Am I being discriminated against?

September 21, 2006 1:07 PM

I just had a great job interview, and I should be a lock for this job. But I'm worried they might not hire me because I have a baby. Is this sex discrimination?

I'm not keen to sue someone -- and, who knows, I may yet get an offer -- but some lines of questioning at my job interview this afternoon got me worried I may be about to be discriminated against.

This is a great job and I would be great for it. Overall, the interview went very well. When going over my background, I matter-of-factly explained that I've been out of the workforce for the last seven months since having a baby. They then went on to ask if the travel required for the position would be a problem, with a little one at home. I said no. The baby came up several more times in the interview, however, and now I can't help but think they've decided I won't be dedicated enough to the job since I have an infant at home.

I hope I'm wrong, and they're fine with the baby and make me an offer. If they don't, however, would this sort of thing qualify as sex discrimination? I doubt anyone would be similarly reticent about hiring the father of a young child. If it is hiring discrimination, how would I prove that? Is there any documentation I should keep now, just in case?

This is in Massachusetts at a privately-held company with 40 employees.

posted by libraryhead to work & money (26 comments total)

but some lines of questioning at my job interview this afternoon got me worried I may be about to be discriminated against.

Please describe how the baby came up several more times? I think we need more information on just how it shook out.
posted by canine epigram at 1:25 PM on September 21, 2006

I am not sure one way or another if this is considered discrimination in MA. However, you would be very very hard pressed to make the case and energies may be better spent finding a job rather then suing. The interview went well, that is good. But, who is to say it did not go equally well, or better, for someone else? Hiring is not an exact science (I do plenty of it), and one hopes we make the best decisions possible, that is the point of their questions. Them asking questions regarding your aviability seems resonable, as does your answers. If they decided to not hire you based soley on you having a child it may not be a dream job after all.

It almost sounds as if you have worked yourself up into believing something prior to it happening? the quote "I doubt anyone would be similarly reticent about hiring the father of a young child", may or may not be true but is phrased in the past tense.

In this culture (for good or for ill) females do most of the child care, so I'm not sure how questions asking about how this may affect your job performance would be a bad thing, and might be why simular questions do not get asked of most men.

I also think while it is possible for them not to offer you a job based on some sort of discrimitory practices, it is also possible for them to not offer you a job based on non discrimitory practices. I have not hired people simply becasue I disliked them, (not becasue of phenotypical reasons, but personality ones) so, good luck I hope you get the job, but don't put all your eggs in one basket so to speak.
posted by edgeways at 1:27 PM on September 21, 2006

It very well could be a roadblock for them. It's sad, I know, but businesses tend to think that way.
Is it sex discrimination? Possibly. But you'd have to prove it. And I can absolutely guarantee you no-one there will ever say you didn't get the job because of the baby. At best (if they give you any reason at all) they will say they found a better candidate, or that they didn't feel they were a good match for you. The baby will never be mention
posted by Thorzdad at 1:29 PM on September 21, 2006

IANAL, but: I think that while you could file a complaint or sue, you would not get anywhere unless you had ironclad proof they didn't hire you specifically because of the baby. Asking a few questions in that area doesn't constitute proof. And it sounds like you volunteered the information to begin with, in explaining why you had not been employed for a while. In answering a complaint they would simply say that the person they hired was more qualified. And they could point to your own assurances that the baby was not an issue to reinforce that the baby played no part in their decision.
posted by beagle at 1:30 PM on September 21, 2006

I think if you don't get the job, there's a good chance it was due to discrimination. I also think there will be very little you can do to prove it.

If I were you, I would, in future interviews, not mention the baby. At all. It's illegal to ask women if they're planning on getting pregnant; it should be irrelevant to ask about childcare duties. Don't give them the opportunity to do so.
posted by oliver at 1:40 PM on September 21, 2006

Yeah, you need to not volunteer that fact. "Family needs" is all the explanation you should offer, if any. By if any, I mean I wouldn't go out of my way to discuss how ceased working for the last job unless asked, in which case you should go back to "family needs," which doesn't clarify if it's having a baby, your mother dying or helping your third cousin kick his heroin habit.
posted by phearlez at 1:49 PM on September 21, 2006

With all due respect, why borrow trouble? Why not wait until you get their answer before you start getting angry?
posted by Steven C. Den Beste at 2:04 PM on September 21, 2006 [1 favorite]

It would be "familial status" discrimination as opposed to sex discrimination. Some states protect against it, many don't. Not sure about Massachusetts, but given the state's reputation, I'm guessing it probably would.

Either way, you'd have a steep road ahead. It's one thing to suspect discrimination and accuse someone of it, but a whole different one to PROVE it, as would be your burden. This is even harder to prove in failure to hire cases, because your contact with the company was so limited.
posted by saladpants at 2:24 PM on September 21, 2006

Seconding canine epigram - can you describe how the baby came up additional times in the interview? It's totally possible the interviewer was just trying to engage you in a friendly way; get to know you on a personal level.

FWIW - and I don't have kids so I really have no idea - but I feel like a 7 month old baby is probably not a huge deal to an employer. IMHO discriminating against women on the basis of maternity is wrong in any scenario, but assuming people are going to do it anyway I would think a one month old kid or being 8 months pregnant would be a much bigger roadblock to getting hired.
posted by lalex at 2:38 PM on September 21, 2006

The easiest way you'd prove it would be to ask, if they say you didn't get the job "Could you give me some pointers about why?". If it's because of the baby (and they're stupid) they might just say it straight out.

If they give another reason, but it doesn't seem like a good reason, you could always ask if the baby was a factor. Again, they'd have to be stupid to say yes, but lots of people are stupid.

If you couldn't get them to tell you straight up that it was because of the baby, you'd probably be SOL. That's why places like the Equal Rights Center use testers. I hope you do get the job, but if you don't, and you want to pursue it, an organization like that would be a good starting point.

Good luck!
posted by crabintheocean at 2:40 PM on September 21, 2006

A few months ago, I interviewed for a job and it came up that was involved in the Union while at my then-current job. They asked me some questions about how much time I spend on Union activites and where I'd been and what Union stuff I had been working on. The questioning made me really uncomfortable, and I left sure that they didn't like the Union involvement and were going to find a reason not to hire me because of it. I was mad.

I got offered the job anyway, and it's never come up since.
posted by raedyn at 2:44 PM on September 21, 2006

Under federal EEO law, it is unlawful for an employer to discriminate against a woman because of pregnancy or pregancy-related health conditions. Discrimination laws on familial status vary state by state.
posted by lunalaguna at 3:22 PM on September 21, 2006

I'm an employment lawyer. Because your facts may or may not indicate discrimination, the question is too complex for AxMe. If you are denied the job, seek a laywer from here.

Disclaimer. You are not my client and I am advising you only to seek legal advice from a practioner in your area.
posted by Ironmouth at 3:27 PM on September 21, 2006

From the interviewing training I've taken, it's not legal in the U.S. for an interviewer to even ask if you have a spouse or a baby in the first place. But it sounds like you opened the can of worms by bringing it up yourself. You should have said "family needs, which have now progressed to a point where I no longer need to be at home all day." But it's too late to put that cat back in the bag.
posted by matildaben at 3:45 PM on September 21, 2006

A few problems:

1. It cannot be sex discrimination as there are single fathers. There are something like 150,000 stay at home"mr moms" in the US. A lot more working "mr moms."

2. You may not get the job for a variety of reasons. You are assuming a "lock" which is silly unless they offered you the job then you told them about yuor child, then they pulled the offer.

3. Proving they did this to you. The other person may just be a better fit but how could someone convince you of that if youre already conspiratory minded?
posted by damn dirty ape at 4:01 PM on September 21, 2006 [1 favorite]

Mothers with only one child forfeit, on average, one million dollars over the course of their lifetimes due to mommy tracking. There most certainly is discrimination against women with children that does not exist against men with children.

You can probably find more info about your options at Moms Rising.
posted by oliver at 4:29 PM on September 21, 2006

Would you want to work for a place that would discriminate against a new mother? Your energy would be better served by looking for another job. That is, unless you're looking for a fat payday via lawsuit/settlement so you can stay home with the kid and not have to work at all.
posted by friarjohn at 4:31 PM on September 21, 2006

Wow, if I could mark worst answers, wfrgrms and friarjohn would get it. It's bad enough to encounter sexism in the workplace, but on the AskMe, too? I'm shocked.

I was mostly curious about other people's experiences, whether discimination against new mothers is common or legal. From my cursory searching, it looks like most discrimination cases for "failure to hire" are class actions brought on behalf of many applicants, precisely because of the difficultly in making a case that any one hire was not based on legitmate criteria.

Obviously, don't-ask-don't-tell is the best policy, but it is a little sad to enter an employment relationship on such a guarded note.

Turns out I was not giving my future employer enough credit, as they already called me back for a second interview.
posted by libraryhead at 5:42 PM on September 21, 2006

P.S. to raedyn, good thing I didn't tell them about the union, too, huh?
posted by libraryhead at 5:44 PM on September 21, 2006

A few months ago, I interviewed for a job and it came up that was involved in the Union while at my then-current job. They asked me some questions about how much time I spend on Union activites and where I'd been and what Union stuff I had been working on.

It's also illegal for employers to ask about Union activities. As someone who hires, I would never, ever make any comments or ask any questions relating to anyone's family, religion, or any clubs they might belong to, even if the applicant brought it up themselves. It's just stupid. You ask questions like "This job requires evening and weekend hours. Are you available to work those hours?" rather than "Does your baby need you home by a certain time?"
posted by Violet Hour at 8:18 PM on September 21, 2006

Huh? Like libraryhead, I was expecting a lot more forceful responses. If it didn't matter to them they wouldn't have asked several more questions. The fact that it matters to them is a Very Bad Thing. It's not important whether you get the job or not or whether their concern for your familial status was a positive factor, a negative factor, a negative but minor factor, etc... The fact that they pursued this line of questioning is bad enough in and of itself. You may have opened the door for them but they should have immediately dropped it. Your admission was an innocent mistake but that shouldn't be an excuse for them. They should know better. I once accidentally revealed my age in an interview. The interview turned ashen and said it's Not Something We Talk About.

It's so easy to justify not hiring a young mother or a woman of childbearing age (or a Jewish person or an older person or...) that it's important to be vigilant defending the rules that protect against discrimination. I guess it's not your responsibility to look out for society's interests and it's perfectly reasonable for you to be more concerned with finding your own job but you should understand that taking action in this case may just exorcise a little discrimination from our society and ignoring it may just provide tacit approval.

Which isn't to say that you would have no personal interest in pursuing this case. I think you should get an expert legal opinion on whether the interviewer's behavior was illegal and, if so, whether you would actually have a reasonable case. Pursuing this may have an effect on your subsequent job search. Ask your lawyer about that. You should be able to cover this in a free consultation.

friarjohn makes a good point (although he brings it to a horrible conclusion). You should give serious thought to whether this is a good place to work if you are offered the job.
posted by stuart_s at 8:20 PM on September 21, 2006

Huh? Like libraryhead, I was expecting a lot more forceful responses. If it didn't matter to them they wouldn't have asked several more questions. The fact that it matters to them is a Very Bad Thing.

Which isn't to say that you would have no personal interest in pursuing this case.

I think we're putting the cart before the horse here. I'm not sure that a forceful response is merited yet since we don't even know if/how the potential employer is weighing this information, if at all, in its decision-making process. Obviously, if libraryhead gets the offer, no case (at a minimum, because no damages were suffered). If libraryhead does not get the offer, then it may be worth asking some questions. But we aren't there yet.

As I said before though, even in that latter scenario, I simply don't see how an evidentiary burden is met PROVING this discrimination (although I'd admit that point-blank asking about whether the baby will get in the way of travel requirements is not an appropriate or legal)\ line of questioning at an interview).
posted by saladpants at 9:45 PM on September 21, 2006

I agree with saladpants. Since libraryhead's already been called back for a second interview, it's clear that the baby wasn't a dealbreaker (yet, any way).

If this job requires a lot of travel, it sounds like they're just trying to make *absolutely* sure that it doesn't bother you to leave the baby for extended periods of time.

(Oh, and nobody is ever a *lock* for a job. You may think you're the perfect candidate for the job, but there could always be somebody else who is even perfecter)
posted by antifuse at 1:53 AM on September 22, 2006

Huh? Like libraryhead, I was expecting a lot more forceful responses. If it didn't matter to them they wouldn't have asked several more questions. The fact that it matters to them is a Very Bad Thing.

Reread the original post - it's not at all clear how the baby came up again several times, and the OP hasn't yet elaborated.
posted by canine epigram at 7:25 AM on September 22, 2006

It's quite possible that the person who held the position before you was a total flake and blamed it all on mommyhood. you know, "I'm leaving early today. baby is sick. Oh, I won't be in Friday, baby needs X, and next Tuesday, baby needs Y."

Is it right? Absolutely not. Could it happen? Of course it could. I have worked in environments where certain people were out of the office and allegedly "working from home" (VPN logs showed this was a lie) more often than they were in the office doing their job, and it was a huge pain in the ass for the rest of the team.

But since you've been called back for a second interview, perhaps you're a great candidate and they will have no problems at all with it.
posted by drstein at 12:48 PM on September 22, 2006

"Wow, if I could mark worst answers, wfrgrms and friarjohn would get it. It's bad enough to encounter sexism in the workplace, but on the AskMe, too? I'm shocked."

Of course you're shocked. You're the type who debates suing a third party based upon their non-damaging inaction regarding your interview.

I don't know what happened to my post where I said that "having children has consequences" - obviously it was censored - suppressed by the touchy, political correct majority who cared enough to read this thread. I'm fine with that.

But I'm not fine with you calling my now censored comment sexist.

Would you hire a woman who was nine months pregnant to fight fires? Would you hire a quadriplegic to work on an assembly line? Would you hire a white, male, PhD holder to pick up trash? No - you'd either be an idiot or so caught up in equal employment opportunities as to be insane.

Would you hire a new mother with a young child to work a demanding job which requires 110% of her time and attention?

I wouldn't and neither would you - and these decisions have nothing to do with sexism.

The interview process is about finding the right person for the job and sometimes that requires taking into account the entire person - their likes, dislikes, family, past experiences, etc.

The fact that you have a child should not be excluded from the interview process or the considerations of prospective employers.

For many jobs - your personal life, gender, ability or proclivity to reproduce, hairstyle, martial status or whatever doesn't matter - for other jobs it does.

As I said before - deal with it.

And spare our tattered court system your frivolous complaint.
posted by wfrgms at 12:17 AM on September 23, 2006