Pregnancy / (Expected Pregnancy) Discrimination At The Workplace

I had heard cases of how some women employees were let go as a result of getting pregnant, but the cases always sounded absurd and unreal until it happened to me. In my case however, I was not sacked for getting pregnant but rather, getting married.

May 2015 after my wedding, I was issued a termination letter and a new staff had been engaged to take over from me, just like that, without any valid reasons whatsoever.

I was offered just two months salary which was for lieu of notice and leave allowance. I had been working for the company for 8 years, and this was how they chose to let me go.

I arranged several meetings with my superiors to understand why I had been let go as; an act I thought was unfair to me, but proper reasons that justified the treatment was not forthcoming.

So I decided to ‘dig’. I found out that the owners believed that married women were not as efficient as single women as they were perceived to have greater responsibilities. 

The bosses had no issue with me when I was single, but immediately terminated my appointment immediately I got married. 

I wanted justice to be served so I reported the issue to the Labour Commission. I am awaiting their judgement on this.

-Hannah

Does this sound absurd or what? Yes! Ridiculously absurd! I struggle to find a fit for the married women and single woman efficiency comparison. How is that even a measure of efficiency? So one woman gets married, she is suddenly less likely to deliver? Wow!

I wouldn’t dispute this though. I have had my fair share of interviews since reaching career-hood, and the question of marriage does come up often. To many employers, marriage rings pregnancy which means forced lesser workload, sick call ins, leading to less productivity. 

While the latter may not be stretched too far from the truth, there are many pregnant women sitting in offices today who may be even more productive than the single women.

Pregnancy or its related is and cannot be the basis of termination of one’s appointment. It is outright wrong, and there is a Pregnancy Discrimination Act (PDA) against this.

‘The Pregnancy Discrimination Act (PDA) is an amendment to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.  Discrimination on the basis of pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions constitutes unlawful sex discrimination under Title VII.  Women affected by pregnancy or related conditions must be treated in the same manner as other applicants or employees who are similar in their ability or inability to work’ (Read more here http://www.eeoc.gov/) 

The fact that this case looks like an expected pregnancy discrimination makes it even worse. 

I once went into an interview room, and the employer asked around which year I was looking to get married. I was far from expecting that question. I was 22. So I added 4 more years to my age and told him around 26. He nodded and continued ‘We can work with that’. 

So I wondered what if I was married by the time of the interview. What if I had kids? What if I was nearing my anticipated marriage year? Would I have still gotten the job? (Yes, I did get the job!)

It isn’t in every woman’s plan to have children right after marriage or to have children at all. But even if it were so, would that be enough reason to boot them out of their jobs?

To the best of my knowledge what Hannah experienced was an injustice, and yes, she deserves to get in the dirt and dig. 

There should be a well-argued reason by the employers as to why she was let go. An expectation of pregnancy or its anticipation is not enough reason. You’re welcome to differ?