Think I may have been discriminated against while on Maternity Leave

Person_one

Googlewhacker wrote: »

True but I would think this could be done informally and she could maybe swing an increase in wages from it informally

Depends how much of a crusader the OP is I suppose! Personally though, I thinks it usually best to have things documented. You never know when you might need to refer back to it.

stebiz

Person_one wrote: »

She was on maternity leave, so technically was still employed by them in the same role as before ML. If she had been performing this role from the office (or wherever) she would have been informed of the opportunity and would have had the chance to at least try.

The problem here is that being on maternity leave meant she was treated differently, which is discriminatory.

Sorry, I don't buy it. I have had others promoted above me before. I was a bit peed off at the time (granted I had an interview) but one guy was a relative of the boss. I didn't have a chance. Took it on the chin, like she should. If she takes this further she risks muddying the waters...............and risking her job!

Person_one

stebiz wrote: »

Sorry, I don't buy it. I have had others promoted above me before. I was a bit peed off at the time (granted I had an interview) but one guy was a relative of the boss. I didn't have a chance. Took it on the chin, like she should. If she takes this further she risks muddying the waters...............and risking her job!

I'm not quite sure what you 'don't buy', do you think it was acceptable that the OP wasn't informed of the opportunity? Do you think women on maternity leave can be discriminated against and it doesn't matter?

You had the chance to apply and interview for your job, that's all the OP wanted. Maybe she never would have been given the job, but she can't know that as she was denied the chance to find out.

stebiz

Person_one wrote: »

I'm not quite sure what you 'don't buy', do you think it was acceptable that the OP wasn't informed of the opportunity? Do you think women on maternity leave can be discriminated against and it doesn't matter?

You had the chance to apply and interview for your job, that's all the OP wanted. Maybe she never would have been given the job, but she can't know that as she was denied the chance to find out.

Maybe it would have been courtesy to inform her. However the fact, that she wasn't, speaks volumes!

Person_one

stebiz wrote: »

Maybe it would have been courtesy to inform her. However the fact, that she wasn't, speaks volumes!

Women on maternity leave often just get forgotten about or considered unimportant. It may have been a careless oversight, or a sexist assumption that now the OP has a child she wouldn't be interested in or capable of the higher role.

It doesn't necessarily mean that they considred her skills and experience fully and decided she was so unsuitable for the job it would be better to expose themselves to allegations of discrimination than risk her actually applying!

SarEl

Person_one wrote: »

Women on maternity leave often just get forgotten about or considered unimportant. It may have been a careless oversight, or a sexist assumption that now the OP has a child she wouldn't be interested in or capable of the higher role.

It doesn't necessarily mean that they considred her skills and experience fully and decided she was so unsuitable for the job it would be better to expose themselves to allegations of discrimination than risk her actually applying!

It may indeed mean any of those things - or something else entirely. But what it does not add up to is sex discrimination. - unless the employer directly approached all the other employees, bringing the role to their attention and inviting them to apply. If they have simply advertised a role, internally or externally, then they have followed their normal recruitment process - they are not required to contact people who are on maternity leave, sick leave, holiday, etc., to advise them that a vacancy exists. So if, for example, the normal recruitment practice is to post vacancies on an intranet or a notice board, then they haven't treated the OP, or anyone else absent from the workplace, any differently. If the post was advertised in the local paper and the OP didn't notice it, the same applies as to anyone else who didn't notice it. If the normal practice is to attach such notifications to a pay slip, and everyone else in the company got it but not the OP, then that might constitute different treatment.

getmore4less

It is one of the risk all employees takes when they are absent from their job for long enough that a company needs to use someone else.

maternity,
sick,
long holiday,
temp redeployment.

They might find someone that is actualy better than you.

mikey72

Why do you think your role would be promoted?
There is no obligation to move up one job at a time, and B has shown he/she can do both jobs.

Person_one

getmore4less wrote: »

It is one of the risk all employees takes when they are absent from their job for long enough that a company needs to use someone else.

maternity,
sick,
long holiday,
temp redeployment.

They might find someone that is actualy better than you.

Women on maternity leave have all the same rights as every other employee.

Yes, the temp may have been better, but they made a summary judgement without following the correct procedure so it can't be known can it? Maybe the OP's application for promotion would have been so impressive they'd have changed their mind, maybe not. The point is, she should have been given then chance, she would have been given the chance if she weren't on maternity leave, hence, discrimination due to maternity leave.

It seems so simple, I don't understand how people can think there was no breach of procedure here?

chickywiggle

a simialr thing happend with me. I got back from mat leave to find a more senior role had been seconded to, starting 2 days after I returned. Now this would only have been advertised, by e-mail internally, to all employees. Had i been at work I would certainly have put in my application form.

I mentioned it, off the record, when I got back and got what I wanted - an apology from the new manager. They were astonished the old manager hadn't bothered to tell me, or in fact follow ANY of the process they should have done (and agreed to do) before I went off - sending me minutes of meetings, inviting me on out of work outings etc. I warned them I would not be taking it further this time but should it happen in the future I would.

I believe they definatly had strong words with the person involved (who moved onto a new post in the compant just before I returned) as I have now been back at work a year and this person finally started to speak to me again last week.

To be honest I am glad I said my peace and it certainly has not been held against me by my new manager.

Hope this helps.