYC Susan.  However, the law is the law.  Go read it for yourself at EEOC.  I have "experience as well."  If you doubt what I say go read and learn......

---

Then I'm sure you also know these cases can take months to years to litigate - during which time you would be unemployed.  Good luck with that.

---

Yes, sometimes they can and sometimes they don't.  You should read the latest results (stats) at EEOC for 2016 @Isobel Archer.  Most grievances were "retaliation", which too is against the law.  You can't get mad at someone who brings a complaint against you to EEOC and then retaliate.  That's the crux of it where sex (pregnancy discrimination) occurs.

I believe all women should support one another for matters such as this in the work place.  Women are the back bones of our society and under no circumstances should they be treated differently because they carry the child.  It hurts me to hear other women lower other women to nothing but a pair of hands in the work place as though they have no right to procreate (but should be more concerned with their jobs).  It's hard enough for women wearing all these hats to begin with.

I'm team #women.....

---

OK.  You are really going to hate to hear what I have to say.  Women are NOT the backbone of society.  PEOPLE are.  Each of us makes decisions about how to run our lives and what kind of people we want to be to support and enhance the lives of other people around us.  It is not right to treat anyone unfairly.  There are as many wonderful men as women.  Being a woman doesn't make me special just because.  I have to earn that like everyone else.

Men raise kids, women raise kids, and grandparents do.  It is one's right to have children, but it is also one's responsibility to take care of them, provide for them, and understand what having that child does to their lifestyle and financial situation.  It isn't the job of everyone in your office to take up for that. To expect others to work harder, longer, or do your job isn't fair.  They very may have kids to raise as well.  

We need to have compassion for our neighbors on this planet, not just take advantage and then tell others who suffer the consequences to lump it AND expect you will be treated fairly at work.  

[NYC Susan]

---

@itiswhatitis wrote:

---

@NYC Susan wrote:

---

@itiswhatitis wrote:

---

@NYC Susan wrote:

---

@itiswhatitis wrote:

---

@NYC Susan wrote:

---

@Isobel Archer wrote:

She doesn't have to tell them she is pregnanat - even if she knows - when she is interviewed.  And they are not allowed to either ask her - or use that as a reason not to hire her (unless she is applying for a  a job where she would be exposing her baby to harm.)

 She would be eligible for FMLA just as any other person would who needed it once she is hired.  She would be eligible for additional sick leave benefits based on longevity on the same basis as other employees

So legally her pregnancy cannot be used against her.

However, as noted, employers and coworkers are not automotons and have been known to react emotionally when they think they have been manipulated.  As a former HR exec, I am well aware of the fact that the biggest reason people are fired is that the boss does not like them (often for legitimate reasons) and/or that coworkers dislike the person so much it makes the boss's life unbearable.  Now of course that is never the reason given - and it is very easy to find another reason - and very difficult - and tme consuming - to prove that the actual reason is illegal.

If she is hired and then very quickly needs all sorts of accommodation for a condition that no matter what she says, people believe she knew about - and this occurs before she has had a chance to prove herself as a valuable member of the team - then yes there could be a bad outcome. 

Unfortunately not everyone is excited and pleased about having to work extra hours to compensate for a new arrival who now needs extended leave - particularly if they have already been doing that for some  time due to the vacancy and now expect relief. Of course, this could be the case with someone who suddenly had an accident or got sick, but again, even then if the person just arrived, the reaction might not actually be any better - human nature being what it is.

Yes employees have "rights," but when they impinge on and extract a cost from others, a sense that the situation is unduly "unfair" to those others can have an impact as well.

---

Great post.  I agree 100%.  

---

@NYC Susan it's wrong though.....

However, as noted, employers and coworkers are not automotons and have been known to react emotionally when they think they have been manipulated.  As a former HR exec, I am well aware of the fact that the biggest reason people are fired is that the boss does not like them (often for legitimate reasons) and/or that coworkers dislike the person so much it makes the boss's life unbearable. 

The above ^^^^^ is illegal.

Now of course that is never the reason given - and it is very easy to find another reason - and very difficult - and tme consuming - to prove that the actual reason is illegal.  It's not hard to determine if a woman is pregnant and then took a leave of absence.  It is, however much more difficult to prove, race and age discrimination though.

If she is hired and then very quickly needs all sorts of accommodation for a condition that no matter what she says, people believe she knew about - and this occurs before she has had a chance to prove herself as a valuable member of the team - then yes there could be a bad outcome. 

---

In an at-will state, it's legal to fire anyone for any reason.  It also depends on whether or not the employee has a contract.  It's not as simple as "The above is illegal."

@Isobel Archer clearly has a lot of experience, and she articulated some important points very nicely, IMO.

---

Sure, that's what she says @NYC Susan.  However, the law is the law.  Go read it for yourself at EEOC.  I have "experience as well."  If you doubt what I say go read and learn......

---

I'm well-versed in the law.  And @Isobel Archer brought up some very good points.  Her post went beyond the legal aspect.

 I've read this entire thread, and I disagree with some of what you've written, but I don't intend to get into a back-and-forth about it.  My post was intended simply to let Isobel Archer know that I thought her post was a good one.

---

@NYC Susan, what I've offered is not opinion (we all have those).  What I stated about the legalities are FACT.  I don't care about your opinion.  I care that you know the facts.  That's what "I do.....

Done.

---

You most certainly have stated your opinion.  And that's your right.  But your posts  have not been all about "facts".  And I disagree with much of what you said.

It's fine with me if you don't care about the opinions of others, but I do.  That's part of being on a forum.  I would never tell anyone that I don't care about their opinion.  That's unnecessarily rude and dismissive.

I do know the facts.  And I'm done as well.  As I said, I have no interest in getting into a debate about this. 

[Isobel Archer]

---

@itiswhatitis wrote:

---

@Isobel Archer wrote:

---

@itiswhatitis wrote:

---

@Isobel Archer wrote:

---

@itiswhatitis wrote:

---

@NYC Susan wrote:

---

@itiswhatitis wrote:

---

@NYC Susan wrote:

---

@Isobel Archer wrote:

She doesn't have to tell them she is pregnanat - even if she knows - when she is interviewed.  And they are not allowed to either ask her - or use that as a reason not to hire her (unless she is applying for a  a job where she would be exposing her baby to harm.)

 She would be eligible for FMLA just as any other person would who needed it once she is hired.  She would be eligible for additional sick leave benefits based on longevity on the same basis as other employees

So legally her pregnancy cannot be used against her.

However, as noted, employers and coworkers are not automotons and have been known to react emotionally when they think they have been manipulated.  As a former HR exec, I am well aware of the fact that the biggest reason people are fired is that the boss does not like them (often for legitimate reasons) and/or that coworkers dislike the person so much it makes the boss's life unbearable.  Now of course that is never the reason given - and it is very easy to find another reason - and very difficult - and tme consuming - to prove that the actual reason is illegal.

If she is hired and then very quickly needs all sorts of accommodation for a condition that no matter what she says, people believe she knew about - and this occurs before she has had a chance to prove herself as a valuable member of the team - then yes there could be a bad outcome. 

Unfortunately not everyone is excited and pleased about having to work extra hours to compensate for a new arrival who now needs extended leave - particularly if they have already been doing that for some  time due to the vacancy and now expect relief. Of course, this could be the case with someone who suddenly had an accident or got sick, but again, even then if the person just arrived, the reaction might not actually be any better - human nature being what it is.

Yes employees have "rights," but when they impinge on and extract a cost from others, a sense that the situation is unduly "unfair" to those others can have an impact as well.

---

Great post.  I agree 100%.  

---

@NYC Susan it's wrong though.....

However, as noted, employers and coworkers are not automotons and have been known to react emotionally when they think they have been manipulated.  As a former HR exec, I am well aware of the fact that the biggest reason people are fired is that the boss does not like them (often for legitimate reasons) and/or that coworkers dislike the person so much it makes the boss's life unbearable. 

The above ^^^^^ is illegal.

Now of course that is never the reason given - and it is very easy to find another reason - and very difficult - and tme consuming - to prove that the actual reason is illegal.  It's not hard to determine if a woman is pregnant and then took a leave of absence.  It is, however much more difficult to prove, race and age discrimination though.

If she is hired and then very quickly needs all sorts of accommodation for a condition that no matter what she says, people believe she knew about - and this occurs before she has had a chance to prove herself as a valuable member of the team - then yes there could be a bad outcome. 

---

In an at-will state, it's legal to fire anyone for any reason.  It also depends on whether or not the employee has a contract.  It's not as simple as "The above is illegal."

@Isobel Archer clearly has a lot of experience, and she articulated some important points very nicely, IMO.

---

Sure, that's what she says @NYC Susan.  However, the law is the law.  Go read it for yourself at EEOC.  I have "experience as well."  If you doubt what I say go read and learn......

---

Then I'm sure you also know these cases can take months to years to litigate - during which time you would be unemployed.  Good luck with that.

---

Yes, sometimes they can and sometimes they don't.  You should read the latest results (stats) at EEOC for 2016 @Isobel Archer.  Most grievances were "retaliation", which too is against the law.  You can't get mad at someone who brings a complaint against you to EEOC and then retaliate.  That's the crux of it where sex (pregnancy discrimination) occurs.

I believe all women should support one another for matters such as this in the work place.  Women are the back bones of our society and under no circumstances should they be treated differently because they carry the child.  It hurts me to hear other women lower other women to nothing but a pair of hands in the work place as though they have no right to procreate (but should be more concerned with their jobs).  It's hard enough for women wearing all these hats to begin with.

I'm team #women.....

---

My previous post tells you how I would handle the situation.

While I agree that women should support each other - as well as supporting male coworkers, you might also consider that the person who will bear the brunt of taking on the additional work while she is on maternity leave may be a single mother - or father - who, in addition to their own job now has to take time away from their kids to do this.

Things are not always simple and it's not only pregnant women who have needs in the workplace.

---

@Isobel Archer I see nowhere where you would have handled the situation.  I did read your take on it in the work place.  You said nothing about ensuring that women get fairly treated.  You talked about how you could see potential harm and disdain from remaining co-workers.  

I read where you said bosses typically fire people they don't like.  That's a no brainer to me, as many other reasons for dismissal could be illegal.  Yes it's hard to prove some cases.  Doesn't mean a woman should not take that route for herself or for other women.

Your whole post upthread seemed to side with the employer (rightfully so....since HR staff have the best interest of the EMPLOYER in mind and not the employee.

I'm done.  It is against the law to discriminate against women who are of child bearing age.

It is against the law for an employer to retaliate against an employer for lodging a complaint.

It is against the law to discriminate on the basis of age; religion; race, national origin, sexual orientation, marital status and PREGNANCY.

Done...

---

Post 39