Please explain the protection that pregnant women have as far as hiring practices go. If an 8.5 month pregnant women is interviewing for a job, can the company not hire her based on the fact that she won’t be able to work? If the woman is obviously qualified, does the company have to hire her?
Well, Tex, I assume it wouldn’t be too hard for a company to come up with a plethora of other reasons not to hire her - such as other qualified applicants.
I don’t believe a company can say “We’re not hiring you because you’re pregnant.” but they don’t HAVE to hire anyone.
Bear in mind that what the company can and can’t do on paper is diferent from what they can actually get away with. For example, if the pregent women isn’t hired, it’s very difficult to prove if it was because whe was pregent or because one of the other applicants was more qualified.
There may also be laws that excuse companies from hiring pregent women if their condition would prevent them from performing their duties (ie travel, lifting, etc). Someone with better knowledge of labor laws can answer that one.
Any more informaton about this? I’m wondering if they are protected by any law from discrimination in hiring.
They are probably protected, but it would be next to impossible to prove someone was breaking the law. Same with persons of color, old people, women, etc. It’s just too easy to get around the laws.
Technically, pregnant women are protected by federal and state law, and employers would have to make reasonable accommodations for her.
However, what is reasonable is a very tricky business. At 8.5 months pregnant, there would likely be so many restrictions on her activity that hiring her would be a lot more trouble than it’s worth.
There is also the issue of employer liability in the event the woman goes into labor while at work. Unless her colleagues are trained in how to handle it, and there are no surprises, the woman and baby are in a precarious position. I don’t think many employers are willing to put themselves into that position.
Robin
See http://www.eeoc.gov/facts/fs-preg.html - the second paragraph applies to your question. But as everyone else said, there are a million ways around it - there are other more-qualified candidates; the co. is widening the search scope; hiring process placed on hold due to budget, etc. Frankly, I run a business and I wouldn’t hire an 8.5 months’ pregnant woman - it would be stupid of me to hire someone who is going to be out for 3 months within a couple of weeks, possibly never to return, and possibly I may have to pay her or provide disability insurance coverage depending on my company’s benefits policy. No thanks. Maybe if she was the OUTSTANDING candidate, and I mean the most perfect person on the planet for that position. But that rarely happens - nobody is that good.
The company I just left hired a woman who was 8 months pregnant. It was for a position that was in the service department and the two people who interviewed her were single guys with, apparently, zero experience with pregnant women. They didn’t even notice she was pregnant and she was huge. When she showed up on her first day, the other women in the office thought they were pretty understanding supervisors and were impressed with their willingness to accomodate her. Ha!
When they finally figured out she was pregnant, they could not legally fire her (unless they came up with some bogus excuse, but it would have been pretty obvious).
The woman turned out to be a fantastic worker and perfectly suited for the position. Amazingly, she ended up going in for her scheduled caesarian and only took two weeks off.
So, it’s not necessarily a bad decision to hire an otherwise qualified pregnant person.
From what I understand from the HR person at that company, they could not have asked her during the interview if she was pregnant and they could not fire her for that reason after she was hired. They could have not hired her in the first place, after noticing she was pregnant, but that couldn’t legally have been the excuse for not hiring her.
Pregnant women being hired: If they can perform the essential job functions, they are as eligible as anyone, and pregnancy or other conditions are not grounds for excluding someone from hire.
If the woman is considered disabled (varies from state to state) she can ask for reasonable accomodations from the company to do her job and the comapny must oblige. The accomodations cannot be a harship on the company (unless they are ok with it). She doesn’t have to ask for accomodations, but she may.
For example, a pregnant woman might want a footrest and special chair to do her essential job function of sitting in front of a PC and reading invoices all day. The company is expected to provide those things. But, once provided, she is expected to perform as anyone else is.
If there is a job that requires lifting boxes all day, and her pregnancy prevents it, then she can’t perform the essential job functions and does seem to be qualified -thus she can be refused employment.
Summary…
So, a company cannot just avoid hiring a pregnant woman, but the pregnancy may lead to refusal to hire if it prevents her from doing her essential job functions (in which even reasonable accomodations can’t help), such as lifting boxes all day.
I appreciate the answers, thank you very much.
C3 that’s the coolest story!
You know, nobody’s really addressed what I think is the interesting part of the OP- the fact that the woman is 8.5 months pregnant at the time of the interview. As I read missbunny’s link, it appears to me that pregnant women have to be treated the same as those with similar limitations who are not pregnant. One of the 8.5 month pregnant woman’s limitations is that she is going to need an undetermined amount of time off within a few weeks of being hired. She may not even be able to start when the company wants the job filled. If the start date is two or three months away, that wouldn’t be an issue, and if the woman is two months pregnant, it wouldn’t already be known that she’ll need time off within a few weeks. As far as I know, (and I could be wrong) a company can refuse to hire someone who needs an undetermined amount of time off within weeks of being hired for a reason other than pregnancy. The pregnancy itself isn’t a valid reason not to hire her, but the need for time off so soon might be, whether it’s due to pregnancy or some other reason.
What I want to know is, what in the heck is an 8.5 month pregnant woman doing looking for a job in the first place?
Robin
She could be looking for a company to pay for the medical costs. She could also be trying to get a job knowing the company will have to pay her for the time off.
I have never worked for or even heard of a company that gives full benefits from date of hire. They probably do exist, but the vast majority of businesses have a probationary period of some sort, usually 30 to 90 days. The pregnancy would also be a pre-existing condition as far as any medical insurance was concerned.
I don’t know the specific requirements of the Family Medical Leave Act, but I don’t think that an employer is mandated to pay anything at all for an employee who takes maternity leave, just to guarantee that the job will still be there after the leave. I don’t know whether a brand-new employee would be entitled to even that much.
Holy crap. I was just talking to a friend of mine about a problem she is having!
She is 3 months pregnant and works as a salaried restaurant manager. When she asked her boss if she could move to the day shift as she gets very tired when she is forced to close the place up at 1am, he looked at her and said that she was no longer salaried, was given an hourly wage which amounted to a huge paycut and then ordered her into the office to get the paperwork. And he is still making her keep the hours she had before! I’m sure she has some sort of actionable case. This guy is a cruel joke of the human race. She’s been working with this guy for years.
Actually, even if she found a company that offers full medical from date of hire, it’s unlikely that the insurance would cover the full cost of the birth. Even if they covered the delivery and hospital bills, but nothing prior to date of hire. It’s also likely that the insurance company will consider this a pre-existing condition and refuse coverage.
Robin
Just a few comments here…
For what it’s worth, I’ve never had a job that the benefits didn’t start on the day you were hired. I don’t agree with the assertion that the “vast majority of businesses have a probationary period of some sort.”
As far as pre-existing condition… I thought the whole point of group health insurance is that nothing was considered pre-existing. That’s why group insurance through a job is so great - the company contracts with the insurance company to cover all employees, regardless of how sick or healthy they are. That’s also why group health insurance policies are so costly.
FMLA: you have to work one year worth of hours to be eligible for family leave and have your job guranteed. (If they hired her and she left within 45 days, they did not have to guarantee her job when she was due to return. They can replace her.)
Benefits: Many companies hold off on medical, dental and other benefits for ‘x’ amount of time. 30, 60, 90days or longer.
By law pregnancy may not be considered a pre-existing condition.