£200,000 payout for woman told by boss she was 'useless' when pregnant

[Honey]

Payout: Louise Manning suffered sex discrimination over pregnancy

Discrimination: Nick Medlam said he would demote Louise for being pregnant



When Louise Manning took a £55,000-a-year sales job, she was soon the apple of her boss's eye.


Managing director Nick Medlam swiftly groomed her for a directorship. But then she told him she had unexpectedly become pregnant.
An angry Mr Medlam, 60, said she would be "useless", would "never be the same again", and that instead of the BMW company car she was due to receive she would get a "runaround".
And while on maternity leave she was demoted twice.
Now a tribunal has ruled that Mr Medlam and his firm sexually discriminated against Mrs Manning 24 times. She is due a payout of up to £200,000.
Mrs Manning, 39, said last night: "Mr Medlam was like a neanderthal in his reaction to my pregnancy. They have wrecked my career path and my life has been put on hold."
At her job interview at the offices of Safetell, which makes security screens for banks, in Dartford, Kent, she was questioned about having children.
Mrs Manning told the tribunal in Ashford, Kent: "Nick stated he was going to ask me something he shouldn't. He asked outright whether I was considering having a family.
"I answered honestly based upon our plans at that time. I said we had no intention of starting a family.
"I was in no doubt that, had I said to the contrary, he wouldn't have offered me the job."
Mrs Manning and her husband Peter, a business consultant, were invited to dinner at the home of Mr Medlam and his wife Helen, in Hildenborough, Kent.
Mrs Manning said: "Mrs Medlam said things such as, 'You are such a lovely couple. It would be a shame if you didn't have children'.
"She was checking us out to make absolutely certain that, if he offered me the job, I wasn't going to let him down by getting myself pregnant."
Mrs Manning, of Chelmsford, Essex, began work as marketing and national accounts manager in August 2004.
Within months she had been promoted and seemed likely to join the board.
But in April 2005 she learned she was eight weeks pregnant.
"Peter and I were delighted but shocked. It wasn't something we had been planning.
"I told Nick just after my promotion took effect. He was shocked and initially quiet.
"I volunteered that I wanted to continue working after the baby was born, but he said, 'I can't do without a sales director for 18 months - and you'll never be the same again.'
"Nick went on to say that I would be useless for the next 18 months.' Within days, he asked her to give up her promotion, saying: 'You'll be hopeless in two months' time."
Mrs Manning said: "I was appalled. I was pregnant, not ill."
She had been due to have her Renault Laguna upgraded to a BMW 3 series but was told she would instead be given a "suitable runaround" - although in the end she kept the Laguna.
Mr Medlam then left a memo on her desk. It said: "Feel betrayed. . . tempted to dismiss and take the consequences" and accused her of a "lack of honesty when pregnancy suspected".
In a subsequent appraisal he wrote that "Louise's pregnancy has quite naturally had an adverse effect on her ability".
Mrs Manning went on maternity leave in October 2005, and gave birth to daughter Lillias in November. She was demoted while off and extended her maternity leave to October 2006.
But by the time she was due to return to work, she was six weeks pregnant with son Henry.
Her boss tried to make her work part-time. After she was given a role she thought inferior she was signed off with stress. She resigned last October.
The tribunal said: "It is not often that the tribunal is faced with such a blatant response to notification of pregnancy."
Compensation will be set next month when the tribunal will also hear Mrs Manning claim she was constructively dismissed. Mr Medlam and his firm denied sexual discrimination and deny constructive dismissal.

£200,000 payout for woman told by boss she was 'useless' when pregnant | the Daily Mail

[smf]

what a asswipe ,glad she sued and won

[buttmunch]

In which cave does this knuckle scraper live?

[greysfang]

Somebody needs to cap that dick.

[Dixie Normos]

*sighs and puts on the Devil's Advocado mask*

I work in a company with parents and non-parents. Guess which ones leave early most days, call in sick at least once every two weeks, get emergency calls once monthly and always take extra vacation time, slotting more work on their colleagues?

No, it's not fair to be treated like a leper when you're preggers but honestly, her work and that of her colleagues will be undeniably altered after her baby's birth. It's true, in an unfair sorta way.

[Sweetie]

^ Seriously! And I think it's a load of shit that she was even able to sue JUST because someone called her useless WHILE pregnant. Hell, there are people of people that get called useless all the time. They don't get settlements.
I DESPISE people that sue over nothing.

[buttmunch]

I work in a company with parents and non-parents. Guess which ones leave early most days, call in sick at least once every two weeks, get emergency calls once monthly and always take extra vacation time, slotting more work on their colleagues?

No, it's not fair to be treated like a leper when you're preggers but honestly, her work and that of her colleagues will be undeniably altered after her baby's birth. It's true, in an unfair sorta way.

But it is completely wrong to penalize someone on the basis that their work MIGHT be affected by the impending birth of their child. You can't penalize someone for something they haven't even done.

And yeah, I've worked with parents who take advantage but in reality I find that parents bend over backwards not to take advantage because the non-breeders are ready with daggers sharpened waiting for it to happen.

[AliceInWonderland]

she should get waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay more $$$ for that shit! dumb bastard! where the fuck does he think he came from?! A WOMAN!!!!!!

[Dixie Normos]

Originally Posted by buttmunch

But it is completely wrong to penalize someone on the basis that their work MIGHT be affected by the impending birth of their child. You can't penalize someone for something they haven't even done.

Agreed, he'd have a better case after documented absences, etc. NOT that I'd condone such behavior.

And yeah, I've worked with parents who take advantage but in reality I find that parents bend over backwards not to take advantage because the non-breeders are ready with daggers sharpened waiting for it to happen.

I personally find that the parents here don't take advantage of the fact that they have kids. It is because they have kids that they have to leave early (to drive 'em to rehearsals, games, etc) Call in sick (because they have to stay with their child who is ill, and kids get sick often due to the newness of their immune systems) and take more vacation time (because kids get school holidays, and who else'll look after 'em?). These are all normal family scenarios and I hope one day to be a part of them

As for my previous revelations...the avocado made me do it.

[Aella]

Originally Posted by Dixie Normos

*sighs and puts on the Devil's Advocado mask*

I work in a company with parents and non-parents. Guess which ones leave early most days, call in sick at least once every two weeks, get emergency calls once monthly and always take extra vacation time, slotting more work on their colleagues?

No, it's not fair to be treated like a leper when you're preggers but honestly, her work and that of her colleagues will be undeniably altered after her baby's birth. It's true, in an unfair sorta way.

I agree. Not talking about this case specifically, as the boss is clearly a Neanderthal and an asshole, but a certain double standard exists.

It's gotten to the point where it affects employer's willingness to hire women. I can't tell you the number of job interviews I've been on where I've been asked whether I planned to 'start a family' any time soon. Of course I replied a resounding NO (hell, I was in my mid-twenties for some of those!), but I doubt all of them believed me. It sucks that some women get a job and only to get pregnant a few months later and get maternity leave-it just makes it that much more difficult for women to get hired.

[buttmunch]

^^Which is kind of hte point he minister is making, I guess. If men took on thier fair share of child-rearing, etc. then you wouldn't hear quite so much whinging about mom's-to-be and how their work performances will be affected.

[sputnik]

yeah having kids will affect your work sometimes. but that's not the point, IMO. the point is, as a culture, we have to make the workplace more family-friendly, more woman-friendly. i mean, it's the sort of thing that pisses people off until they have kids of their own and realise it's inevitable. as for employers asking women if they plan on having children soon - i think that's illegal in some countries, which doesn't stop them and if you refuse to answer, i doubt they'll call you back for another interview, much less give you the job.
it sucks that women are expected to sacrifice everything for their kids. and if they do choose to go back to work, they are punished or discriminated against for having a family. it pisses me off to no end and is just one more reason why i'm increasingly less inclined to ever have kids.

[buttmunch]

Eh, fuck it, have the little heathens and tell the non-breeders to kiss your big mamma ass.

[crumpet]

yeah having kids will affect your work sometimes. but that's not the point, IMO. the point is, as a culture, we have to make the workplace more family-friendly, more woman-friendly. i mean, it's the sort of thing that pisses people off until they have kids of their own and realise it's inevitable. As a person with no kids and no future kids, I expect to receive some additional compensation in the form of pay or extra vacation/flex time in exchange for the leeway given to parents. It is not inevitable that your work will take a backseat sometime as evidenced by my very hard working single parent mom. Unfortunately, the more perks/accommodations are given to people, the more people begin to feel entitled to do less for the same money. If women found the balls to make their households more equal or 'woman friendly' they wouldn't need to demand this from their employers who are not responsible for making their lives enjoyable or comfortable, only for paying them for the work they do.

[suede]

She may have been discriminated against but if you really read the article - she mislead her boss and manipulated the situation for her own benefit.

"I answered honestly based upon our plans at that time. I said we had no intention of starting a family.
"I was in no doubt that, had I said to the contrary, he wouldn't have offered me the job."

Mrs Manning said: "Mrs Medlam said things such as, 'You are such a lovely couple. It would be a shame if you didn't have children'.
"She was checking us out to make absolutely certain that, if he offered me the job, I wasn't going to let him down by getting myself pregnant."

"I told Nick just after my promotion took effect. He was shocked and initially quiet.

She knowingly manipulated her answers to get ahead, to get a better placement in the company and a company car.

I don't think it's unreasonable for her not to be the director for 18 months (it's a long time to have other people do her job) and be demoted during the time she was not there to do her job.

He may have asked an inappropriate question but she misrepresented herself with her answers.

To say you have no plans to have children means you have no plans. She was smart because what her answer should have been was we have no plan at this time which she knew would mean she wasn't gonna get the job.

As far as her career being over - possible but only because she's in suit with her boss and no one is going to want to hire her because she's a risk and people don't like to sued.

For my perspective she's no better than her boss.