Last week, I got laid off from my job at a midsize company. Someone showed me an earlier draft of the layoff list from a few weeks before. I noticed the only people from the draft who didn’t get laid off were two employees who are pregnant. No pregnant employees were laid off at all.
I’m a male and wondering if I might have been let go because of my gender. Is this something I should bring to a lawyer, or am I just reading too much into it?
If you’re really thinking it’s about pregnancy, then yeah, consider a lawyer. But maybe those two workers just had better performance or were valued differently? Just a thought.
It might be about avoiding a pregnancy discrimination lawsuit. Or, maybe those two were kept for performance reasons? Do you have other examples where you felt singled out because of your gender? One instance alone might not be enough for a case.
CathyGenesis said: @Marin
Why would it cost more to keep a pregnant employee? When people get laid off, companies don’t necessarily have to give a payout.
Companies usually have to pay into unemployment when they lay people off.
@Marin
Unemployment is actually handled by state funds that companies pay into over time (like an insurance pool). The state doesn’t charge more for individual cases based on pregnancy or anything.
CathyGenesis said: @Marin
Unemployment is actually handled by state funds that companies pay into over time (like an insurance pool). The state doesn’t charge more for individual cases based on pregnancy or anything.
But who do you think covers that cost eventually? That’s why some employers try to fight unemployment claims.
@Marin
States collect from employers at a set rate. Larger companies hit a max rate and don’t see increased costs per layoff.
Example: In California, employers pay a small percentage on the first $7,000 earned per employee each year. It’s a set rate across employees, regardless of layoffs. It’s a bit different in NJ, where employees contribute too.
Isn’t it illegal to consider pregnancy when deciding who gets laid off? I don’t remember any pregnant workers being laid off here before.
To make this case, you need evidence. Just because they weren’t on the list doesn’t prove it was due to pregnancy. They could just say those employees were better performers. Without more, it’s tough to prove discrimination.
Not a lawyer, just speaking from personal experience.