So, this is an interesting court decision with an article from the National Post. What floors me is not so much the case itself or the decision – but the first three comments that were posted by readers with I’m sure many to follow by the time you read this in my blog. While I understand the plight of the employer, I also get the human aspect of what the employee is facing and am absoluetly on board with the human rights aspects of this case. Read the article:
Ontario salon fined $35,000 for firing pregnant employeeA Mississauga salon that canned a pregnant employee 15 minutes into her first shift has been ordered by the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario to cough up $35,000 and start an “accommodation of pregnant employees program” (step No. 1: don’t fire them).
Jessica Maciel was four months pregnant when she interviewed for a position at Nino D’Arena salon. Whether or not a prospective new hire is about to start shopping in the maternity section is, according to the Ontario Human Rights Code, none of her boss’s business. So Maciel kept mum about her status, fearing — apparently rightfully so — that she wouldn’t get the job.
As Canwest News Service reports, “Jessica Maciel, 20, will receive $15,000 as compensation for injury to her dignity and feelings and $20,000 in lost wages and maternity benefits from the owner of two related hair salons, the tribunal ruled this week, finding Maciel’s pregnancy was ‘likely the only factor’ in her firing.”
Maciel’s lawyer Kate Sellar had this to say, “This story is typical and it shouldn’t be,” … “It’s illegal to fire workers because they are pregnant. Our centre receives 40 calls a week from women who are in a similar situation.” Most of the calls come from women who are fired when their employer learns they are pregnant. Others are from women terminated while on maternity leave or returning back to work.”
Here’s the first 3 comments:
by Fred_001
Oct 30 2009
1:10 PMListen, sweetheart, this is a business – actually, my private business, my personal private property, that I built with my own two hands – who I invite into it to work is just much my private affair as who you invite into your personal home.
It’s NOT a community services program for mothers-to-be to rack up the hours they need to go on maternity UI in a few months. It costs me money, time, and disruption to advertise, interview, hire, train and evaluate new staff. You’re gonna use me for a few months to get your UI hours, spend the last couple of those bellyaching about your sore back and you’re late again because of morning sickness and on and on…then throw my investment in you out the window, put me through all that again to hire a temporary replacement for you, expecting me to juggle business and temps in order to keep this job open for you – then you’ll wait until the last minute of your preggers leave to inform me that you’re never coming back, wasting my investment in you and leaving me in the lurch after all that……
Why don’t you just live with the life choice you made, and leave me to hire a full-time permanent employee that won’t ruin me. Oh, I know why, ’cause we live in a communist state…
Oct 30 2009
2:06 PMJust another reason to disband this outrageous HRC and fire the nitwits that are employed by it.
So, a woman does not have to inform the employer she is pregnant when interviewing yet on the first day of employment can tell the same employer she is pregnant and wants her maternity benefits. Nice gig. Of course, the beanbrains at the HRC, never having to actually run a business, think small businesses are just flush with cash and can afford to spend money hiring two people.
And where do they get off telling the business to start up a program for accomodation of pregnant employees? Tell them to shove it!!
Waiting to hear from all the HRC supporters who say that their decisions are not costly.
Oct 30 2009
2:54 PMWhether or not the law states “you don’t have to disclose info to potential employers such as being preggers”, a crime is being committed. It is called fraud of non disclosure and places the employer in a moral hazard (trap) position, where the negative consequences of hiring choice cannot be determined.
An employment contract was entered into without full material disclosure so both parties (employer / employee) can determine whether it is in their MUTUAL interests to form an agreement (contract) for mutual self-interest. Not to mention destruction of trust, required for working together.
This “law” should be thrown out, as illegal.
But, it won’t and unemployed females will realize that repeating this farce, spilling the preggers beans at the opportune time and getting fired (and getting a lawyer to extort a settlement on this precedent) or, getting all the entitlement perks at employers expense is a good gig.
Employers will wise up and, for unprovable reasons, fail to hire females who may be at risk of becoming pregnant, on the employers dime. Up goes female unemployment (and whining).
This of course, will be cast as an outrageous social injustice and, we will have female “affirmative action”.
In fact, is this not the meaning of Iggy’s “female empowerment” agenda?
Luckily, all of this is crumbling, We will soon have no economic resources to subsidize unproductive entitlements, at others expense.
If you make a choice (such as having children), the consequences and costs are FULLY yours. Choose carefully.
There you have it. I could comment on this at so many different levels, but for me it really comes down to ethics and fairness. There are so many other ways the salon could have dealt with the “issue” and they chose what is probably the least ethical and compassioate one. And, obviously did not consult an attorney, or even consult the internet for Employment Standards information prior to taking action. Let this be a lesson to you all to have some compassion for your fellow humans, or at the very least, be legislatively compliant.
OK, enough said. Unleash your wrath on me.
Follow me on Twitter
I saw the same article on the Star’s site, and was similarly shocked by the comments on it.
I lot of the comments demonstrate a fair bit of understandable ignorance. I mean, you can forgive people for not understanding the nature of ‘undue hardship’…for not realizing that, even if a probationary period exists, it doesn’t give the employer immunity to the Human Rights Code…even for not realizing that the Tribunal is not the same as the Commission (an error which one of your quoted commenters exemplifies)…
…but I find the notion that a pregnant woman is *blameworthy* for choosing not to disclose her pregnancy during the recruitment process to be insensitive and absurd. One can certainly understand the employer’s position in light of the heavy burdens placed upon it by the ESA and the Code, but still I had thought that our society had finally come to recognize the importance of respect for human rights, such that the employer’s actions would be recognized and accepted as patently immoral.
I would also note a Tribunal decision from a few months back, Qureshi, involving a Muslim who required an hour off on Friday afternoons to attend mosque. The employer argued that his earlier omission of this need for accommodation indicated a poor moral character, and that therefore they were justified in refusing to employ him. (The shocker in that case is that one of the employer’s HR associates told him something to the effect that God would be very understanding that he had to work.)
Had Ms. Maciel disclosed her pregnancy at first instance, she would not likely have been hired. Had Mr. Qureshi disclosed his accommodation need at first instance, his application would not have been processed. Both of these refusals by the employers would have been completely illegal, but the only effect of the early disclosure would be that it would become next-to-impossible to prove illegal discrimination.
In light of this, it baffles me that anyone can look at these individuals and say that their omissions make them bad people.
But worse, I’ve been hearing a surprising number of issues like this lately, with workplaces failing to recognize that, where pregnancy is concerned, you need to tread softly.