Pregnancy makes termination expensive
Paige got a job as a director of people and culture with a hospitality company. This was a human resources position paying $80,000 a year, plus benefits. Unfortunately, 4.5 months after she started, she was terminated without just cause at the age of 28.
What the employer did not know was that Paige was five months pregnant at that time and just about to start showing.
Over the next four months, Paige applied to 36 different positions without success. After the birth of her baby, she applied for another 75 positions and still had no luck.
Paige sued for wrongful dismissal, claiming that the employer did not provide her with enough notice or pay in lieu of notice.
Usually after 4.5 months in such a position, the notice period would perhaps be one month, maybe a few weeks more.
The judge decided that Paige’s pregnancy was a factor to consider in deciding the appropriate notice period. It has long been held that a person who was terminated and has a disability would face increased difficulty in finding new employment depending on the nature of that disability. Of course, the judge wasn’t saying that being pregnant was a disability, but the circumstances were analogous. The courts have recognized that pregnancy makes re-employment more difficult. It is a common sense observation.
The judge awarded Paige five months’ pay in lieu of notice, which is somewhat extraordinary given her short tenure. The employer appealed, but without success. It argued that extending the notice period because of the pregnancy assumes that prospective employers will hesitate to hire a pregnant employee and unfairly punishes the terminating employer. In this case, they did not even know Paige was pregnant, but ended up having to pay an extraordinary severance package because of the assumed discriminatory attitudes of potential employers.
To be fair, the employer had a point. On the one hand, Paige was left in a very bad situation where finding new employment for a fourmonth period or less would clearly be a challenge. Employers don’t usually advertise to fill a position if they don’t really need somebody in the position for the foreseeable future. No one will ever admit it, but landing a job offer in such circumstances would be rare. It is not just. It is not fair. It is discriminatory. But it would be foolish to deny the reality. On the other hand, in Paige’s situation the employer ended up paying the price for this societal inequity and the often deplorable way we undervalue parenting.
Paige was showing and did not have a choice about disclosing her pregnancy. It should be noted, however, that people have no obligation whatsoever to disclose a pregnancy when they are applying for or interviewing for a job. It is nobody’s business and irrelevant to whether that individual can make a contribution to the company over what could be a long career.
But everything is nuanced. A lot of people don’t want to start what could be a long-term relationship with an employer by announcing two or three months after their start date that they will be off soon for what could be up to 18 months. Although we can empathize with that sentiment, I think it would be better for everyone if it just became accepted universally that there are no circumstances in which a person should feel obliged to discuss or disclose a pregnancy to a prospective employer. Good employers keep their eye on the long-term contribution someone can make, rather than the logistics of accommodating a leave.