Asked in interview about plans for a baby etc

dehydrato

Thanks for your replies everyone, if it were to go to an ET, what exactly happens and if they "settle" what does that mean?

Bluetownbarry, I didn't say I was bored. Sorry if I made you angry, well no I'm not, the job was advertised, if someone wants it they can apply and fight their way through the process like I was prepared to do. If we all applied your reasoning then only the poor would be eligable for employment.

It is a small company, less than 40 employees and is local to the area I live.

Googlewhacker

dehydrato wrote: »

Thanks for your replies everyone, if it were to go to an ET, what exactly happens and if they "settle" what does that mean?

Bluetownbarry, I didn't say I was bored. Sorry if I made you angry, well no I'm not, the job was advertised, if someone wants it they can apply and fight their way through the process like I was prepared to do. If we all applied your reasoning then only the poor would be eligable for employment.

It is a small company, less than 40 employees and is local to the area I live.

They would offer you some money to settle out of court effectively.

bluetownbarry

I find your attitude interesting - you're not bothered about getting the job then why apply? I can't be bothered to get in to a debate on your motives as it wouldn't be constructive.

What might help you is this; http://www.thompsons.law.co.uk/ltext/l0840001.htm

If you can prove that they have discriminated against you by not selecting you because you have children (and from what you have said it sounds quite easy to prove) then you would have (in my opinion) a very good case to take to an ET.

It might be worth thinking about what you want to achieve. As you have stated they are a small company - they may possibly have some defence against your claims (pretty slim though). If you were to take them to an ET, what effect would it have on a small business in having to pay you a settlement for a job you don't need or want? If your motives are to educate them, perhaps it would be better to show them the error of their ways.

Googlewhacker

bluetownbarry wrote: »

I find your attitude interesting - you're not bothered about getting the job then why apply? I can't be bothered to get in to a debate on your motives as it wouldn't be constructive.

What might help you is this; http://www.thompsons.law.co.uk/ltext/l0840001.htm

If you can prove that they have discriminated against you by not selecting you because you have children (and from what you have said it sounds quite easy to prove) then you would have (in my opinion) a very good case to take to an ET.

It might be worth thinking about what you want to achieve. As you have stated they are a small company - they may possibly have some defence against your claims (pretty slim though). If you were to take them to an ET, what effect would it have on a small business in having to pay you a settlement for a job you don't need or want? If your motives are to educate them, perhaps it would be better to show them the error of their ways.

Quite.....

Loanranger

Suggest you phone the helpline at the Equality and Human Rights Commission. Ask if they can offer advice to the employer on how not to break the law.
Click here

Googlewhacker

Loanranger wrote: »

Suggest you phone the helpline at the Equality and Human Rights Commission. Ask if they can offer advice to the employer on how not to break the law.
Click here

Again better advice than most of the above.

Uncertain

bluetownbarry wrote: »

It might be worth thinking about what you want to achieve. As you have stated they are a small company - they may possibly have some defence against your claims (pretty slim though). If you were to take them to an ET, what effect would it have on a small business in having to pay you a settlement for a job you don't need or want? If your motives are to educate them, perhaps it would be better to show them the error of their ways.

The only way the firm are actually going to learn anything is they have to pay up, either as a settlement or a tribunal award. If the OP doesn't want / need the money they can always give it to charity.

I too am amazed that even a small(ish) company can be so stupid.

Googlewhacker

Uncertain wrote: »

The only way the firm are actually going to learn anything is they have to pay up, either as a settlement or a tribunal award. If the OP doesn't want / need the money they can always give it to charity.

I too am amazed that even a small(ish) company can be so stupid.

Not that it is an excuse but they could be ignorant and they could learn by being informed by the correct channels.

Blobby8_2

Sounds to me the interviewer was not very good at her job, she should have been able to find the informaion she needed to eliminate you at the early stages without incriminating the company. Fact is if its a filing job, anyone can do it (even me) so who can say it didnt go to the best qualified candidate ? If you want to cause a problem for the company and the interviewer go ahead, there are plenty on here keen to help you. You must be aware that if its a small company who can ill afford to fight the case or "settle" with you - guess who pays , their employees.

mum2one

Regardless of the moral issues, the person who interviewed the candiate for the job was obviously not competant, and to send the additional questions by email are totally unacceptable.

If the OP wanted they sound like they have a strong case for an employment tribunal case, whether the OP wanted to take it that far is surely there choice.

Based from what the OP said the company would more than likely offer an out of court settlement, surely they would have insurance to cover them. Its bad enough trying to go for a job without being put through the mill for having a child.