Pregnant + suspended for fainting!

Savvy_Sue

adouglasmhor wrote: »

They also transgressed by claiming the OP should have told them she was expecting - it's none of there business at this stage.

Not only is it none of their business, but the OP could easily have gone several months without knowing she WAS pregnant!

She told them when she was 8 WEEKS pregnant. Was she supposed to tell them every time her period was a day late that she MIGHT be pregnant? Was she supposed to tell them she was ttc?

Direct Payments put a lot of responsibility on people arranging the care. It's 'sold' to them as giving them choice / freedom / options. The responsibilities are not pointed out. Employment law is not for the fainthearted ... but not complying with it isn't an option.

doodlesmum

Firstly congratulation ,pregnancy is not an illness i worked one to one as a community care worker while i was pregnant with my three children and would have been really hacked off if i had been treated that way.
It is illegal to discriminate against someone because they are pregnant yes the parents were being protective but their actions are discrimination.
If your contract is with the council they should find you alternate work or if that is not possible as a last resort paid leave.
As for the parents saying you should told them earlier you are not legally obliged to tell your employer until 15 weeks it is the individuals choice if they wish to say earlier then your employer has to do regular risk assessments on your working conditions.
Good luck.

Doodlesmum.

zzzLazyDaisy

adouglasmhor wrote: »

The issue is pregnancy - which caused the fainting. Your argument has been tried before and failed then

Without wishing to get into the convoluted area of case law, this type of argument has been done to death in the courts. When I first started out in employment law, it was an accepted fact that dismissing someone for being pregnant could NEVER be sex discrimination because men can't get pregnant, and therefore it isn't possible to treat men and women equally on the issue of pregnancy, and therefore a pregnant woman will always be treated differently and that cannot amount to discrimination under the Sex Discrimination Act. That argument was accepted in the courts for years.

Then it was accepted that dismissing someone because she was pregnant was unlawful, but it was okay to dismiss her because she was ill because of her pregnancy and had too many days off sick - the dismissal was due to the sick leave, not the pregnancy. That, and similar arguments were also later over-ruled.

That is why the law now makes it clear that it is unlawful to dismiss and/or treat a female employee unfavourably for a reason relating to her pregnancy. In OP's case it seems that the fainting is related to the pregnancy.

If her pregnancy (and/or the fainting associated with the pregnancy) means that she is not able to do her job, then the law has procedures for dealing with that situation.

If the employer chooses not to follow those procedures they are likely to find themselves in an employment tribunal.

In this case, the employers are the girl's parents - the council are merely the funding body. But because of the council's involvement, the employer has access to HR advice, and will get short shrift in a tribunal.

I appreciate that many people don't agree with the law, but that doesn't mean they can ignore it. I can't see the purpose of the 30mph speed limit on the dual carriageway near my house, especially at 2 am - but that argument wouldn't get me very far if I get done for speeding.

adouglasmhor

zzzLazyDaisy wrote: »

Without wishing to get into the convoluted area of case law, this type of argument has been done to death in the courts. When I first started out in employment law, it was an accepted fact that dismissing someone for being pregnant could NEVER be sex discrimination because men can't get pregnant, and therefore it isn't possible to treat men and women equally on the issue of pregnancy, and therefore a pregnant woman will always be treated differently and that cannot amount to discrimination under the Sex Discrimination Act. That argument was accepted in the courts for years.

Then it was accepted that dismissing someone because she was pregnant was unlawful, but it was okay to dismiss her because she was ill because of her pregnancy and had too many days off sick - the dismissal was due to the sick leave, not the pregnancy. That, and similar arguments were also later over-ruled.

That is why the law now makes it clear that it is unlawful to dismiss and/or treat a female employee unfavourably for a reason relating to her pregnancy. In OP's case it seems that the fainting is related to the pregnancy.

If her pregnancy (and/or the fainting associated with the pregnancy) means that she is not able to do her job, then the law has procedures for dealing with that situation.

If the employer chooses not to follow those procedures they are likely to find themselves in an employment tribunal.

In this case, the employers are the girl's parents - the council are merely the funding body. But because of the council's involvement, the employer has access to HR advice, and will get short shrift in a tribunal.

I appreciate that many people don't agree with the law, but that doesn't mean they can ignore it. I can't see the purpose of the 30mph speed limit on the dual carriageway near my house, especially at 2 am - but that argument wouldn't get me very far if I get done for speeding.

I thanked you because I think you are sort of clarifying what I said (you certainly put it better than I did and the gyst of your post is what I meant).

lifesizedoll

Thanks for all your comments, they are very useful. I have been on the phone to the Equality Commissions today to ask for their advice, but they were not able to really advise and will pass this over to their legal team on monday, who will then give me a call. So hopefully I can be aware of where I stand.

nottslass_2

lifesizedoll wrote: »

Thanks for all your comments, they are very useful. I have been on the phone to the Equality Commissions today to ask for their advice, but they were not able to really advise and will pass this over to their legal team on monday, who will then give me a call. So hopefully I can be aware of where I stand.

I had a couple of "employment issues" early on in pregnancy and found the Maternity Action help line very usefull.

Maternity Action (advice to pregnant women and new parents) - 020 7324 4740 - They also have a website which has some good info.

zzzLazyDaisy

adouglasmhor wrote: »

I thanked you because I think you are sort of clarifying what I said (you certainly put it better than I did and the gyst of your post is what I meant).

Thank you - it was my intention to agree with your post and expand on it.

cat_lady_4

OP- I do sympathize. I havn't read every post but it sounds like the parents are your employers whilst the council administer pay etc. This is what happens in sunny suffolk. The parents therefore have a responsibility to you. They can either pay you to sit at home for the duration of your pregnancy (not likely!) or do a risk assessment and decide with you what tasks you will be doing. However does your direct payment scheme have what is known here as a 'broker', i.e a person who oversees the scheme? they may be called something different in your area. You should contact them, as they are effectively agreeing a payment for a service which isnt being delivered. If that doesnt work, i would say ACAS or CAB. Direct payment is a minefield, basically putting employment law in the hands of people who have no idea about it. (not to mention making people very vulnerable to unscrupulous employees as well) I hope you get it sorted.

lifesizedoll

Hi cat lady, yes what you have metioned with there being a broker does seem to be what is in place. Although I do not know this for definate as no one will really give a clear picture of the set up, and they never have. But it must be the set up you suggest because it was the people at direct payments that have suspended me. Well I will be hearing from equality commissions tommorow, and I suspect either the lady's parents or the council. So I will post the outcome.

lifesizedoll

Well I have not heard from the equality commissions, but I have heard from my employer (the parents). They said they were ringing to let me know I would be starting back tommorow and I will have someone with me while I'm working, and I will have a new contract with reduced hours of 20 per week. I am not happy with the situation though, as I they have not discussed this with me. So I have told them I do not want to accept the new contract and have given them my one weeks notice to resign and that I would like to use the remainder of my holidays for this. This was agreed. I spoke to someone else at ACAS who was very helpful and said to send a letter of resignation and to state my grievences at the same time. She also said I would be best speaking to the equality commissions to follow up my call, as they will be better able to give me advice.