Mother of 3 denied promotion because she ‘had a lot on her plate’
April 23, 2009 by Sam NarisiPosted in: In This Week's E-Newsletter, Interviewing, Latest News & Views, Law
When candidates ask why they were turned down for a job or a promotion, it’s common for the manager to come up with an explanation that makes the news easier to handle. But this recent case shows why that’s a bad idea:
A woman applied for a promotion, but lost out to a female co-worker. According to the hiring manager, it was because she had performed poorly in her interview.
But when the employee asked why she didn’t get the job, the hiring manager told her, “It was nothing you did or didn’t do … you just have a lot on your plate right now,” referring to the woman’s children: a set of six-year-old triplets.
The employee sued, claiming she missed out on the job because she was a mother.
The manager argued the interview was the real reason and said she only mentioned the children to the employee to “soften the blow.”
But the judge didn’t buy that. Without enough evidence to prove otherwise, the court took the comment at face value and refused to throw out the case.
Cite: Chadwick v. Wellpoint, Inc.
Tags: caregiver, gender discrimination, promotion
April 24th, 2009 at 9:28 am
The hiring manager (who was a female) gave this actual response, according to the deposition:
“It was nothing you did or didn’t do. It was just that you’re going to school, you have the kids and you just have a lot on your plate right now.”
Way to soften the blow. Chadwick initially lost, but won this appeal.
April 24th, 2009 at 12:06 pm
So it sounds like this employee had children, went to school and had a full-time job. That is a lot to handle and apparently she was handling it. Is that a reason to refuse her growth opportunities? If we did that to everyone and only gave the people who had little on their plates important assignment and promotions, we would weaken our workforce. If a man was in the same set of circumstances as the female employee, what would be said about him? I believe it might be something like “he’s a go-getter, ambitious, strong performer or words to that effect.
I’ve studied the language (linguisitics) used to describe the achievements of men vs. women. For example, if anyone is interested in accepted descriptors in our culture, use three dictionaries–one from the 40′s or 50′s, one from the 70′s or 80′s and a current dictionary and compare the definintion of “man” and “woman.”
April 30th, 2009 at 1:01 pm
[...] most often get in trouble when managers try to sugarcoat the news. In one recent case, a manager was worried about telling an employee she wasn’t the most qualified for a [...]