Wife told to leave company

Poosmate

I agree with GW. The OP deliberately left the fact that his wife is pregnant out of the OP as he said "so as not to cloud judgement". So I guess the question to ask the OP is:

Did your wife inform her employers of her pregnancy prior to Friday's meeting?

Regarding getting one or both of the other employees who knew about the pregnancy to state that they spoke of it and a Manager could possibly have overheard is one thing, but getting the Manager to admit that they overheard this information is a completely different kettle of fish. I once had a conversation with two others, one said something very out of order and the other denied hearing it - selective deafness I believe it's called.

If the wife didn't inform her employer of her pregnancy and they effectively dismissed her how can she cite her pregnancy as a reason for their dismissal?

Poo

DVardysShadow

shikoku wrote: »

Why are you even bothering to respond to this person?

Why? I am pretending [quite successfully, I think] that I have not noticed they are having a go at me.

Poosmate

SHIPSHAPE wrote: »

If they think that, and admit it, it would still be unlawful.

If they are on the ball enough to hear a whisper and act upon it they're hardly going to admit to it are they?

shikoku

DVardysShadow wrote: »

Why? I am pretending [quite successfully, I think] that I have not noticed they are having a go at me.

But they are nasty to everyone, just take a look at their posts, their scatter gun hostility.

Life's too short to waste on such people.

dmg24

DVardysShadow wrote: »

Why? I am pretending [quite successfully, I think] that I have not noticed they are having a go at me.

I wasn't, I was just pointing out that you had given opposing viewpoints. If I was having a go or being sarcastic, I would have used or :rotfl:...

dmg24

shikoku wrote: »

But they are nasty to everyone, just take a look at their posts, their scatter gun hostility.

Life's too short to waste on such people.

You are very bitter. Maybe you could get a job to fill your time?

DVardysShadow

dmg24 wrote: »

Yep, you are contradicting yourself. There is a difference between giving all the possibilities, and completely changing your viewpoint, which is what you have done.

Don't forget that the OP has thrown in another fact.

And Employer, I think, wanted a plausibly deniable meeting. So if Mrs OP was not pregnant and found another job, why not claim she had been dismissed and walk out with no notice? But now we know she is pregnant, Employer might be a tad reluctant to admit to the meeting and a tad embarrassed about the lack of due process.

We certainly have a new perspective on Employer's motivation, so why not have a different way of looking at it?

dmg24

DVardysShadow wrote: »

Don't forget that the OP has thrown in another fact.

And Employer, I think, wanted a plausibly deniable meeting. So if Mrs OP was not pregnant and found another job, why not claim she had been dismissed and walk out with no notice? But now we know she is pregnant, Employer might be a tad reluctant to admit to the meeting and a tad embarrassed about the lack of due process.

We certainly have a new perspective on Employer's motivation, so why not have a different way of looking at it?

Absolutely ... I was only pointing out that you had not acknowledged your change in viewpoint, not disagreeing with you. (smiley meant in an 'I agree' way!)

I still don't buy that this is related to the pregnancy. If it was, they would have got rid straightaway rather than risk her now saying 'By the way, I am pregnant'. I have seen a fair few employers try to dismiss people as a kneejerk reaction to pregnancy, and all have done it with immediate effect to avoid the employee making pg more of an issue.

poet123

Poosmate wrote: »

If they are on the ball enough to hear a whisper and act upon it they're hardly going to admit to it are they?

This does happen, one of my sons got a job after leving University 18 months into course. He had another degree course to go to the following September, eleven months on.

Unknown to him the mother of a friend who knew his situation ( which he had not been asked about) and mentioned it to management. They terminated his employement after eight weeks because of his future plans.

DVardysShadow

dmg24 wrote: »

Absolutely ... I was only pointing out that you had not acknowledged your change in viewpoint, not disagreeing with you. (smiley meant in an 'I agree' way!)

I still don't buy that this is related to the pregnancy. If it was, they would have got rid straightaway rather than risk her now saying 'By the way, I am pregnant'. I have seen a fair few employers try to dismiss people as a kneejerk reaction to pregnancy, and all have done it with immediate effect to avoid the employee making pg more of an issue.

On this one I am not so strongly of the 'should' view, I am of the 'could' view. There are 2 'coulds' here and although you have picked out the inherent contradiction, it does not really preclude Mrs OP taking them both, serially.

From the little we have about Employer, I would think that they are not going to fall into the obvious traps over dismissing a woman approaching maternity leave, but I have little doubt from the timing, that a whisper did reach them and they acted, probably in under 3 hours.