Pregnancy and Discrimination
Two ladies were selected as Accounts Manager in an organisation which was consulting me on various HR matters including recruitment of managers. The organisation wanted to appoint one of them. The most preferred candidate had recently discovered that she was pregnant. She truthfully informed so to the doctor during her pre-employment medical test. The doctor recorded it in his report. She was medically fit to perform the job.
When the report reached the Chief Manager of the organisation he declined to appoint her. ‘She will go away in six or seven months’ he said, ‘I know we will have to repeat this selection process then again, because she will not come back for another six to eight months.’ I protested saying that one cannot reject a candidate because she is pregnant, but I also thought that there was some merit in his statement. Purely business decision. I was very disappointed with my failure to articulate well my thoughts, so this event remained etched in my memory.
Last year I was attending a training program last year at ILO’s Industrial Training Centre in Turin, Italy when this case and issue somehow came up in the discussion of the participants. A large number of them were ladies. They were unanimous that there was nothing wrong in the decision of the manager of appointing another candidate instead of employing a pregnant lady. ‘Would it not be discrimination?’ I asked, they said ‘No.’
The Washington Supreme Court has decided the issue now. In the case Hegwine v. Longview Fibre Company, the Washington Supreme Court held that “pregnancy-related employment discrimination claims are matters of sex discrimination.” Employers may not treat pregnancy as a disability to avoid providing accommodations for any temporary inability to work caused by pregnancy or a pregnancy-related condition. Further, the Court confirmed that inquiring as to a prospective employee’s pregnancy status constitutes unlawful sex discrimination, unless the inquiry is based on a valid bona fide occupational qualification.
To establish a business necessity defense an employer must prove that the challenged employment practice utilized significantly correlates with the fundamental requirements of job performance.
To establish a bona fide occupational qualification, an employer must show that excluding pregnant women was essential to the purposes of the position or that all or substantially all pregnant women would be unable to efficiently perform the duties of the position, such that hiring them would undermine the company’s operations.
So that settles the matter. No discrimination against pregnant women in hiring.
Vivek
मराठीमधे लिहायचे आहे ? तर मग हे वापरुन पहा. खुपच सोपे आहे. आजच मी हे शिकलो
http://www.paahijen.com/scratchpad
Another best site is http://www.baraha.com
Dhanyawad, aajach karun pahato.
Vivek
This was an insightful read sir. Thanks for sharing !
IMHO, we in India have a long way to go, to get to speed on such legislation. And that starts in our minds too..
Thanks kavi and Harekrishnaji.
How times have changed. In my first job with one of India’s (then in early 70’s) leading software companies, In the final interview with the top boss, a comment was made on my unmarried staus, and the likelyhood that i would get married and move away etc etc.
Somehow no one bats an eyelid when fellows arbitrarily leave for better prospects elsewhere…..
Realities have several shades. Eventually it boils down to utility of the situation a few months hence!
Hi, I would hazard a guess and opt for the comment made by anil – As usual I am sitting on the fence – which can be very painful, I know… But if I were to be an employer I must admit, I would still say – Sorry, but I must put my business first ! Come back later though when you decide you can be an employee… I think most women would say the same… when it comes to ‘business’ that’s what is important… Flaming nora! in UK there are a lot of small firms going down the drain because of rules like this…
Thanks Ugich Konitari, Anil and Kate for your comments and making the debate richer.
Vivek