I’m in Washington State.
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.
I’m not a lawyer, but if it was a draft list, you probably weren’t supposed to see it. Drafts exist for a reason. How did you get a look at it?
The only difference? You’re saying salary, years with the company, or performance weren’t factors?
Mai said:
The only difference? You’re saying salary, years with the company, or performance weren’t factors?
People sometimes think they’re the best at their job, so when they’re let go, they think it must be discrimination.
Can you actually prove discrimination, or was this just something that stood out to you when you saw the list?
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.
@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.
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
But why would it cost extra to pay unemployment for a pregnant employee?
@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.
@Marin
Thanks for the info.
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.
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.
Pregnancy is legally protected. I doubt this would hold up in court. If they did lay off a pregnant worker, people might cry discrimination too.
@Mai
Your last sentence seems a bit harsh… it’s fair to ask if gender played a role here.
If a pregnant woman were laid off, she’d probably ask the same question.
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.