My wife is 12 weeks pregnant... and just got a job offer with a small company. Should she disclose her condition?
October 24, 2008 2:29 PM Subscribe
My wife is 12 weeks pregnant... and just got a job offer with a small company. Should she disclose her condition?
My wife received an architecture-related masters this spring from a prestigious design school in a metropolitan center. We promptly moved to a relatively small city for my job. We bought a house, and she is now 12 weeks pregnant. She wants to work while pregnant, and possibly part time after the baby is due.
There doesn't seem to be many job opportunities here for her, especially compared to the big city we left, but she did interview for an entry level job at a very small firm of about 5 people or so. Apparently there were 150 resumes sent in, 5 finalists, and she got the job! Great!
They want her to start Monday. They told her they can't guarantee her employment on a longer-term basis based on in-flow of projects. She hasn't accepted yet...
The problem is, she feels guilty about not disclosing her "condition" during the interview process, even though that's not required by law, and I assume employers can't not hire a woman based on whether she is pregnant. It's too early for her to show that she's pregnant. She's worried about how this could affect a small company.
So, it's entry level, but in the field she wants to be in, but it's a small company and she feels bad about accepting a full time job knowing she'll have to change her schedule once the baby comes.
If she said before accepting "hey, by the way, I'm pregnant, do you still want me?", it's not like they can say "no, we withdraw our offer", right?
My wife received an architecture-related masters this spring from a prestigious design school in a metropolitan center. We promptly moved to a relatively small city for my job. We bought a house, and she is now 12 weeks pregnant. She wants to work while pregnant, and possibly part time after the baby is due.
There doesn't seem to be many job opportunities here for her, especially compared to the big city we left, but she did interview for an entry level job at a very small firm of about 5 people or so. Apparently there were 150 resumes sent in, 5 finalists, and she got the job! Great!
They want her to start Monday. They told her they can't guarantee her employment on a longer-term basis based on in-flow of projects. She hasn't accepted yet...
The problem is, she feels guilty about not disclosing her "condition" during the interview process, even though that's not required by law, and I assume employers can't not hire a woman based on whether she is pregnant. It's too early for her to show that she's pregnant. She's worried about how this could affect a small company.
So, it's entry level, but in the field she wants to be in, but it's a small company and she feels bad about accepting a full time job knowing she'll have to change her schedule once the baby comes.
If she said before accepting "hey, by the way, I'm pregnant, do you still want me?", it's not like they can say "no, we withdraw our offer", right?
Is this in a country with paid maternity leave? If so, is it paid by the employer or by the government?
You say she's not obliged to volunteer this information. Most people don't do so, and I don't know of anywhere where it's legally required to do so.
But there's legal and then there's right, and based on the fact you're asking the question, you're probably thinking this is a bit sneaky. If she could end up taking advantage of some employer-paid maternity package, I'd come down on the side of "disclose for the sake of your own integrity and peace of mind." But if there's no significant financial impact on the employer either way, I'd keep it private.
Worse-case example: I have known and worked with women who found and took full-time jobs deliberately timed so that they'd work only six or eight weeks, and then enjoy long paid maternity leaves. While legal, that always struck me as a bit sleazy.
posted by rokusan at 2:40 PM on October 24, 2008
You say she's not obliged to volunteer this information. Most people don't do so, and I don't know of anywhere where it's legally required to do so.
But there's legal and then there's right, and based on the fact you're asking the question, you're probably thinking this is a bit sneaky. If she could end up taking advantage of some employer-paid maternity package, I'd come down on the side of "disclose for the sake of your own integrity and peace of mind." But if there's no significant financial impact on the employer either way, I'd keep it private.
Worse-case example: I have known and worked with women who found and took full-time jobs deliberately timed so that they'd work only six or eight weeks, and then enjoy long paid maternity leaves. While legal, that always struck me as a bit sleazy.
posted by rokusan at 2:40 PM on October 24, 2008
If she said before accepting "hey, by the way, I'm pregnant, do you still want me?", it's not like they can say "no, we withdraw our offer", right?
Oh yes, they can. And you can try to fight it, if you have the energy, money and time, which I'm sure you'll have plenty of with a new baby on your hands. Clearly, I think it's unwise to set yourself for discrimination. Don't tell.
posted by ThePinkSuperhero at 2:42 PM on October 24, 2008 [6 favorites]
Oh yes, they can. And you can try to fight it, if you have the energy, money and time, which I'm sure you'll have plenty of with a new baby on your hands. Clearly, I think it's unwise to set yourself for discrimination. Don't tell.
posted by ThePinkSuperhero at 2:42 PM on October 24, 2008 [6 favorites]
She was absolutely not obligated to disclose during interviewing, so she should not feel guilty about that.
Why on earth would she say (I'm quoting you) "hey, by the way, I'm pregnant, do you still want me?"
She should say: "Great, thanks, I accept, when do I start?" And, in the same conversation, after any other details are discussed, and after it is clear there's mutual acceptance, she should say, "Now, there's one more thing you need to know, which is that I'm pregnant and I expect to take maternity leave from about [date] to [date]. Could you tell me what your maternity policy is?"
Full disclosure, but no apologies, no waffling, no offering them a chance to back out.
posted by beagle at 2:46 PM on October 24, 2008 [1 favorite]
Why on earth would she say (I'm quoting you) "hey, by the way, I'm pregnant, do you still want me?"
She should say: "Great, thanks, I accept, when do I start?" And, in the same conversation, after any other details are discussed, and after it is clear there's mutual acceptance, she should say, "Now, there's one more thing you need to know, which is that I'm pregnant and I expect to take maternity leave from about [date] to [date]. Could you tell me what your maternity policy is?"
Full disclosure, but no apologies, no waffling, no offering them a chance to back out.
posted by beagle at 2:46 PM on October 24, 2008 [1 favorite]
I would take the job and deal with things later. It is still early in the pregnancy, although I hope you have a healthy pregnancy, of course. And your wife may change her mind about her plans for returning to work -- perhaps, when she accepted the job offer, she was thinking of returning to work immediately. Perhaps she will eventually find that the job demands did not work with her plans. Sometimes one's mind changes by the time the baby is born, too. Or perhaps the father is going to take parental leave. Right? Many uncertainties, of course. The employer does not need to know at this time and your wife is not obligated to disclose her health condition, especially so early on.
posted by acoutu at 2:48 PM on October 24, 2008
posted by acoutu at 2:48 PM on October 24, 2008
They told her they can't guarantee her employment on a longer-term basis based on in-flow of projects.
and yet she feels bad about not telling them? how could it be fair for them to say we will hire you but don't plan on being here for long and expect her to tell her what her plans for the future then are? if you tell me this is a limited engagement you tell me it's okay for me to only include you for a while in my plans.
I think she is not obliged to tell and can reasonably choose not to do so. I also think it would be nicer of her to do say something now. I also think I would go postal if they rescinded the job offer based on that. without knowing how they are (and well, who) I wouldn't want to make that decision.
krautland does not own guns, officer.
posted by krautland at 2:58 PM on October 24, 2008
and yet she feels bad about not telling them? how could it be fair for them to say we will hire you but don't plan on being here for long and expect her to tell her what her plans for the future then are? if you tell me this is a limited engagement you tell me it's okay for me to only include you for a while in my plans.
I think she is not obliged to tell and can reasonably choose not to do so. I also think it would be nicer of her to do say something now. I also think I would go postal if they rescinded the job offer based on that. without knowing how they are (and well, who) I wouldn't want to make that decision.
krautland does not own guns, officer.
posted by krautland at 2:58 PM on October 24, 2008
I've been on the other side of this (running a small business, hiring someone who announces they are pregnant after a couple months). She is correct, this is really hard on a small operation especially if there is any training involved. Also, if this is in the US, I believe you can be refused employment (and even fired) for pregnancy if the company has fewer than 15 employees. See here. My suggestion is the right thing to do is disclose. But I think you can do it in a way that keeps the job. I would say something like this:
"You mentioned that you cannot guarantee a longer term position because of uncertainty regarding the amount of work coming in. Normally that wouldn't work for me, but I've learned I'm pregnant. Part time work when the baby arrives will most likely work best for me, and it sounds like it might work for you. If it turns out you need someone full time then, I'd be happy to help find and train them when the time comes."
posted by cosmac at 3:29 PM on October 24, 2008 [6 favorites]
"You mentioned that you cannot guarantee a longer term position because of uncertainty regarding the amount of work coming in. Normally that wouldn't work for me, but I've learned I'm pregnant. Part time work when the baby arrives will most likely work best for me, and it sounds like it might work for you. If it turns out you need someone full time then, I'd be happy to help find and train them when the time comes."
posted by cosmac at 3:29 PM on October 24, 2008 [6 favorites]
I agree with TPS and beagle that, regardless of what the law says, you should expect that they'll try to get out of it if they find out. It's simply rational behavior for the company: they obviously need a full-time employee and finding out she's pregnant will drastically change their risk-benefit assessment of the situation. Right or wrong, even if the hiring manager is an ethical person they probably won't have too much trouble convincing themselves that they're not really responsible for supporting your wife in maternity when, from their viewpoint, she's at least partly reneging on the deal she's offering them.
I can't decide quite what the morals of the situation are; like rokusan's worst-case example, if this was completely intentional it would look a little fishy. But conversely this is a civic responsibility of the company, like paying taxes. The costs are much less predictable, so less easily forecasted, than taxes, which sucks for the company, but that's no excuse to avoid it.
...well, okay: if she really, genuinely wants this job, and intends to be a loyal employee in every other respect, then informing them is just a courtesy, not a moral obligation. They should very well know that it's possible she's pregnant and that their civic responsibility is to support the maternity of their employees. I would say that since it's severely against your wife's interests to extend this courtesy she should not and she should feel no remorse.
And furthermore, if this is in the U.S., as a fellow American citizen I would say stick it to 'em. With the declining birth rate we've got, your kid is probably going to bear a much greater civic burden taking care of the company's owners and everyone who works there when they're in their old age.
posted by XMLicious at 3:31 PM on October 24, 2008
I can't decide quite what the morals of the situation are; like rokusan's worst-case example, if this was completely intentional it would look a little fishy. But conversely this is a civic responsibility of the company, like paying taxes. The costs are much less predictable, so less easily forecasted, than taxes, which sucks for the company, but that's no excuse to avoid it.
...well, okay: if she really, genuinely wants this job, and intends to be a loyal employee in every other respect, then informing them is just a courtesy, not a moral obligation. They should very well know that it's possible she's pregnant and that their civic responsibility is to support the maternity of their employees. I would say that since it's severely against your wife's interests to extend this courtesy she should not and she should feel no remorse.
And furthermore, if this is in the U.S., as a fellow American citizen I would say stick it to 'em. With the declining birth rate we've got, your kid is probably going to bear a much greater civic burden taking care of the company's owners and everyone who works there when they're in their old age.
posted by XMLicious at 3:31 PM on October 24, 2008
To take the job without disclosing is UNFAIR & DECEPTIVE to the small business owner.
You are deliberatly creating a situation which causes this business owner additional expenses, stress, frustration, and wasted time. Bad karma.
Put yourselves in the owner's spot, then ask what is the right thing to do.
posted by dripped at 4:48 PM on October 24, 2008 [1 favorite]
You are deliberatly creating a situation which causes this business owner additional expenses, stress, frustration, and wasted time. Bad karma.
Put yourselves in the owner's spot, then ask what is the right thing to do.
posted by dripped at 4:48 PM on October 24, 2008 [1 favorite]
You are deliberatly creating a situation which causes this business owner additional expenses, stress, frustration, and wasted time. Bad karma.
How would encouraging a business owner to break the law and discriminate a pregnant woman be a better alternative? People leave jobs all the time, for all sorts of different reasons. I doubt employee turnover has ever killed any business that was otherwise healthy. The poster's wife shouldn't feel bad for taking the job without disclosing her pregnancy. The world isn't going to come to an end.
posted by ThePinkSuperhero at 5:05 PM on October 24, 2008 [2 favorites]
How would encouraging a business owner to break the law and discriminate a pregnant woman be a better alternative? People leave jobs all the time, for all sorts of different reasons. I doubt employee turnover has ever killed any business that was otherwise healthy. The poster's wife shouldn't feel bad for taking the job without disclosing her pregnancy. The world isn't going to come to an end.
posted by ThePinkSuperhero at 5:05 PM on October 24, 2008 [2 favorites]
Be forewarned: if this is in the US and it is a small company (less than 50 employees in an 75 mile radius), the company is not required to provide maternity leave (FMLA).
posted by j at 5:05 PM on October 24, 2008 [1 favorite]
posted by j at 5:05 PM on October 24, 2008 [1 favorite]
Absolutely do not disclose during the interview process, as she would be waiving a critical legal right.
It is illegal to discriminate against job applicants who are pregnant. Legally, it is treated like any other disability, and for good reason.
She should take the job, and tell them in a few months when she's settled and has a better idea if it is a company she'd even want to come back to. If she's feeling like it will be ill-received, she can always agree to more favorable terms from their side to settle any discontent (shorter paid leave than usual, etc).
She should truly not feel guilty about this -- unfortunately, it's the current setup that anyone who wants a family in the U.S. has to deal with.
posted by susanvance at 5:49 PM on October 24, 2008 [1 favorite]
It is illegal to discriminate against job applicants who are pregnant. Legally, it is treated like any other disability, and for good reason.
She should take the job, and tell them in a few months when she's settled and has a better idea if it is a company she'd even want to come back to. If she's feeling like it will be ill-received, she can always agree to more favorable terms from their side to settle any discontent (shorter paid leave than usual, etc).
She should truly not feel guilty about this -- unfortunately, it's the current setup that anyone who wants a family in the U.S. has to deal with.
posted by susanvance at 5:49 PM on October 24, 2008 [1 favorite]
Must 2nd dripped above. Excellently put.
Putting the company in a hard spot is bad for all parties; your wife's at a workplace with some resentment towards her, and getting them to respect her special needs as a new mom will be harder b/c of that.
posted by oblio_one at 5:50 PM on October 24, 2008 [1 favorite]
Putting the company in a hard spot is bad for all parties; your wife's at a workplace with some resentment towards her, and getting them to respect her special needs as a new mom will be harder b/c of that.
posted by oblio_one at 5:50 PM on October 24, 2008 [1 favorite]
How would encouraging a business owner to break the law and discriminate a pregnant woman be a better alternative
The firm is "five or so people" according the the poster. This means that the firm would not be breaking the law by choosing not to hire a pregnant woman, or by letting her go immediately after finding out the news, unless their state offers more protections than Federal law. You do not get the protections of Title VII until the company hires its fifteenth full-time employee [cite, full text].
Now, it's easy to say that makes it much riskier to tell the employer beforehand... but I'm going to take the opposite position. If you don't tell your employer now, they're going to find out in the next 4-8 weeks anyway -- and you will be just as unprotected by the law... except now, the employer might feel that you weren't being very forthcoming/upfront when hired. Whether or not the boss is understanding or miffed by this is impossible to predict -- but I guarantee that the boss would rather know before hiring someone (even the bosses who understand why she didn't share the news earlier will wish that she had).
Filter this through the lens of a small town, which is likely to have a very small design/architect community -- if it's like most smaller towns, most of the creative principals will know each other... and if your boss thinks you screwed him by not being upfront, that news will travel.
In a company of five people, preventing surprises is often more valuable than it is in a larger organization. Since it will be perfectly legal for the company to let you go in December when you start showing, I'd be more inclined to let them know now: "So, I recently learned I am pregnant, and I was terrified enough before having to decide when to tell you about it. But, I think that you deserve to know, sooner rather than later... because I'm not going to be able to keep it to myself much longer, and I don't want it to seem like I'm hiding anything."
Hopefully her boss will respond with one word: "Congratulations.", and will feel like she's trusting him by sharing this information. Inside, the boss might be going "shit, shit, shit"... but that's a whole lot better than the boss going "that sneaky little _____" a month from now and firing her anyway.
posted by toxic at 6:13 PM on October 24, 2008 [1 favorite]
The firm is "five or so people" according the the poster. This means that the firm would not be breaking the law by choosing not to hire a pregnant woman, or by letting her go immediately after finding out the news, unless their state offers more protections than Federal law. You do not get the protections of Title VII until the company hires its fifteenth full-time employee [cite, full text].
Now, it's easy to say that makes it much riskier to tell the employer beforehand... but I'm going to take the opposite position. If you don't tell your employer now, they're going to find out in the next 4-8 weeks anyway -- and you will be just as unprotected by the law... except now, the employer might feel that you weren't being very forthcoming/upfront when hired. Whether or not the boss is understanding or miffed by this is impossible to predict -- but I guarantee that the boss would rather know before hiring someone (even the bosses who understand why she didn't share the news earlier will wish that she had).
Filter this through the lens of a small town, which is likely to have a very small design/architect community -- if it's like most smaller towns, most of the creative principals will know each other... and if your boss thinks you screwed him by not being upfront, that news will travel.
In a company of five people, preventing surprises is often more valuable than it is in a larger organization. Since it will be perfectly legal for the company to let you go in December when you start showing, I'd be more inclined to let them know now: "So, I recently learned I am pregnant, and I was terrified enough before having to decide when to tell you about it. But, I think that you deserve to know, sooner rather than later... because I'm not going to be able to keep it to myself much longer, and I don't want it to seem like I'm hiding anything."
Hopefully her boss will respond with one word: "Congratulations.", and will feel like she's trusting him by sharing this information. Inside, the boss might be going "shit, shit, shit"... but that's a whole lot better than the boss going "that sneaky little _____" a month from now and firing her anyway.
posted by toxic at 6:13 PM on October 24, 2008 [1 favorite]
It is illegal to discriminate against job applicants who are pregnant. Legally, it is treated like any other disability, and for good reason.
No, it's not.
The ADA covers complications surrounding pregnancy (so, if you suffer from preeclampsia and need a lot of time off before giving birth, you're covered by the ADA, just as any other temporarily disabled worker is) but a "normal" pregnancy is not classified as a disability. It is covered by the Pregnancy Discrimination Act and FMLA... where those laws apply.
Both the ADA and the PDA only apply to employers with more than 15 people. The related FMLA (Family Medical Leave Act) only applies to those with more than 50.
posted by toxic at 6:22 PM on October 24, 2008
No, it's not.
The ADA covers complications surrounding pregnancy (so, if you suffer from preeclampsia and need a lot of time off before giving birth, you're covered by the ADA, just as any other temporarily disabled worker is) but a "normal" pregnancy is not classified as a disability. It is covered by the Pregnancy Discrimination Act and FMLA... where those laws apply.
Both the ADA and the PDA only apply to employers with more than 15 people. The related FMLA (Family Medical Leave Act) only applies to those with more than 50.
posted by toxic at 6:22 PM on October 24, 2008
Putting the company in a hard spot is bad for all parties;
Taxes could be said to put companies in a hard spot. Minimum wage laws could be said to put companies in a hard spot. OSHA laws that prevent employees from getting injured or killed put companies in a hard spot. Fulfilling health regulations sure put small businesses like restaurants in a hard spot - if I recall correctly, restaurants are by far the type of small business most likely to go out of business during the first year of operation.
But it is the civic responsibility of companies to do these things and supporting parenthood is the same situation. Encouraging his wife to give the company an opportunity to screw her over and discriminate against her is the equivalent of being in favor of giving companies the opportunity to cheat on their taxes, in favor of giving food producers the opportunity to bulk up their products with melamine or sawdust, or giving companies the opportunity to hire illegal immigrants to cheaply fill jobs that should be filled by Americans.
Look at what he said above: they want her to start Monday. Giving the company three extra days to "prepare" for the situation will make no difference. The only practical reason anyone would encourage her to mention this, as TPS points out, is to give the company the opportunity to break the law and discriminate against this woman.
posted by XMLicious at 6:24 PM on October 24, 2008
Taxes could be said to put companies in a hard spot. Minimum wage laws could be said to put companies in a hard spot. OSHA laws that prevent employees from getting injured or killed put companies in a hard spot. Fulfilling health regulations sure put small businesses like restaurants in a hard spot - if I recall correctly, restaurants are by far the type of small business most likely to go out of business during the first year of operation.
But it is the civic responsibility of companies to do these things and supporting parenthood is the same situation. Encouraging his wife to give the company an opportunity to screw her over and discriminate against her is the equivalent of being in favor of giving companies the opportunity to cheat on their taxes, in favor of giving food producers the opportunity to bulk up their products with melamine or sawdust, or giving companies the opportunity to hire illegal immigrants to cheaply fill jobs that should be filled by Americans.
Look at what he said above: they want her to start Monday. Giving the company three extra days to "prepare" for the situation will make no difference. The only practical reason anyone would encourage her to mention this, as TPS points out, is to give the company the opportunity to break the law and discriminate against this woman.
posted by XMLicious at 6:24 PM on October 24, 2008
Oops, okay, I guess it's not against the law. But it still seems like discrimination to me and I still think that it's a company's responsibility to assist its employees who are parents.
posted by XMLicious at 6:28 PM on October 24, 2008
posted by XMLicious at 6:28 PM on October 24, 2008
+1 for what cosmac said above.
posted by JohnnyGunn at 6:35 PM on October 24, 2008
posted by JohnnyGunn at 6:35 PM on October 24, 2008
If her goal is long-term success and respect in a small professional community in which everyone knows everyone else's business, she should tell the entire truth from the start and let things fall as they may. That will get her much farther than springing a pregnancy on them just after she signs her employment papers. If she is the best of 150 applicants, I think they'll work something out to her satisfaction.
posted by pracowity at 5:16 AM on October 25, 2008 [2 favorites]
posted by pracowity at 5:16 AM on October 25, 2008 [2 favorites]
Companies hire employees because they need people to fill a job. Can she do the job while pregnant? It's architecture, not stocking shelves. Can she do some of the job from home? Is she willing to?
For all they know, she has no idea she's even pregnant. (Yes, it happens.)
posted by drstein at 11:57 AM on October 26, 2008
For all they know, she has no idea she's even pregnant. (Yes, it happens.)
posted by drstein at 11:57 AM on October 26, 2008
I would feel uneasy about accepting without disclosing if it's a small company, too. I would not want that sword hanging over my head while I started my brand new job, because starting a new job is stressful enough. Especially if you're pregnant. Plus, remember that your wife might ultimately be asking for references from these people if she works there and decides to leave after the baby is born, and you want those references to be good.
I think it's best to be upfront about things when it's a small company. Your wife can let people know that the pregnancy won't affect her work and she's willing to do whatever it takes and work as hard as needed (so long as that's true, of course). I just don't think it's a good idea to put your pregnant wife through several weeks of "can they tell I'm pregnant yet? When should I tell them?" while she's starting her new job. If she tells them and they decide not to hire her at that point, then perhaps it's for the best given the likely resentment (and possible firing) that would have been directed at her after she disclosed anyway, plus they would have to initiate the entire hiring process and expense all over again. This does no one any good. If they're that kind of firm, maybe she doesn't really want to work there, particularly while going through all the trials and tribulations of a first pregnancy.
Finally, I note that from the wording of your question that it is your wife, and not necessarily you, who is uncomfortable about her accepting the job without disclosing her pregnancy. I'm not sure whether you personally have a position in this, but if at the end of this AskMe your wife is leaning toward disclosing and you are leaning toward not disclosing, I think because it's your wife's job, career and pregnancy, your wife should win. Your wife probably has a better idea than you do about the different personalities of the people she interviewed with and how they might be likely to react to a pregnancy bombshell. She also has a better grip on precisely how much stress she is equipped to deal with at work with regards to the "disclose/not disclose" situation. She may not be able to articulate all of this, but she knows what she's feeling. If she's uncomfortable, trust that she has good reason to be, and accept that in this case disclosure is the right answer. Good luck!
posted by onlyconnect at 10:14 AM on October 27, 2008 [1 favorite]
I think it's best to be upfront about things when it's a small company. Your wife can let people know that the pregnancy won't affect her work and she's willing to do whatever it takes and work as hard as needed (so long as that's true, of course). I just don't think it's a good idea to put your pregnant wife through several weeks of "can they tell I'm pregnant yet? When should I tell them?" while she's starting her new job. If she tells them and they decide not to hire her at that point, then perhaps it's for the best given the likely resentment (and possible firing) that would have been directed at her after she disclosed anyway, plus they would have to initiate the entire hiring process and expense all over again. This does no one any good. If they're that kind of firm, maybe she doesn't really want to work there, particularly while going through all the trials and tribulations of a first pregnancy.
Finally, I note that from the wording of your question that it is your wife, and not necessarily you, who is uncomfortable about her accepting the job without disclosing her pregnancy. I'm not sure whether you personally have a position in this, but if at the end of this AskMe your wife is leaning toward disclosing and you are leaning toward not disclosing, I think because it's your wife's job, career and pregnancy, your wife should win. Your wife probably has a better idea than you do about the different personalities of the people she interviewed with and how they might be likely to react to a pregnancy bombshell. She also has a better grip on precisely how much stress she is equipped to deal with at work with regards to the "disclose/not disclose" situation. She may not be able to articulate all of this, but she knows what she's feeling. If she's uncomfortable, trust that she has good reason to be, and accept that in this case disclosure is the right answer. Good luck!
posted by onlyconnect at 10:14 AM on October 27, 2008 [1 favorite]
This thread is closed to new comments.
condition?
posted by Inspector.Gadget at 2:35 PM on October 24, 2008