When to tell potential employer about pregnancy?

[TheIncredibles!]

You seem to be taking this awfully personally. No one said any such thing.

I'm not getting it either. She was clearly talking about how a 12 month leave is a positive as regards to teaching and how it is a positive in other areas as well. No bashing to be found that I can see. None of this "protest" makes any sense to me.

My previous company had a main facility in Canada. We had to deal with leaves in the US and leaves in Canada and while the long term 12 month leave in some cases was hard, the short term one we have here was just as well. With the 12 month leave in Canada it takes a few weeks to get the replacement fully on board. Then they're with you for 11 more months. In the US it's so short you either try and tough it out by not hiring anybody to cover which is a huge burden on those covering or you hire a temp who is clueless for most of their term there and then the original employee comes back and they struggle for a few weeks to find their way back into their job with new routines andsleep patterns at home.

 

[wvjules]

What type of a company would fire a person that needed leave for cancer treatments? That is pretty crappy and not a company to would want to associate with.

 

[Rhombus]

I guess my personal feelings would get in the way and would find that firing a person that has been told that they have cancer is a bit callous.

I was out for an extended period of time last year, five months to be exact. My employer was very understanding and my job was waiting for me when I came back.

No one was actually fired for disclosing they had cancer. I was responding to a "what-if" question asked of me by another poster. Yes, I believe my company would let a person go, after their 90 day probationary period, if they revealed during that period that they needed extended time off for cancer treatment, pregnancy, or really any other reason. If they revealed the need during a first or subsequent interview, they wouldn't even be offered a position. Callous? Yes, perhaps so.

Pregnancy leave for established employees is not a problem. Neither would it be for those with medical issues.

 

[ZellyB]

Everyone be honest for a second...

You're hiring for A position. You get 100's of resumes. You find the top 10 and interview them. After the interview, you find three candidates you'd be happy with. One of the candidates has volunteered they're pregnant and due at the time of your next big project. With everything else being equal, do you:

1) Hire one of the other two candidates?
2) Hire the pregnant candidate?

I would hope if the pregnant candidate is that much better than the others, you'd hire them, but in this scenario, they're not. So, three equal candidates, but one is pregnant. Can you honestly say that wouldn't factor into your decision?

It would be very hard not to factor it in which is why I don't want to know! That said, the scenario you describe has been rare in my experience that you would have three candidates who are truly completely equal. But, if the scenario you describe did occur, then I can only say I would HOPE that I would disregard the pregnancy. The truth is when I hire someone I'm hoping they will remain in the job for an extended period of time. Pregnancy leaves, while challenging to manage, are limited in time (12 weeks usually at most in the US), and 12 weeks versus the years of employment I hope I get from the person is a small price to pay if they will be a good employee. There's also no guarantees that just because I hire someone who isn't pregnant at that moment that they won't get pregnant within a short amount of time unless I limit myself to hiring only men or women past child-bearing age.

Makes good sense. In this particular case, I'm guessing by the due date the OP is 18 or 19 weeks along. That's kind of at the point when some start to show.
So it would be easy to ignore this issue it in the early months, who would know?
I'm not sure what you do when it's obvious. If she starts to mention it, do you stop her and say, uh-uh, we aren't allowed to talk about any health issues in the interview process?
I am curious. It's a sticky issue.

I have told candidates who have offered the information that it cannot factor into my decision and I stop any other discussion about it. If they are visibly showing, I do not discuss it or bring it up and again if they mention anything about it, I stop them. I've only had this scenarios occur a few times in my career, but it has happened.

 

[morgan98]

It would be very hard not to factor it in which is why I don't want to know! That said, the scenario you describe has been rare in my experience that you would have three candidates who are truly completely equal. But, if the scenario you describe did occur, then I can only say I would HOPE that I would disregard the pregnancy. The truth is when I hire someone I'm hoping they will remain in the job for an extended period of time. Pregnancy leaves, while challenging to manage, are limited in time (12 weeks usually at most in the US), and 12 weeks versus the years of employment I hope I get from the person is a small price to pay if they will be a good employee. There's also no guarantees that just because I hire someone who isn't pregnant at that moment that they won't get pregnant within a short amount of time unless I limit myself to hiring only men or women past child-bearing age.


I have told candidates who have offered the information that it cannot factor into my decision and I stop any other discussion about it. If they are visibly showing, I do not discuss it or bring it up and again if they mention anything about it, I stop them. I've only had this scenarios occur a few times in my career, but it has happened.

This is what I was trying to say in my posts as well. This is just like, even as a woman, I do not want to hear a mom talk about her three or four kids at an interview because, quite frankly, that makes me nervous about absenteeism issues as well. To me this can be as big of an issue over the course of time as a medical or maternity leave. While some chit chat and get to know you is good in an interview, there are many things that can be overshared that I would prefer not to know. I am trying to judge based on work related qualifications, not a bunch of personal things.

ETA: The same should go for a dad, but in my work experience, I have seen many more mom's careers suffer when there are issues with children that the dad's. Not all the time, but more than 50%. I am not trying to open a can of worms, but if we are being honest...

 

[ilovefh]

Makes good sense. In this particular case, I'm guessing by the due date the OP is 18 or 19 weeks along. That's kind of at the point when some start to show.
So it would be easy to ignore this issue it in the early months, who would know?
I'm not sure what you do when it's obvious. If she starts to mention it, do you stop her and say, uh-uh, we aren't allowed to talk about any health issues in the interview process?
I am curious. It's a sticky issue.

OP here. Yes 18 weeks but I won't show until closer to the 3rd trimester. Right now I'm still in normal clothes and actually my belt is two notches tighter! (I have lost about 15 lbs) The interview will be a Skype interview so even if I were showing they won't see me.

 

[undertheradar]

Gees I'm moving to CA if they get bigger pensions than CEOs!!!

Why are they different? You have never bee a govt employee I take it? We actually have to read, & take a test & sign a code of ethics. I am not seeing to many ethical HR people on this subject.

Odd, you appear to have very cut and dried views of the law. Say you are the owner of a small business and you hire this pregnant woman, who did not reveal that she was pregnant. You invest time hiring and training her to how things are done in your business. You hired her with the intent of solving an employee need that your business has. Then, several months after hiring, she begins to miss work for doctor's appointments. You don't suspect anything, and then she comes and tells you she will be out on maternity leave during your busy season. You hired her to help your business, now you have to find another worker be a temporary solution to your worker shortage. You can honestly say that you would not feel that the newly hired pregnant employee was misleading? Remember that this is from a "for profit" business view, not a government job.

 

[undertheradar]

I fundamentally disagree with you here. An employer isn't allowed to know if someone is or is not pregnant during the hiring process so considering they have lied by not giving the employer information the employer shouldn't have is as discriminatory as not hiring someone as they are pregnant.

During employment selection you also don't have the right to know if someone is male/female/black/white/gay/old/disabled.....Withholding information that is not part of the selection process is not lying it is good common sense.

If employers never discriminated people would be able to be fully open. We are far from being there.

Somehow the sex of an applicant becomes known during pre-hire drug testing, onsite interviews. Age and appearance are also revealed at this point of the process. While a perfect society would have zero discrimination, I don't believe that we will see it during my lifetime.

 

[MickeySP]

Odd, you appear to have very cut and dried views of the law. Say you are the owner of a small business and you hire this pregnant woman, who did not reveal that she was pregnant. You invest time hiring and training her to how things are done in your business. You hired her with the intent of solving an employee need that your business has. Then, several months after hiring, she begins to miss work for doctor's appointments. You don't suspect anything, and then she comes and tells you she will be out on maternity leave during your busy season. You hired her to help your business, now you have to find another worker be a temporary solution to your worker shortage. You can honestly say that you would not feel that the newly hired pregnant employee was misleading? Remember that this is from a "for profit" business view, not a government job.

Yes I am cut and dried I do not break the law i uphold it

I am done you can rationalize criminal behavior all you Want it is what it is

I am not religious but the saying " what you do to the least of my brothers you do to me"

Not coming back. Cement meet forehead

 

[rigs32]

Just an FYI. Illegal does not automatically equal criminal.

Criminal implies possible incarceration as a penalty. Other illegal behavior can result in a fine or some other sanction by the government in a non criminal way.

 

[Julylady]

I have had the opportunity to hire about 25 people in my career. About 20 years ago a candidate disclosed she was pregnant at the close of her second interview. We had no idea. Sandy was highly qualified and the interview team ranked her as their number one candidate. We hired her. She worked four months and then took a 3-month maternity leave. Sandy is now working in a high level management position with the organization having been promoted several times over the years. She turned out to be one of the best hires I have ever made. I can't imagine the place without her. In the long run, giving her a 3 month leave was well worth it!

 

[bcla]

Just an FYI. Illegal does not automatically equal criminal.

Criminal implies possible incarceration as a penalty. Other illegal behavior can result in a fine or some other sanction by the government in a non criminal way.

I was thinking the same thing. I remember when Giuliani was mentioning that being in the US illegally wasn't specifically a criminal violation. As a former US Attorney he was correct. It was a civil matter with civil deportation proceedings as the main issue.

However, there does exist the possibility of criminal sanctions for illegal hiring practices. It's mostly in state law though. It's exceeding rare though for it to be prosecuted as a crime. The majority of the time, authorities just issue a fine and/or courts order compensation. You'd need some sort of smoking gun, although a lot of people have no clue about how their emails or other messages can be retrieved even when they think they've been deleted.

http://employment.findlaw.com/emplo...ivil-rights-act-of-1964-equal-employment.html

(b) In the case of an alleged unlawful employment practice occurring in a State, or political subdivision of a State, which has a State or local law prohibiting the unlawful employment practice alleged and establishing or authorizing a State or local authority to grant or seek relief from such practice or to institute criminal proceedings with respect thereto upon receiving notice thereof, no charge may be filed under subsection (a) by the person aggrieved before the expiration of sixty days after proceedings have been commenced under the State or local law, unless such proceedings have been earlier terminated, provided that such sixty-day period shall be extended to one hundred and twenty days during the first year after the effective date of such State or local law. If any requirement for the commencement of such proceedings is imposed by a State or local authority other than a requirement of the filing of a written and signed statement of the facts upon which the proceeding is based, the proceeding shall be deemed to have been commenced for the purposes of this subsection at the time such statement is sent by registered mail to the appropriate State or local authority.

 

[tvguy]

. We have an extensive, 1 year long training process. To have someone live in the middle of that is very disruptive. I get that some things can't be controlled but if know up front there might be issues, for whatever reason, I won't pick that person if I have nine other equally qualified candidates.
.

That is amazing, in a great way, that you have such extensive training and are investing in your staff. Anymore it seems businesses give folks a few days training and hope they leave after 2 years so they have minimal vesting in the 401k plan, and never get more than the minimum vacation.

 

[bcla]

Odd, you appear to have very cut and dried views of the law. Say you are the owner of a small business and you hire this pregnant woman, who did not reveal that she was pregnant. You invest time hiring and training her to how things are done in your business. You hired her with the intent of solving an employee need that your business has. Then, several months after hiring, she begins to miss work for doctor's appointments. You don't suspect anything, and then she comes and tells you she will be out on maternity leave during your busy season. You hired her to help your business, now you have to find another worker be a temporary solution to your worker shortage. You can honestly say that you would not feel that the newly hired pregnant employee was misleading? Remember that this is from a "for profit" business view, not a government job.

However, all other businesses are subject to the same rules. Certainly it's easy enough to understand, but the law is supposed to put every business owner on the same footing. I mentioned the jury duty issue, where some claim that they're indispensable at work because it's a small business or that a replacement can't be found for the business in time or trained properly in time.

 

[sam_gordon]

I won't pick that person if I have nine other equally qualified candidates.

I think this is the key. If you have someone who stands above the rest, you'll hire them regardless of pregnancy status. However, if you have EQUAL candidates, and a disclosed pregnancy is the ONLY difference, of course it's going to factor in. Does that mean it's discriminatory to NOT hire them? If so, wouldn't it be discriminatory to not hire another candidate?

 

[scoutie]

I think everybody is looking at the short term, instead of the long term. With a stellar candidate, does it matter if she's taking four weeks off this school year? What if she wasn't pregnant this year, but got pregnant, and needed to take time of the following year? When I had my first child, I interviewed in early June for a start date of August. I found out I was pregnant two weeks later. I took time off that school year, and have been a valued employee for ten years now.

 

[CanBeGrumpy]

This is a case where I would "let my conscience be my guide". I, personally, would not feel comfortable getting hired if I knew I was pregnant and did not tell my employer.
Also, are you sure you want to get a job? You are moving soon, you are pregnant, you have a child already, your husband will be starting a new job, and school will start in August. It is already almost the end of June. I imagine you need to look for a house, get established with a doctor for prenatal care, find daycare for your child (if you are going back to work), and deal with tons of other things that come with moving. It all sounds extremely stressful even if you don't have a job! If I was in this situation and we could survive on Dh's salary, I wouldn't even consider getting a job right away!! I would probably wait and see if anything came up for the second semester of the school year. Teachers leave at all different times, so maybe you could start a job in January or beyond.
I hope everything works out for you.

 

[eliza61]

I think everybody is looking at the short term, instead of the long term. With a stellar candidate, does it matter if she's taking four weeks off this school year? What if she wasn't pregnant this year, but got pregnant, and needed to take time of the following year? When I had my first child, I interviewed in early June for a start date of August. I found out I was pregnant two weeks later. I took time off that school year, and have been a valued employee for ten years now.

How do you know if some one is going to be "Stellar"?? Remember we're going off of the interview and a piece of paper. believe me, we've had plenty of candidates that on paper seem like they would be great and turn out to be not so great.

My best friend is one of the leading attorneys in the state of Pennsylvania, one of the youngest here that has argued before the state supreme court and will possibly have a shot at the U.S. supreme court, all kinds of awards and kudo's, she was let go of her job a few years ago because the firm said she wasn't a "good fit" and she totally agrees that she wasn't.

That's often why employee benefits are tiered, the longer you are there (in some ways proving yourself) the more goodies you get.

The reality is when someone walks into an interview we don't have a crystal ball saying whether or not they will be promotable, a good employee or a waste of air.

 

[Christine]

That is amazing, in a great way, that you have such extensive training and are investing in your staff. Anymore it seems businesses give folks a few days training and hope they leave after 2 years so they have minimal vesting in the 401k plan, and never get more than the minimum vacation.

Well, I work for the government. The particular task we do actually requires someone to have MANY years of previous, lower level experience (private or public sector). Once they get into my office, it takes about 1 year of one-on-one consistent training to impart all of the policy and regulation information. To have a break during such services is NOT a good thing. But if someone were outstanding and pregnant, I would do it. I would not be happy that it was hidden from me.

 

[Monykalyn]

Not all subs are disruptions either. My oldest, her freshman year, had an algebra teacher who didn't seem to like her subject much (wouldn't let kids ask questions in class, but wouldn't be available for questions at any other time, refused to explain homework if kids had questions)- she got in a car accident (thankfully ok now) that required several weeks of recuperation. Happened about a month after start of school. My kid was really struggling in the class until the sub stepped in- he knew his subject, was able to teach in a way the kids got, enjoyed helping them etc. my oldest has a 4.5 GPA- she is not a whiner either but that sub really helped her as his teaching style was better suited to this class.
My youngest has minor anxiety issues- really dislikes changes in routine to the point of being in tears on last day of school- but rarely has said anything about subs (his teachers let us know when they might be out). If any changes like this are truly a disruption he would definitely let me know. We do live in a great school district and very rarely is there a teacher or sub who isn't really great.

OP - unless you really feel you want to no need to mention the pregnancy. If the district is really that transient with lots of openings every year that school may be very greatful to get someone who stays for awhile. Hope things go well for you!