“The Decision Is Perfectly Legal”: HR Rejects Candidate Because She’s 7 Months Pregnant
Hiring pregnant people can present some difficulties for employers. One major concern is the potential absences. Pregnant individuals may need to take time off for prenatal appointments or to deal with morning sickness or other similar issues. This can disrupt the workflow of a business, especially if we’re talking about a critical role — exactly what Reddit user Thrwwy was looking to fill.
So when one of her colleagues recommended a pregnant woman for the position, the HR manager found herself in a really tough spot. She wanted to find a solution that was best for both the candidate and the company but eventually ended up becoming the enemy of all. Unsure of how she handled it, the recruiter made a post on the popular subreddit ‘Am I the [Jerk]?‘, asking its members to evaluate her actions. Here’s what she wrote.
This HR manager was looking for someone to fill an important role in the company
Image credits: Amina Filkins (not the actual photo)
But when a pregnant woman applied for the position, she found herself in a really tough spot
Image credits: Sora Shimazaki (not the actual photo)
Image credits: MART PRODUCTION (not the actual photo)
Image credits: thrwwy9911
According to a 2015 report by the Pew Research Center, working while pregnant is becoming increasingly common. In the late 1960s, for example, just about 40% of women worked full-time during their first pregnancies, but by 2008 that figure rose to almost 60%. The report also said that eight in ten women (82%) worked until they were within one month of their due date.
However, finding a job while pregnant is a different thing. Legally speaking, there is no duty to tell potential employers that you’re expecting a baby. Heck, if you want, you can just arrive at the interview room a month away from your due date and not say a word about it. But that might not be the most effective strategy for succeeding if you actually get hired. So kudos to this applicant for being upfront.
Employers may not discriminate against job applicants due to pregnancy either. But that being said, going through the application process while pregnant can be tricky. If you managed to get a group of hiring managers to speak candidly, it’s likely that many would agree with the author of this post.
After all, compared to an applicant who has no need for extended periods of time off work, hiring a pregnant person will rarely look like the best business decision. This tension between what the law requires and what a prospective employer may be looking for can create problems for pregnant job hunters. But Lisa Guerin, the co-author of Dealing With Problem Employees: How to Manage Performance & Personal Issues in the Workplace, says that it’s very hard to prove discrimination in the hiring process.
“This is because potential employers aren’t required to tell applicants why they weren’t hired (or who was hired instead),” Guerin writes. “Besides, you are likely much more interested in getting a job than building up a lawsuit against a potential employer.”
Most people said that the HR manager didn’t act like a jerk
But some thought she could’ve handled the situation better
Oh come on YTA-ers... 😂 You have obviously never been pregnant. OP is in the right, absolutely. It's a high risk job that is phisically straining. You can't just do everything when you're pregnant because, no matter how fit you are, pregnancy is also very phisically demanding. You are growing another human inside, FFS! If pregnant women can do anything, why there is none of them roofing a house 😂 Be realistic! Greetings from a six months pregnant woman 😉
I think everyone calling OP TA did not read the whole thing. They just read " I didn´t hire a woman because she was pregnant" and went directly to the comments
Load More Replies...
They would be TA if they hired her. A pregnant woman can work, but physically demanding job requiring a lot of movements from one place to another isn't a good match. It's not discrimination, it's common sense.
As someone that worked up to 3 days before birth in a physically demanding job (nursing), it's not the physically demanding part that is the issue. It's the remote areas, and she also wouldn't be allowed on a plane soonish. It sounds like the job has hours of hike (You're not physically limited to not be able to hike, but going into labor three hours up a mountain would be a problem), and sounds like it might be far from cities too. Ifa job removes their own employees from the position while pregnant than it makes no sense to hire someone you wouldn't let on the field. However she should have found a spot in the company for the woman. Nothing breeds long term loyalty like doing something like that when she obviously is in dire straights. As someone who was also job hunting at 9months pregnant (the actual job began 3 months later) and saw all the excitement drain from the managers face after I stood up, it's angering to be discriminated on on such a manner. And I'm in the US.
Load More Replies...
The thought of obligatory paid months off when in America women have to fight for any leave at all at most places and some even get fired.
And the sound of corporate parasites when someone suggests that "because I felt like it" shouldn't be the deciding factor in determining someone else's livelihood... of course if we had actual safety nets for people in the USA then we could probably shrug some of that other stuff off, but then the parasites couldn't gorge themselves into monsters.
Load More Replies...
To all the YTA and people claiming discrimination. I worked a job for 15 years. I was very good, and constantly headhunted. If I applied for the position I held, I would be the most qualified (on paper) of any applicant by far. Thing is, a couple of injuries happened. I can't do the job anymore. I might be able to for a bit, but it wouldn't last. I'm not being discriminated against, because I cannot do the job! If you are pregnant, or missing a limb, and that keeps you from doing the job you would be hired, that's life. Sometimes life sucks, but that's not anyone else's problem.
The people saying YTA baffle me...there are some jobs where discrimination based on medical conditions is not only ok, but MANDATORY. Do you want a heavy vehicle operator with uncontrolled epilepsy? Imagine being heavily pregnant in a rural area with no access to medical care. It's a lawsuit waiting to happen...not to mention an absolute tragedy. I used to work as a chemotherapy nurse...any nurse who got pregnant HAD to be moved, because our regulations were so stringent that even having them in the vicinity of chemo was considered too risky. If a pregnant woman had interviewed for a position there they wouldn't have gotten it either. I often knew people were pregnant before their families did because I HAD to know.
As someone who has worked hard to get epilepsy from uncontrolled to controlled, I get extremely upset when I find out co-workers who have uncontrolled epilepsy and operating heavy machinery because they didn't want to get discriminated against if they informed our employers. Not only are they out for weeks due to injury on the job but they put others at risk and make others who have the same disease also look irresponsible. The pregnant woman is also putting herself and baby at risk for serious injury if not worse if the woman was hired.
Load More Replies...
This is an awkward one in countries with stricter employment laws, but I doubt you would be forced to hire someone who from day one would not be able to fulfil the role. It is a very different matter for her to have been working for the company for several months, then become pregnant, and quite rightly her job should be there for her when she returns from maternity leave. This was not an office job, and if she had any pregnancy complications or went into labour whilst out in the wilds.... it doesn't bear thinking about.
Sounds like she runs the risk of putting herself in premature labor in this job.
I just wanted to mention that I wouldn't have hired her either. In the US it's even illegal to ask if a woman is pregnant. That said, the OP says plainly that there were other equally qualified applicants and that this woman really wasn't enthusiastic about the position, but would take it because she needs a paycheck. Um, most people looking for a job need a paycheck. I would have just thanked her for coming in for the interview then hired one of the other candidates. You don't need to say why you didn't hire her or make a promise to find her some position later. You just choose someone else period.
Those who are saying that OP is the AH, either are the AHs, should never be allowed in a managerial position, or never bothered to read the article to it's completion. The OP states that the project's completion date is in 15 months. At most, the pregnant woman would be only working for 2 months before taking an obligatory (by law and OP's supervisors won't make exceptions, to avoid any future policy abuses) 6 month maternity leave, in which another person would have to be hired for those six months. So, for 6 months, of a 15 month project, they would be paying for 2 employees while only receiving the work of one person. Furthermore, the work sites are in remote, and physically demanding, areas to get to. So, they would place a pregnant woman in a dangerous situation, where medical help may be impossible to reach her in time, if she went into labor and had a medical complication? Finally, the pregnant woman was not the only person who fit all the qualifications for the job. OP is NAH.
This comment is spot on. The takeaway I had after reading is that the company needs to hire the most qualified candidate WHO CAN DO THE JOB. The applicant cannot do her job from a hospital or her home. With the position being temporary, the company would have to spend twice the budgeted amount for only one person's worth of production. Businesses don't stay alive by making decisions like that. OP is NAH, but her coworker who's running her mouth certainly is. I think the coworker is acting out of embarrassment for not having enough clout to get her referral hired.
Load More Replies... They say YTA....until they are the ones losing their jobs due to a lawsuit stemming from "non-discriminatory" hiring and something horrible happening due to said decision to hire the person regardless of condition. -or- pay cuts stemming from the same issue, because they had to hire and pay 2 separate people for the same position. I understand equality (I'm a pregnant female with 2 kids already), but it's also their responsibility to protect theirselves and consider the safety of prospective candidates. The funny thing is - would this have even been discussed if the candidate didn't have pre-existing connections to the company?
OP’s reasons and reasoning made so much sense to me- *before* we find out that she’s childfree and not a huge fan of pregnancy, which tells me that her own personal choices had nothing to do with her decision. Her reasons stand on their own. I’m upset on her behalf over the hostility she’s been getting at the office, and I think I know why it’s happening. The applicant isn’t working; 7 months along is a pretty strange time to suddenly look for work, and I think the applicant and her friend who already works there came up with this plan so she’d get that sweet, sweet extra paid leave. The woman said she wasn’t aware of the job requirements beforehand, but her friend who handed in her resume sure did. I’m also sure she’s well aware that she can’t voluntarily return early- which is why she made the offer. Now her friend, OP’s coworker, is *pissed,* and drumming up hostility at work. That sucks. It sucks even more when you get grief for doing the right thing.
This reminds me of one of my previous workplaces where they hired me and another girl. After she signed a contract she revealed that she is 4months pregnant. She was given the easiest jobs in a busy cafeteria and was sitting most of the shift. She had health problems due to the pregnancy so she was away sick most of the time and after the maternity leave she never came back.
The yta-ers care more about the woman getting the job than her/the baby's health and safety. Absolutely insane. Op is not sexist and neither is preventing a pregnant woman from being harmed on the job. She should just take the office job, easier on everyone.
The yta-ers weren't even touching on the pregnancy they were more than anything ignoring it and saying she is being discriminated against because she is a woman, they ignore her health and safety at that current moment and the future
Load More Replies... I'm the OPs replies they even state she wasn't happy with the job but 'was willing to do it because she needs the income'. If I was hiring and had multiple candidates (which they did) and this was the feedback from one of the candidates I wouldn't be hiring them either. Im not saying that people need to be unreasonably excited for a role but surely part of hiring is finding the person who is qualified for the role who is most likely to enjoy and succeed in that role and WANTING the role for more than just the pay is key for that.
how is this even a topic of discussion ?? its pretty logic that you dont hire someone who is 2 months away from being away 6 months. then you have to search fr someone else AND pay twice for one position! wtf lol
Then add to that that OP said it was a temporary position for a total of 15 months so for well over 1/3 of the time, they would be paying 2 people and she would need to be job hunting again before her kid was 1 to not have a gap in pay.
Load More Replies...
Seriously - people think it's OK to hire a pregnant women for a position, that has a high chance of putting her and her child in danger? OP said, that the job is high risk, and the applicant also confirmed, that this is not a job they really wanted. NTA, because OP was thinking ahead, both for the company's sake, and the lady's sake.
As someone who has epilepsy and has run into some questionable hiring managers in the US..NTA. I think of it like this, the accommodation of the position has to be reasonable. And the condition of the woman going from 2 months, then 6 months is not. Not even for her. That's exhausting. Plus being in a high risk position is putting her baby at risk so that's putting the company at risk for a lawsuit if anything happened. She's NTA. She protected both the company and candidate.
Well, if the pregnant woman had the best qualifications out of the applications this would be illegal where I come from… Though in most cases it is hard to prove discrimination happened. I’ll tell you a story… My company was hiring, and out of the applicants one was the most qualified, and also about seven months pregnant. We hired her and the second best applicant we hired as a temp until she comes back. Here people have about 10 months of paid (by the government) leave. But that is such a short period compared to the rest of her career, and usually we have people work with us for decades, not years, so in the end we want to hire the people with the best skillset. Edit: Now they both work for us, because we ended up needing both, and the temp proved to be a good match.
But OP said that they had equally qualified candidates, she wasnt enthusiastic about the job just wanted a paycheck, AND it was for a 15 month position so there wouldnt even be a year of work that they got out of her before the position is over and she would be out of a job again. Over 1/3 of the position they were hiring for would have had to be paid to 2 people without the benefit of getting either long term.
Load More Replies...
NTA. She could have had a premature labor in the following week. Considering the type of job the OP was posting about, OP was not the right fit at that time. It was bad timing. They need one person not two. Had the lady applied way sooner or waited until after the kid was born, she would have been fine. It was bad timing. Another job, even temporarily, for the last trimester would have been better.
Even worse with the timing is that OP said it was a 15 month position. It would never have been a good pick for this candidate.
Load More Replies...
NTA... Plain and simple, her pregnancy made her a medical hazard for the job described. Nevermind normal company procedures for when an already hired on employee becomes pregnant... You were hiring someone to fly 8 hours, drive 3-5 more hours and then walk several miles before they even begin doing their job. In this specific case, she would be an insurance liability, even in the United States. The job being offered was high risk for her due to her pregnancy. Definitely NOT the AH
I think the people who says she’s the AH slipped over the part where the interviewee mentioned they didn’t really want the job but the paycheck and weren’t actually the “perfect person for the job”
Heh, never been pregnant or anything so I don't know for sure about that part, but imo, a woman having a 4 kg heavy baby-filled belly can not do quite the same thing as someone without this. There's a reason we recommend women to not move, bend down or overwork themselves past a certain pregnancy stage, isn't it? It sounds like an overly exhausting job for someone in prime condition, so pregnancy is 100% gonna make this worse... And a half a day long trip to get to the working site PLUS staying somewhere without top grade hygiene or medical sounds like a hazard to me. What if she went into labor there? Like, call an emergency chopper to get her to the closest hospital? Or deliver the baby however you can and possibly risk losing their life, the mom's or both if there's any complications? I don't think OP was the villain of this story and their decision was absolutely logical to me. That's no discrimination or anything, it's basic human decency fr
Just fyi, it's is no longer recommend to women "not move or bend down or overwork themselves" during pregnancy. Research has found that we have better outcomes when women continue to exercise during pregnancy. I literally ran 4 miles the day before I was due/birthed my second kiddo while pushing my older child along in a jogging stroller. Both me and baby were healthy. I'd been running for decades prior to having the baby and so the dr. recommended and supported running as felt comfortable. I say this all to point out that if the woman was used to the near the same level of physical activity expected in the job prior to pregnancy, the physical aspects likely wouldn't be a problem if there were no pregnancy complications.
Load More Replies...
Hiring her would literally be endangering a child's life. These YTA people are liberal sociopaths who only care that sHe'S BeInG dIsCriMinAted! EDIT: Please don't downvote me, I actually lean liberal.
I live in USA. My job has a list of qualifications you must be able to do including lifting 75 pounds, climbing ladders, working at heights, crawling at least 50 feet etc. I was put out on early maternity leave because I couldn't fulfill all of those duties. The company needs to keep running, so that's what disability is for.
4 any1 sayin shes TA cuz its discrimination clearly dont understand US or typical discr laws!evn if ur handicappd, they dont HAVE 2 hire u if u can't reasonably b expected 2 perform the job &/or its "an unreasonable burden 2 the company" 2 accommodate ur issue. Thats y it's NOT ILLEGAL 2 tell a guy in a wheelchair u cant hire him cuz job involves goin places w/o ramps or watever the case is. The Ams wit disabilty act still takes in2 account how much of a burden ones condition puts on a company & if its reasonable 2 expect the prsn 2 do the job sufficiently+ shes a liability & bad stuff could easily happen on the remote trips- I doubt her DR would ever sign off+ its only 15 mnths & the comp already puts preg employes on admin so she literally CANT do the job! But REMEMBER sumtimz PREGNANCY IS NOT A CHOICE! RAPE HAPPENS..A LOT & abortion isnt always an option! 2 the prsn concerned wit pat leave, who would accept a 15 mnth (wat should b a contract) job knowin they need 6 mnths off rt away
Ugh I have so much more 2 say! damn character limits! But theres no way that job is near safe enuff 4 her plus u cant even fly in ur 3rd trimester & u have 2 pee every 5 secs so how is she gonna be in the car 10 hrs thru remote areas? I'd direct her 2 any federal or public funding/help they have 4 pregnant women cuz in the US in my state, if ur pregnant & low income theyl set u up w/an apt, SNAP, medicaid etc watevr u need + possible cash welfare til u get on ur ft. certain benefits r only up to 5 yrs but they prob have better ones in watever country this is since they actually have paid mat leave WHICH IS HOW IT SHOULD BE since if we want a continued human race, then lots of women need 2 have babies...stop actin like "oh its her choice 2 be pregnant, tht has Nuthin 2 do wit ME" wat if just 50% of woman who planned 2 hav kids decided 2 not, cuz it's 2 hard 2 deal w/wrk BS & they were sick of bein judged etc? Say bye 2 ur SS benefits!
Load More Replies...
A quick rule of thumb is also that if you are asking yourself what is best for "the child" or "the pregnancy" you are WILDLY overstepping your bounds. You have just sidelines the person you are dealing with and are making decisions you have no right to make on their behalf. Not even a person's spouse has that right. Stick to focusing on the candidate and their qualifications.
HR lady sounds like one of those bitter "childless by choice" females. Gtfoh
You're not the a hole because you didn't hire her, but if you did that in the states your company could be sued into freaking poverty. More than likely they would scapegoat you. I'm not saying you should hire a pregnant person to do something that no reasonable person would expect a pregnant person to do, but you definitely want to make sure your "other reasons" are extremely well documented.
Except OP said that all hires must be medically cleared, and being that far along she wouldnt be. AND she said she didnt really want that job in thr interview but needed a paycheck while they had other equally qualified candidates who woild both pass the medical and were enthusiastic about the job. The not really wanting that job comment would have been enough to legally say no to a candidate everywhere by itself. Also a time limited position and she wont be able to be there for over 1/3 of the time the position is for (only a 15 month position).
Load More Replies... YTA AND it was also probably the right decision, at least in part. Guess what? Being in "HR" or management means sometimes YTA even if it's probably the best overall choice. That's literally THE job. Now, as a hiring manager, you also have the power and I would argue the obligation to see if you can work something out with a qualified candidate: make it very clear that you will make sure to check back in with her if you find a position that she was qualified for AND could safely work with reasonable accomodations, and then actually follow through on that promise. Also, before wasting time and money on an interview, I would personally want to make sure an applicant had a solid job description. But the real AH here is the "friend" who referred someone who will likely need fairly immediate medical attention soon to a position that had some substantial physical demands, requires frequent long distance travel and is often done in remote areas.
Definitely a YTA. No one but the pregnant person or their doctor should have an opinion on what they can and can't do, or what is too risky or dangerous for them. The fact that they will have to take leave in the middle of the project may be inconvenient, but that could happen to literally any employee at any time for a variety of reasons. You knowing that this is going to be the case ahead of time puts you at an advantage, not a disadvantage as far as planning/logistics goes. If the woman didn't believe herself capable of doing the job, she wouldn't have applied. Make the assumption she can do what she says she can do and proceed on that basis. Anything else is discrimination. The fact that lots of people on here don't like that being considered discrimination doesn't make it anything else.
The woman apparently didn't even know the details of the job, so no, she didn't apply knowing that she was capable. She applied because her and her friend thought she could get some sweet sweet leave.
Load More Replies...
I'd also like to add that the conception that pregnancy automatically makes women fragile or more vulnerable is absolute BS. I had a coworker that had like 5 beautiful, healthy children and powerlifted all the way through all five of her pregnancies. This isn't her, but you can get the idea: https://youtu.be/y6tD7w_nRTQ
That's not a good comparison. I actually have taken 5 bullets in my life, 3 at one time, and I lived. A guy next to me died by being hit by his first. Just because one person did it, doesn't mean everyone can.
Load More Replies...
Absolutely, NTA, they had good intentions were looking to give them another job, and logically you would do what you can to keep your company making as much money as possible. Rather than hire the person about to take 6 months off after they only work for 2 months then they have to pay a person for 6 months and pay 2 people with only 1 working, logically you pay the 1 that has equal or similar experience and then only pay 1 not 2
Load More Replies...
Oh come on YTA-ers... 😂 You have obviously never been pregnant. OP is in the right, absolutely. It's a high risk job that is phisically straining. You can't just do everything when you're pregnant because, no matter how fit you are, pregnancy is also very phisically demanding. You are growing another human inside, FFS! If pregnant women can do anything, why there is none of them roofing a house 😂 Be realistic! Greetings from a six months pregnant woman 😉
I think everyone calling OP TA did not read the whole thing. They just read " I didn´t hire a woman because she was pregnant" and went directly to the comments
Load More Replies... They would be TA if they hired her. A pregnant woman can work, but physically demanding job requiring a lot of movements from one place to another isn't a good match. It's not discrimination, it's common sense.
As someone that worked up to 3 days before birth in a physically demanding job (nursing), it's not the physically demanding part that is the issue. It's the remote areas, and she also wouldn't be allowed on a plane soonish. It sounds like the job has hours of hike (You're not physically limited to not be able to hike, but going into labor three hours up a mountain would be a problem), and sounds like it might be far from cities too. Ifa job removes their own employees from the position while pregnant than it makes no sense to hire someone you wouldn't let on the field. However she should have found a spot in the company for the woman. Nothing breeds long term loyalty like doing something like that when she obviously is in dire straights. As someone who was also job hunting at 9months pregnant (the actual job began 3 months later) and saw all the excitement drain from the managers face after I stood up, it's angering to be discriminated on on such a manner. And I'm in the US.
Load More Replies... The thought of obligatory paid months off when in America women have to fight for any leave at all at most places and some even get fired.
And the sound of corporate parasites when someone suggests that "because I felt like it" shouldn't be the deciding factor in determining someone else's livelihood... of course if we had actual safety nets for people in the USA then we could probably shrug some of that other stuff off, but then the parasites couldn't gorge themselves into monsters.
Load More Replies... To all the YTA and people claiming discrimination. I worked a job for 15 years. I was very good, and constantly headhunted. If I applied for the position I held, I would be the most qualified (on paper) of any applicant by far. Thing is, a couple of injuries happened. I can't do the job anymore. I might be able to for a bit, but it wouldn't last. I'm not being discriminated against, because I cannot do the job! If you are pregnant, or missing a limb, and that keeps you from doing the job you would be hired, that's life. Sometimes life sucks, but that's not anyone else's problem.
The people saying YTA baffle me...there are some jobs where discrimination based on medical conditions is not only ok, but MANDATORY. Do you want a heavy vehicle operator with uncontrolled epilepsy? Imagine being heavily pregnant in a rural area with no access to medical care. It's a lawsuit waiting to happen...not to mention an absolute tragedy. I used to work as a chemotherapy nurse...any nurse who got pregnant HAD to be moved, because our regulations were so stringent that even having them in the vicinity of chemo was considered too risky. If a pregnant woman had interviewed for a position there they wouldn't have gotten it either. I often knew people were pregnant before their families did because I HAD to know.
As someone who has worked hard to get epilepsy from uncontrolled to controlled, I get extremely upset when I find out co-workers who have uncontrolled epilepsy and operating heavy machinery because they didn't want to get discriminated against if they informed our employers. Not only are they out for weeks due to injury on the job but they put others at risk and make others who have the same disease also look irresponsible. The pregnant woman is also putting herself and baby at risk for serious injury if not worse if the woman was hired.
Load More Replies... This is an awkward one in countries with stricter employment laws, but I doubt you would be forced to hire someone who from day one would not be able to fulfil the role. It is a very different matter for her to have been working for the company for several months, then become pregnant, and quite rightly her job should be there for her when she returns from maternity leave. This was not an office job, and if she had any pregnancy complications or went into labour whilst out in the wilds.... it doesn't bear thinking about.
Sounds like she runs the risk of putting herself in premature labor in this job.
I just wanted to mention that I wouldn't have hired her either. In the US it's even illegal to ask if a woman is pregnant. That said, the OP says plainly that there were other equally qualified applicants and that this woman really wasn't enthusiastic about the position, but would take it because she needs a paycheck. Um, most people looking for a job need a paycheck. I would have just thanked her for coming in for the interview then hired one of the other candidates. You don't need to say why you didn't hire her or make a promise to find her some position later. You just choose someone else period.
Those who are saying that OP is the AH, either are the AHs, should never be allowed in a managerial position, or never bothered to read the article to it's completion. The OP states that the project's completion date is in 15 months. At most, the pregnant woman would be only working for 2 months before taking an obligatory (by law and OP's supervisors won't make exceptions, to avoid any future policy abuses) 6 month maternity leave, in which another person would have to be hired for those six months. So, for 6 months, of a 15 month project, they would be paying for 2 employees while only receiving the work of one person. Furthermore, the work sites are in remote, and physically demanding, areas to get to. So, they would place a pregnant woman in a dangerous situation, where medical help may be impossible to reach her in time, if she went into labor and had a medical complication? Finally, the pregnant woman was not the only person who fit all the qualifications for the job. OP is NAH.
This comment is spot on. The takeaway I had after reading is that the company needs to hire the most qualified candidate WHO CAN DO THE JOB. The applicant cannot do her job from a hospital or her home. With the position being temporary, the company would have to spend twice the budgeted amount for only one person's worth of production. Businesses don't stay alive by making decisions like that. OP is NAH, but her coworker who's running her mouth certainly is. I think the coworker is acting out of embarrassment for not having enough clout to get her referral hired.
Load More Replies... They say YTA....until they are the ones losing their jobs due to a lawsuit stemming from "non-discriminatory" hiring and something horrible happening due to said decision to hire the person regardless of condition. -or- pay cuts stemming from the same issue, because they had to hire and pay 2 separate people for the same position. I understand equality (I'm a pregnant female with 2 kids already), but it's also their responsibility to protect theirselves and consider the safety of prospective candidates. The funny thing is - would this have even been discussed if the candidate didn't have pre-existing connections to the company?
OP’s reasons and reasoning made so much sense to me- *before* we find out that she’s childfree and not a huge fan of pregnancy, which tells me that her own personal choices had nothing to do with her decision. Her reasons stand on their own. I’m upset on her behalf over the hostility she’s been getting at the office, and I think I know why it’s happening. The applicant isn’t working; 7 months along is a pretty strange time to suddenly look for work, and I think the applicant and her friend who already works there came up with this plan so she’d get that sweet, sweet extra paid leave. The woman said she wasn’t aware of the job requirements beforehand, but her friend who handed in her resume sure did. I’m also sure she’s well aware that she can’t voluntarily return early- which is why she made the offer. Now her friend, OP’s coworker, is *pissed,* and drumming up hostility at work. That sucks. It sucks even more when you get grief for doing the right thing.
This reminds me of one of my previous workplaces where they hired me and another girl. After she signed a contract she revealed that she is 4months pregnant. She was given the easiest jobs in a busy cafeteria and was sitting most of the shift. She had health problems due to the pregnancy so she was away sick most of the time and after the maternity leave she never came back.
The yta-ers care more about the woman getting the job than her/the baby's health and safety. Absolutely insane. Op is not sexist and neither is preventing a pregnant woman from being harmed on the job. She should just take the office job, easier on everyone.
The yta-ers weren't even touching on the pregnancy they were more than anything ignoring it and saying she is being discriminated against because she is a woman, they ignore her health and safety at that current moment and the future
Load More Replies... I'm the OPs replies they even state she wasn't happy with the job but 'was willing to do it because she needs the income'. If I was hiring and had multiple candidates (which they did) and this was the feedback from one of the candidates I wouldn't be hiring them either. Im not saying that people need to be unreasonably excited for a role but surely part of hiring is finding the person who is qualified for the role who is most likely to enjoy and succeed in that role and WANTING the role for more than just the pay is key for that.
how is this even a topic of discussion ?? its pretty logic that you dont hire someone who is 2 months away from being away 6 months. then you have to search fr someone else AND pay twice for one position! wtf lol
Then add to that that OP said it was a temporary position for a total of 15 months so for well over 1/3 of the time, they would be paying 2 people and she would need to be job hunting again before her kid was 1 to not have a gap in pay.
Load More Replies... Seriously - people think it's OK to hire a pregnant women for a position, that has a high chance of putting her and her child in danger? OP said, that the job is high risk, and the applicant also confirmed, that this is not a job they really wanted. NTA, because OP was thinking ahead, both for the company's sake, and the lady's sake.
As someone who has epilepsy and has run into some questionable hiring managers in the US..NTA. I think of it like this, the accommodation of the position has to be reasonable. And the condition of the woman going from 2 months, then 6 months is not. Not even for her. That's exhausting. Plus being in a high risk position is putting her baby at risk so that's putting the company at risk for a lawsuit if anything happened. She's NTA. She protected both the company and candidate.
Well, if the pregnant woman had the best qualifications out of the applications this would be illegal where I come from… Though in most cases it is hard to prove discrimination happened. I’ll tell you a story… My company was hiring, and out of the applicants one was the most qualified, and also about seven months pregnant. We hired her and the second best applicant we hired as a temp until she comes back. Here people have about 10 months of paid (by the government) leave. But that is such a short period compared to the rest of her career, and usually we have people work with us for decades, not years, so in the end we want to hire the people with the best skillset. Edit: Now they both work for us, because we ended up needing both, and the temp proved to be a good match.
But OP said that they had equally qualified candidates, she wasnt enthusiastic about the job just wanted a paycheck, AND it was for a 15 month position so there wouldnt even be a year of work that they got out of her before the position is over and she would be out of a job again. Over 1/3 of the position they were hiring for would have had to be paid to 2 people without the benefit of getting either long term.
Load More Replies... NTA. She could have had a premature labor in the following week. Considering the type of job the OP was posting about, OP was not the right fit at that time. It was bad timing. They need one person not two. Had the lady applied way sooner or waited until after the kid was born, she would have been fine. It was bad timing. Another job, even temporarily, for the last trimester would have been better.
Even worse with the timing is that OP said it was a 15 month position. It would never have been a good pick for this candidate.
Load More Replies... NTA... Plain and simple, her pregnancy made her a medical hazard for the job described. Nevermind normal company procedures for when an already hired on employee becomes pregnant... You were hiring someone to fly 8 hours, drive 3-5 more hours and then walk several miles before they even begin doing their job. In this specific case, she would be an insurance liability, even in the United States. The job being offered was high risk for her due to her pregnancy. Definitely NOT the AH
I think the people who says she’s the AH slipped over the part where the interviewee mentioned they didn’t really want the job but the paycheck and weren’t actually the “perfect person for the job”
Heh, never been pregnant or anything so I don't know for sure about that part, but imo, a woman having a 4 kg heavy baby-filled belly can not do quite the same thing as someone without this. There's a reason we recommend women to not move, bend down or overwork themselves past a certain pregnancy stage, isn't it? It sounds like an overly exhausting job for someone in prime condition, so pregnancy is 100% gonna make this worse... And a half a day long trip to get to the working site PLUS staying somewhere without top grade hygiene or medical sounds like a hazard to me. What if she went into labor there? Like, call an emergency chopper to get her to the closest hospital? Or deliver the baby however you can and possibly risk losing their life, the mom's or both if there's any complications? I don't think OP was the villain of this story and their decision was absolutely logical to me. That's no discrimination or anything, it's basic human decency fr
Just fyi, it's is no longer recommend to women "not move or bend down or overwork themselves" during pregnancy. Research has found that we have better outcomes when women continue to exercise during pregnancy. I literally ran 4 miles the day before I was due/birthed my second kiddo while pushing my older child along in a jogging stroller. Both me and baby were healthy. I'd been running for decades prior to having the baby and so the dr. recommended and supported running as felt comfortable. I say this all to point out that if the woman was used to the near the same level of physical activity expected in the job prior to pregnancy, the physical aspects likely wouldn't be a problem if there were no pregnancy complications.
Load More Replies... Hiring her would literally be endangering a child's life. These YTA people are liberal sociopaths who only care that sHe'S BeInG dIsCriMinAted! EDIT: Please don't downvote me, I actually lean liberal.
I live in USA. My job has a list of qualifications you must be able to do including lifting 75 pounds, climbing ladders, working at heights, crawling at least 50 feet etc. I was put out on early maternity leave because I couldn't fulfill all of those duties. The company needs to keep running, so that's what disability is for.
4 any1 sayin shes TA cuz its discrimination clearly dont understand US or typical discr laws!evn if ur handicappd, they dont HAVE 2 hire u if u can't reasonably b expected 2 perform the job &/or its "an unreasonable burden 2 the company" 2 accommodate ur issue. Thats y it's NOT ILLEGAL 2 tell a guy in a wheelchair u cant hire him cuz job involves goin places w/o ramps or watever the case is. The Ams wit disabilty act still takes in2 account how much of a burden ones condition puts on a company & if its reasonable 2 expect the prsn 2 do the job sufficiently+ shes a liability & bad stuff could easily happen on the remote trips- I doubt her DR would ever sign off+ its only 15 mnths & the comp already puts preg employes on admin so she literally CANT do the job! But REMEMBER sumtimz PREGNANCY IS NOT A CHOICE! RAPE HAPPENS..A LOT & abortion isnt always an option! 2 the prsn concerned wit pat leave, who would accept a 15 mnth (wat should b a contract) job knowin they need 6 mnths off rt away
Ugh I have so much more 2 say! damn character limits! But theres no way that job is near safe enuff 4 her plus u cant even fly in ur 3rd trimester & u have 2 pee every 5 secs so how is she gonna be in the car 10 hrs thru remote areas? I'd direct her 2 any federal or public funding/help they have 4 pregnant women cuz in the US in my state, if ur pregnant & low income theyl set u up w/an apt, SNAP, medicaid etc watevr u need + possible cash welfare til u get on ur ft. certain benefits r only up to 5 yrs but they prob have better ones in watever country this is since they actually have paid mat leave WHICH IS HOW IT SHOULD BE since if we want a continued human race, then lots of women need 2 have babies...stop actin like "oh its her choice 2 be pregnant, tht has Nuthin 2 do wit ME" wat if just 50% of woman who planned 2 hav kids decided 2 not, cuz it's 2 hard 2 deal w/wrk BS & they were sick of bein judged etc? Say bye 2 ur SS benefits!
Load More Replies... A quick rule of thumb is also that if you are asking yourself what is best for "the child" or "the pregnancy" you are WILDLY overstepping your bounds. You have just sidelines the person you are dealing with and are making decisions you have no right to make on their behalf. Not even a person's spouse has that right. Stick to focusing on the candidate and their qualifications.
HR lady sounds like one of those bitter "childless by choice" females. Gtfoh
You're not the a hole because you didn't hire her, but if you did that in the states your company could be sued into freaking poverty. More than likely they would scapegoat you. I'm not saying you should hire a pregnant person to do something that no reasonable person would expect a pregnant person to do, but you definitely want to make sure your "other reasons" are extremely well documented.
Except OP said that all hires must be medically cleared, and being that far along she wouldnt be. AND she said she didnt really want that job in thr interview but needed a paycheck while they had other equally qualified candidates who woild both pass the medical and were enthusiastic about the job. The not really wanting that job comment would have been enough to legally say no to a candidate everywhere by itself. Also a time limited position and she wont be able to be there for over 1/3 of the time the position is for (only a 15 month position).
Load More Replies... YTA AND it was also probably the right decision, at least in part. Guess what? Being in "HR" or management means sometimes YTA even if it's probably the best overall choice. That's literally THE job. Now, as a hiring manager, you also have the power and I would argue the obligation to see if you can work something out with a qualified candidate: make it very clear that you will make sure to check back in with her if you find a position that she was qualified for AND could safely work with reasonable accomodations, and then actually follow through on that promise. Also, before wasting time and money on an interview, I would personally want to make sure an applicant had a solid job description. But the real AH here is the "friend" who referred someone who will likely need fairly immediate medical attention soon to a position that had some substantial physical demands, requires frequent long distance travel and is often done in remote areas.
Definitely a YTA. No one but the pregnant person or their doctor should have an opinion on what they can and can't do, or what is too risky or dangerous for them. The fact that they will have to take leave in the middle of the project may be inconvenient, but that could happen to literally any employee at any time for a variety of reasons. You knowing that this is going to be the case ahead of time puts you at an advantage, not a disadvantage as far as planning/logistics goes. If the woman didn't believe herself capable of doing the job, she wouldn't have applied. Make the assumption she can do what she says she can do and proceed on that basis. Anything else is discrimination. The fact that lots of people on here don't like that being considered discrimination doesn't make it anything else.
The woman apparently didn't even know the details of the job, so no, she didn't apply knowing that she was capable. She applied because her and her friend thought she could get some sweet sweet leave.
Load More Replies... I'd also like to add that the conception that pregnancy automatically makes women fragile or more vulnerable is absolute BS. I had a coworker that had like 5 beautiful, healthy children and powerlifted all the way through all five of her pregnancies. This isn't her, but you can get the idea: https://youtu.be/y6tD7w_nRTQ
That's not a good comparison. I actually have taken 5 bullets in my life, 3 at one time, and I lived. A guy next to me died by being hit by his first. Just because one person did it, doesn't mean everyone can.
Load More Replies... Absolutely, NTA, they had good intentions were looking to give them another job, and logically you would do what you can to keep your company making as much money as possible. Rather than hire the person about to take 6 months off after they only work for 2 months then they have to pay a person for 6 months and pay 2 people with only 1 working, logically you pay the 1 that has equal or similar experience and then only pay 1 not 2
Load More Replies... 
33
109