Pregnancy Discrimination Laws

Brawny

Anglophobiphile
Dec 15, 2006
6,509
129
Ann Arbor, MI, USA
Wii Online Code
5385-4035-7079-0395
Recent laws in the United States have made it illegal to fire, not hire, or pay less money to women because they are pregnant. Sounds like a good thing until you realize that workplaces that must hire these people have to then turn around and give them maternity leave, doctor's appointment times off, and, let's face it, a person is more likely to work less hard when they're carrying a child to full term.

What're your views?
 
As always, our system is the greatest. Stay working well into pregnancy, you get your money and then a break at the end. You can take a couple more months off, but you won't be paid.
 
Hmm, sounds like affirmative action for pregnant women. You can't deny them the job because they're pregnant, even if someone else is better qualified.
I think the employee should meet certain requirements before allowed to go on a paid maternity leave. Something like working for the company for a year (or longer) before they can get a paid leave. That would prevent people from getting paid without providing something to the company first.
 
Recent laws in the United States have made it illegal to fire, not hire, or pay less money to women because they are pregnant. Sounds like a good thing until you realize that workplaces that must hire these people have to then turn around and give them maternity leave, doctor's appointment times off, and, let's face it, a person is more likely to work less hard when they're carrying a child to full term.

What're your views?


Can an employer choose to employ a different applicant based on ability or do they have to give the pregnant woman the job regardless of other candidates?



In the UK at the moment a woman must have worked for 26 weeks with that company before they qualify for maternity rights.
 
  • Thread Starter
  • Thread starter
  • #5
Can an employer choose to employ a different applicant based on ability or do they have to give the pregnant woman the job regardless of other candidates?



In the UK at the moment a woman must have worked for 26 weeks with that company before they qualify for maternity rights.

I'm pretty sure if there's no way to tell the difference between the two candidates and the woman isn't hired, she'd sue and win in the US.
 
Coming soon to over there

Pregnant women in the army

Think of it while there giving birth they hate every thing.
 
I'm pretty sure if there's no way to tell the difference between the two candidates and the woman isn't hired, she'd sue and win in the US.

No two job candidates are ever equal.

You just can't use pregnancy as the reason not to hire them. There can be plenty of other legal reasons not to hire them though.
 
  • Thread Starter
  • Thread starter
  • #9
No two job candidates are ever equal.

You just can't use pregnancy as the reason not to hire them. There can be plenty of other legal reasons not to hire them though.

Which is stupid. If she's more qualified than someone else, but she's going to leave you in a month, you still have to hire her?
 
Which is stupid. If she's more qualified than someone else, but she's going to leave you in a month, you still have to hire her?

As a woman, I can see the benefit. I am sure I don't need to go into this.

However, from a business point of view - I'd be pissed. The hiring, training stage is the most expensive part of the whole procedure, and not only do you have to hire her - you then have to find someone to replace her while she is on leave.

I can see women taking advantage of this. That, if they didn't get the job they'd sue and say the pregnancy was the problem, despite the fact it may not have been.
 
Which is stupid. If she's more qualified than someone else, but she's going to leave you in a month, you still have to hire her?


Well, this situation is getting into a highly unlikely scenario. How many 8 month pregnant women are out looking for jobs? That's got to be a pretty small number. And out of those how many of them just happen to be the most qualified of all the candidates? Now the numbers are dropping even further.

If if she did fit that scenario but was passed over because of pregnancy, how would she even know that? Typically if you interview for a job and you don't get it, you get a letter of phone call later telling you that you didn't get the job, no reason is typically offered.

Proving hiring descrimination (for any reason) is almost impossible. The main focus of this law is to prevent people from being fired solely for getting pregnant or to be paid less because they may become pregnant.
 
I'm pretty sure you have to give women boob-pumping breaks if they request them as well.

Not as easily answered as standard affirmative action, in my opinion. I don't like it, though. Employers should hire who they want to work for them. It's their company.
 
  • Thread Starter
  • Thread starter
  • #13
I'm pretty sure you have to give women boob-pumping breaks if they request them as well.

Not as easily answered as standard affirmative action, in my opinion. I don't like it, though. Employers should hire who they want to work for them. It's their company.

Amen. If a person only wants to hire white people, or only hot girls, that's their choice. They just have to deal with the consequences of many people not doing any business with them.
 
If it's a guy interviewing people he could clearly just say that he thought she was just fat/didn't notice, so he can easily get away with it. But people can employ whoever they want.
 
If it's a guy interviewing people he could clearly just say that he thought she was just fat/didn't notice, so he can easily get away with it. But people can employ whoever they want.

The applicant is likely to go "Oh yeah, and I am pregnant." They do at least in my experiences with human resources.
 
Back
Top