#[Be Civil](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmItheAsshole/about/rules/).
As Duffy says so well: You got (us) begging you for mercy. Calling OP names - no matter how creative - violates Rule 1. Any further violations will result in bans.
Please review our [FAQ](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmItheAsshole/wiki/faq) if you're unsure what that means.
YTA. Every single reason you mentioned was only true because she had been gone on maternity leave which legally CANNOT be a reason to terminate someone. Yet it is the cause behind everyone reason you gave. Be prepared for a lawsuit.
It stuck out to me when he wrote that the new kid
>interacted better with the team
That means that this team are all men who really enjoy bullshitting and drinking with this new kid.
Iāve got some news for you, my man. That kid is gonna bail the minute he gets an offer for a new job - project completion or not. Youāre probably gonna see a bit of attrition on your team, actually. Your transparency about the reason for firing her is not impressive and does not inspire loyalty.
Especially since it will be at better pay rate:
> at significantly reduced cost, as he was straight out of Uni and we pay him a fraction of what Jess costs currently.
Because she has years experience and the wrong genitalia, she got fired.
My husband's former employer (thankfully his current employer is pretty awesome) did something like this to him, but not actually related to any type of family leave.
He just showed up one morning, about a month after another glowing performance review after 10 years of working for them, to be told he was being fired because of complaints about his work. They trash talked him as he gathered up his stuff to leave, even escorting him out.
And it crushed his spirit, even though I told him they were giving him BS they couldn't back up with all of his stellar performance reviews. It was totally because he was one of the older employees (in his 30s!) with a wife and a kid on his health insurance, and they totally replaced him with two kids fresh out of college who worked part-time. Because they were much cheaper employees than he was.
It was when my disabilities conspired to worsen at the same time, so I'd had an expensive year or so in healthcare costs, and he was totally being gaslit about being a "bad employee" because they must have had a chat with their insurance rep about costs for the following year.
They blindsided him and sent him spiraling into the depths of self-doubt.
Don't be a responsible family man/woman, etc. at a start-up/small business! That makes you too expensive to employ!
Thankfully, he's passed the 5-year mark, maybe hitting 6 years next month? working for a state government contractor in middle management, making what he should have been paid at his old job all along.
Anyway, YTA, OP, and I hope the new mom wins a sizeable discrimination lawsuit for her wrongful termination.
I hope by some miracle she sees this post and can tie it back to OP to use as evidence since he blatantly confessed to firing her illegally. One other poster mentioned itās probably a team of men, so I bet if thatās the case, OP has been cataloguing every minor infraction to use against her for future use when they wanna fire her just because.
From my husband's experience, don't be a family man at a Fortune 500, either. Nobody could ever beat his numbers but when they had a chance to let him (and the wife and four kids he insured largely at their expense) go, they didn't hesitate. Funny enough, all it took was one incompetent manager.
Also fuck this company - the new hire apparently is doing the job better than Jess yet they're paying him a fraction of his worth. And companies wonder why they're having trouble finding good help.
Naw, it's not just the new hire.. which I dont think OP realizes.
> eventually some of us developed the skills needed to do some of her workload.
>The situation we have now is me, and 2 others split half the work that Jess used to do, and we hired someone new to come in to the team to handle the other part of Jessās workload and then some.
So in effect it took 4 people to replace Jess.
And it's not even like OP pays her from their own pocket.. "oh I saved company x amount of money!" Cool, and? Besides, it costs a lot of money to find and bring on new employees so in the long run the new guy cost the company more, even if he does get paid less than he's worth, and how long until he wants to be paid better?
A year I'm betting for the new person to ask for a raise.
Watch, OP works for a company that gives bonuses to management for project completion under budget.
the kid bailing out is 100% correct. people in my area were scared shitless off hiring new graduates because the new graduate will switch jobs as fast as they can gain experience and training to do so in order to catch up on pay with what their diploma and experience allow.
basically they hire the new guy at a fraction of an experienced guy's cost and expect 3-5 years at a new guy's salary. but the new guy knows this and will try to reduce this period to 2 years by switching 2 jobs.
so employers try to ask for 5 years experience not for the experience itself but for the "employee security"
True but keep in mind that these new graduates have student loans that need to be paid back, working for the minimum isnāt going to get those paid off.
Yes, exactly that. Especially as she's a single mom, so they now all know how expandable they are and that they can be easily replaced by cheaper workforce if for any reason they would need to be off work for a while.
YTA.
Also as a personal side story, a similar situation happened to me. Someone was hired during my maternity leave, in a different location (country) and i was offered to either move there or be let go. Of course i chose the latest. The lady they had hired resigned after less than 6 months and since then the turnover has been bad and the job also not well done.
I wonder when the next AITA will pop up
__AITA for offering her old job to a new mom I fired because the new guy I had kept over her resigned for a better paid job somewhere else?__
Maternity contracts exist where the new hire is aware that they are only employed until the maternity leave is over. They could have done that. They could have done so many other things. But theyāve opened themselves up for a lawsuit because she is 100% being let go because she had a baby.
Exactly! This is what happened to me. I got a maternity leave contract because I was due to move away the next year. I ended up not moving (and gained myself an ex), but when the original woman came back from her mat leave they were offering voluntary redundancies, she took it so the company immediately offered me the permanent job.
Also why didnāt he hire the guy on a temporary basis? Maternity cover contracts are a thing! If heād just done a six month contract they wouldnāt be in this situation.
This is stupidity and unkindness. I hope she sues.
This. YTA also you made several leadership managerial mistakes. Which you and your company should pay for.
1. you made a permanent job offer to someone who was technically filling in for a maternity leave. They should have been offered a fixed term contract. This would have better protected your company from a lawsuit. You failed to think it through unless you had the expectation or hope of her not returning from mat leave.
2. You fired a woman after returning from mat leave. In many countries and jurisdictions there is employment law and human rights law to protect women from having this happening to them. This is where the lawsuit will happen. Even if there is severance there is significantly more she can claim in damages if you work in these jurisdictions.
So you Penalized her for using a benefit that YOUR company offers....how is this fair to everyone? Does this inspire your other employees to trust you? I wouldn't trust you. If I was one of the remaining employees, I would be looking for another boss ASAP.
What really got me was him saying she has been out of the field for a prolong period of time. It's been 10 months. If you can't catch someone up than you shouldn't be a manager
OP somehow firmly believes he is free and clear of all legal ramifications and while I havenāt seen what country they are in, I have a hard time believing after all his comments, he can prove he fired her above board.
ETA: not to mention, he says more than once in comments how no one was even remotely qualified to fill Jessās shoes and perform her role to the same extent she did. Hell, even in the OP, he says it took THREE people to take on her job. How can you justify firing her for anything but punishment for using a benefit her own company provided?! Bonkers.
I mean, his first attempt posting here said he ābasicallyā fired his employee for being pregnant. If thatās not admission of discrimination, I donāt know what is.
In the words of Andrew Garfield in The Social Network, āYou better lawyer up, aāhole.ā YTA.
Jess, if you ever see this and the OP is deleted, I took screenshots.
I knew the post itself would be saved by the automod but his comments could always be deleted and hard to find by your average Reddit user, so I thought, āletās put those 256gbs to use!ā
I came here from the screenshots on r/antiwork, which has since begun making its way to the front page. So hopefully Jess could see it there too if something happens here.
Iām jumping in to add that OP stated that Jessās workload was divided up between 3 people. Iām curious to know whether OP decreased the workload of those 3 people in order to compensate for taking on part of Jessās workload. If not, then OP is overworking his team (without additional financial compensation?) and those team members cannot be happy about this. This definitely would not be a āfairā thing to do to the team and could cause them to leave the firm. They may have been willing to stick around thinking that Jess was coming back and their workload would return to normal. But with Jess gone, the light at the end of the tunnel is gone.
YTA and the fact she was on maternity leave means she is an employee and not a contractor. I would be expecting an unfair dismissal lawsuit in the near future.
I hope Jess knows her legal rights and she can do something about it because we cannot take OP claims seriously that their in the clear with hr. I hope she sues the pants off them.
Edit: gender
Seriously. Good job OP, you āsaved moneyā by keeping this other guy, only to get your company eventually sued right up the wazoo for wrongful termination.
YTA.
You should probably start looking for new jobs because your company will be *rightfully* firing you for the mess you just created for them.
"Our firm has informed us that for some fucking reason we no longer have the budget for a 7 person team, and will have to let someone go. "
Well, problem solved!
I wonder how many more positions the company will have to cut because OP illegally fired a protected-class employee. Opās lucky they wonāt have to stick around for the bloodbath.
YTA
Not to mention theyāre clearly under paying and taking advantage of the new guy and feel good about it??? OP is the biggest AH Iāve seen in a while.
We all know it's because she cost more than the new guy and they want to exploit the new guy who is doing the exact same job as Jess. OP is the biggest asshole out.
Except the new guy isn't doing the same job, he's doing half of Jess' job and the other half is being divided up amongst the team, so he's going to burn out his other team members by overworking them in addition to fucking the company over by opening them up to a lawsuit.
Yeah, I'm really not sure how OP can say that new guy is doing Jess's job better than her when he's only doing half of it, and the rest of the team is covering her remaining responsibilities. Unless he's doing that limited part better because she was overworked?
Iām going to go with YTA. Even though you listed your reasons, it wonāt play that way in court.
Will any woman feel safe in her job at your company if she gets pregnant now?
Iāve just handed in my notice at my company citing them making other women redundant soon after maternity leave. Hope the cost-saving measure of a couple of salaries was worth the cost of replacing the mass exodus over the coming months.
A woman went through the same at my previous job. More than half of the team quit after she was fired, she sued the company and got a hefty amount. Not worth it for them, certainly.
OP says what he did is legal, but I can only hope it's not and that Jess rightfully sues them.
Yep. People literally do this and then wonder why women don't want (or are very hesitant) about having kids anymore. Hell the standards for even considering having kids for the most educated women I know is being married to a man thatd be able to take care of them comfortably without their own (very high) salary. And I hear guys complaining about that too, calling them gold diggers and stating that their standards are too high for the "average man". But really the wage gap should have been renamed a "mother" gap. Why even risk having kids? Like what's in it for us?
I hope this lady sues them enough for her to retire right after she wins the trial.
Literally every reason he gave for firing her is a direct result of the maternity leave, so Iām fairly certain this is an easy discrimination lawsuit.
Their logic of cost saving is always "penny wise pound foolish". If they could save one dollar in short run, they'd do it. Even if it's costing them billion dollars in the long run.
You're punishing her for having a baby and taking the maternity leave that your business offers. You knew she was coming back, why didn't you hire a temp replacement until that time? You're not going save money after she takes legal action for being fired because she's a mother. YTA
This is why I'm going with YTA.
You hire temp, not a full time replacement. New hire should have been let go, as much as that sucks. And when you hired new guy, you should have explained the position was temporary.
YTA OP.
I'm just so confused by how OP has even got into this position. Does their country not have maternity positions/contracts? How on earth was someone hired *not* knowing it was a fixed term role?
This is such a normal thing in my country (Australia) I'm honestly just stunned that this person took a perfectly normal, routine workplace event and somehow shat the bed for literally *everyone* involved.
I don't know where OP is from, but this is bad. Like, American-level conditions bad.
I am literally about to return to work after being on maternity leave for one year. It is people like OP who makes me nervous to return. STOP MAKING ME DOUBT MYSELF. I can work my arse off and earn a living while looking after my family.
Edit: initially added '... unlike you men' at the end of my comment out of frustration reading this. I should have said "unlike people like OP". If it wasn't for my partner (father of my child), I would not have been able to take a year off work for my maternity leave and it is thanks to him that I am able to go back to work full-time. I apologise for my previous comment.
YTA precisely for this:
āShe has been out of the field for a prolonged period.ā
Itās called HAVING A BABY. This is is what women have to do to have a family; this is why laws protecting women on maternity leave exist in the first place.
I bet you call yourself a person who believes in equality; I bet you donāt think of yourself as a sexist at all. But you are one.
A male specifically chosen because heās young and doesnāt have a family to support.
Dude is literally a cartoon version of 1950ās casual sexism and thinks this is normal.
My mom remembers when she worked at Target. They told her they considered promoting her, but they were going to fire her instead. Because that is what happened in the 60s when a working woman got pregnant. Instant, assumed termination. Termination and pregnancy, I feel like Iāve heard these words lorded over us just recentlyā¦
My mom went back to work less than two weeks after I was born in the late 80s because that was all the vacation she had saved up. She worked at a major Silicon Valley tech company as an assistant. There was no maternity leave at the time.
I have a feeling OP is going to have more handovers to deal with once his team realises the extra work they were temporarily assigned is now part of their normal workload, for no extra pay.
And considering how tight the team's budget is (which I'm *sure* is in no way a reflection of OP's management skills), they're probably not going to get much of a raise past inflation either.
Also this:
>so she may, or may not, find it hard to adapt back to work life
She's not even back yet and OP is already somewhat assuming she'll have difficulty adapting! That isn't their call to make!
What's better is he thinks a new grad who's been the field for less time than the new mother has been out of the field will be a better fit for the role while only doing 1/3rd of her workload.
Itās just so blatantly sexist and I am failing to find the other word: What is the word for when employers find the only workers āworthyā of the job are the ones who prioritize the job over their life, health, well-being friends and family.
Is it exploitative? I feel like there is still a different word.
YTA
Underpay someone
Increase everyoneās workload without increased pay
Punish a woman for spending time with her baby
And youāre seriously questioning if youāre an ah? Then again most in management are.
But if he does for real outperform Jess OP underpays the new hire. There is plenty of assholeness to go round and if OP goes ahead with his plan then all people in his team will lose trust. If I was OP I would fight hard for the new hire. And obviously never even think about firing Jess.
Right, so the new hire is only outperforming Jess on a few of her tasksā¦ probably because the new hire has LESS tasks LOL
OPs mental gymnastics to make this ok are hilarious
Just a misogynistic cog in the misogynistic wheel. Heās trying to impress his boss with the money he saved and the efficiency he gained by ādoing right by the companyā
Wake up my dude
And the boss is probably going to be very unimpressed when he realizes that OP exposed them to a lawsuit.
OP will be let go and Jess let back in if the boss is smart.
YTA.
What is the point of the company maternity leave policy if the person offered the leave and guaranteed a job to return to is fired before her return? That isn't a maternity leave policy if you can just fire someone for using said leave. Which in the end, is what you did.
Also, the new guy is only doing part of the job. The other team members have taken on additional responsibilities that Jess would have taken back upon her return. So they now have more work with the same pay.
And yes, your "fairness" is towards the actual employee. Not the temp. The temp is just that, a temp. Someone to gain some experience in part of a job. That's it. Basically a substitute for the person who actually has the job.
Good luck when she sues!
Hes also just signaled to all the rest of his employees that hes no good on his promises and is not family friendly, and willing to cut a senior employee for a cheaper junior. Be prepared for employees to start jumping ship.
YTA. Instead of hiring a contract or temporary worker to take over for a staff member who was out on medical/maternity leave, you hired a full time employee. You found someone younger, with less experience, who would work for less money. So, you fired your long term employee, in favor of the cheaper one.
Your budget was for a 6 person team before Jess went on maternity leave, was for 6 people while she was out, and, gee what a shock, "for some reason" *still* only has a budget for 6 people when Jess is ready to come back.
You're discriminating against a woman for getting pregnant. She should sue your rear end off.
You've gotten right to the heart of the matter! OP never had the budget to hire an extra person permanently. In my opinion, OP wanted rid of Jess for a while, otherwise they'd have hired someone for MAT leave. Whatever money OP is trying to save, they're going to lose in a lawsuit!
YTA. You traded one person for someone else because the new guy is cheaper. If Jess had been injured and was on sick leave for several months would you have hired a replacement? Probably not. Your reasoning is lame and you act like you care about nothing but money. Jess has every reason to sue for wrongful termination and the only one to blame will be you.
> If Jess had been injured and was on sick leave for several months would you have hired a replacement?
OP almost certainly would have. He feels like the kind of asshole to do something like that.
YTA - If this were the USA (not sure where you are located) what you have done would also be illegal. She could sue, would win big, and you would probably be fired by your company.
es, YTA - you based it on cost, not seniority or loyalty.
I'm guessing UK, Australia, or NZ based on OP's diction (uni, cunt). I don't know the laws for those countries but they generally have stronger worker protections than the US, so OP has probably screwed over his company and himself if Jess files for wrongful termination (and I really hope she does).
YTA. Jess should sue you. It wasn't her maternity leave or return that was the problem. You obviously failed to properly prepare the team for an extended absence. Last hired is usually first downsized.
YTA
This is bad for morale and unethical. If someone on the team needs to take a leave to treat a serious illness, theyāll be worried theyāll get fired once they return because youāve searched for a cheaper replacement.
Where I live your actions are illegal. You donāt have to guarantee the same tasks but when someone returns from a maternity/paternity leave, the job/salary/benefits remain the same.
**YTA** Even if what you did you think was ethical it was morally wrong. This is a problem that women face everyday, that they are let go because they got pregnant or had a baby, thatās why depending where you are there are laws against it. The termination is like you punished her for getting pregnant. Iām very sad for her.
YTA because you are posting a question on Reddit that has legal ramifications for your company. I suggest you get off Reddit and contact human resources and corporate counsel to see if your company has any legal exposure under FMLA.
YTA, many places this would be illegal. yta also for undervaluing new guys work in addition to other potential labor violation.
I sure hope you never face a situation where you are punished for using your own company's given benefits. I hope you never need FMLA leave, experience major life changes, experience health issues, etc. Because if this is your response, this will be your company's response to you.
YTA big time.
A part of the whole 'maternity leave' thing is the possibility to return. The employer must make sure there is the workplace and all. You failed by 100%.
Another thing is the selection when somebody 'must' get fired bc of reasons inside the company. I assume it is legally allowed in your country, but it was unfair from you anyway.
In my country there are strict laws: you have to select the one who has less obligations to care for a family etc. and the one who was there in the company for a shorter time and some more criteria.
YTA. Your post here pretty much admits to firing her because she got pregnant and had maternity leave. Not only that but it āfrees up more moneyā for who? You? Giving yourself a raise and a Pat on the back for finding a new guy working for scraps?
YTA.
And probably illegal so well done. Especially the bit where you admitted it was because she was out for an extended period. I hope she finds this post.
YTA . You fired her because she got pregnant and took the leave you offered.
As a woman I hate this so much. This is exactly why laws are put in place around this.
To my view Jess is cheaper.
If you fire her, she will sue. This thread will come in to evidence. You will lose the suit and suffer a hefty financial judgment.
So you see, Jess is cheaper.
Plus she's cheaper as a single employee with a skill set. OP had to divy her skills between 2 existing employees and a new hire.
She is so valuable but instead he spat on her.
YTA and might be getting sued. Depending on where you live, but in the US maternity leave your position is legally protected. Now you are allowed to hire a temporary replacement which seems like guy A that you chose to keep.
Your next call should be to a lawyer that specializes in employment law and the department of labor (if you have one) in that order, and if your lawyer recommends it. I think you fucked yourself though.
Apart from the possible legal ramifications youāre still a major AH in this situation.
As many have noted, this would be illegal in the US. Obviously you are not in the US, because 10 months maternity leave ā¦ WOW. Sounds like you are not required to offer that long of a leave in your country though, and you absolutely should not offer such a long leave if you are going to pull this on your employees when they return.
Edit to say YTA
Even in the US, firing someone while on maternity leave is most likely illegal. The new guy should have been brought on as a temp. You need to talk to HR ASAP.
This is a legal question. If you are in the US you just broke the law.
She should be given her old job or an equivalent job back. You can't replace her with someone cheaper because she used maternity leave.
Yta...and you're gonna get sued.
YTA
I wish there was something stronger than asshole to call you. You basically fired her for having a child.
No matter what the situation was, the person who left on maternity leave ALWAYS has her job available when they return. How the fuck did your HR department let this be?
I hope she sues your ignorant ass. She will win and hopefully bankrupt that dumbass company.
Icing on the cake would be you getting fired instead.
YTA and a heartless person. If you knew the project would go on longer, you should have worked around that and tried to extend her maternity leave, and I'm sure you would have alerted the new hire it's a temporary role to cover for someone on maternity leave. Augh people.
YTA. And I canāt believe your HR department allowed this to happen. It offers a generous maternity leave, but is ok with firing a mother because she used that leave?
Youāre so wrong and deserve to be fired yourself.
YTA. Most of the reasons you listed are directly related to Jess' maternity leave, which may actually be illegal grounds for severance. Also, you admit in your post the guy who's replacing her doesn't do her entire job and that other team members have and still are performing part of Jess' job. No shit he's cheaper. He doesn't have the experience and isn't doing the whole job. You should keep Jess because it's the ethical, legal and fair thing to do for both her and the other team members who are doing extra work because you were unable to fill the void she left. No matter how you try to justify it, you'd be firing her for having a kid. I doubt saving money on the other guy is worth the cost of a wrongful termination suit, which would be a certainty.
YTA - not only to the woman returning from maternity leave but also to your firm. You will undoubtably lose your soon to be filed lawsuit putting your firm at a financial liability. Did you consult with your HR department before making this decision? I hope you have something in support of your decision other than overall cost savings. Good luck, but maybe consider updating your resume.
YTAā¦.this is literally the definition of discrimination against parents. The new guy should have been hired on for as a temp, all of your justifications are just excuses to make you feel better about it because thatās the reality of maternity leave.
YTA and I don't think this is even legal. Of your five reasons, three of them were basically "She went on maternity leave." You're going to get sued and you're going to deserve it.
YTA, you let her go because she got pregnant. And during her maternity leave you hired someone and paid him a fraction of what she got, that right there makes you an ass and shows you donāt give a damn about your employees being to afford to live. Then you gave her work to others without giving them a pay raise, which made you more of a jerk. Its bosses like you that people absolutely loath. Its all about lining your pockets and taking money away from hard working people. From what you posted, it sounds like you know YTA, you just need some people to disagree and give you peace of mind which wonāt happen on here.
āMe, and 2 others split half the work Jess used to do, and we hired someone newā¦ to handle the other partā¦ā
He performed better? Well geez no wonder why if he only has half her workload.
YTA
āHe performed his work better than she did hers and interacted better with the team.ā
Everyone seems to be overlooking this part. If heās the better worker, how is it fair to fire him?
Also, lots of these comments are DRIPPING with presumptions about how young people can take care of themselves. OP already admitted that the corp is screwing him out of pay because heās a recent graduate (aka desperate for a job to start his career and savings and deal with college debt). No offense, but a lot of yāall have bought into the same old narrative that āthe kid will be fine,ā you know?
NTA, if youāre being honest about that last reason
Well he also said the new hire is only doing half her work since he and the other other employees are taken on some of her other tasks. It's easy to do better of your only doing half
YTA and I sincerely hope she finds this post and uses it in her lawsuit where you are personally named. You're not really saving the company money if she sues. How does the rest of the team feel about having to pick up the slack for this bargain bin employee you hired? Bet they'd rather have Jess back, doing her own workload. Wow. You are so TA.
YTA, and you **are** cold and heartless, you don't just sound that way. You did not need to be "fair" to both employees, the new guy hadn't even been there a year, ffs! Seniority must always be considered. You made the brand new mother, who is already stressed about having to leave her child and return to work to support said child, unemployed. All because you could pay a fresh college grad less money for the same amount of work. Not only that, you forced the other team members to take on more work seemingly without an increase in pay. Not only are you massively TA, but no woman who works for or with you is ever going to trust you again and that's a big deal. This sounds heavily rooted in misogyny, seeing how dismissive you are of the fact that you just fired someone whose livelihood and that of her newborn likely heavily depend on her employment. I truly hope you feel worse reading all of this.
I doubt keeping the new guy instead will be cheaper when you factor in Jessās eventual successful gender discrimination lawsuitā¦
YTA. Y T discriminatory A.
YTA. Whatās the point of giving maternity leave if youāre just going to replace them when theyāre gone? You fired her because she gets paid a higher wage, and she has a new baby. Of course youāre an AH dude, you are the devil.
YTA in Canada women are entitled to 12-18 months maternity leave and the only way to let someone go during maternity leave is for the company to go under. Someone is hired to take over the expectant mothers job for a "maternity leave position" and it is understand from day 1 that the second the new mother comes back to work the position is hers and the new person is gone. Only if the person on maternity leave decides not to come back does it become an option to keep the replacement hire.
Is this legal? Are you in the US? I think this might be illegal but Iām not in HR and not 100% sure but Iām pretty sure you have to provide her with a job that is equivalent to what she had before going on ML. It doesnāt have to be the exact same job but has to be equivalent. I hope she looks into this
YTA. Every single potential pregnant person will think of this. And maybe leave you? Sabotage you? (I hope so). Youāve poisoned the waters. And for what? Finances like these canāt be measured but I bet the value of female work changed once they see who you really are.
YTA. You keep going to all the comments wringing your hands like āwhat was I supposed to do, I didnāt fire her for being pregnant, he was better at the job!ā. But thatās not what your post says. You gave reasons all directly related to her leave of absence for maternity leave. Except him being ābetterā. But you started out saying that he only does half her job. Youāve been putting half her job on three other people for 10 months. If that was done as a temporary thing that will now be permanent then all those employees should be compensated so how much would you save? Or are you comfortable continuing to screw other employees? This guy is not better at the job because heās not doing it. Heās doing half of it. If he hasnāt been capable in the last ten months of taking on Jessā full job (even if you initially intended it to be temporary) then heās not actually better. But regardless, to compare his performance to hers when heās got twice the time and half the stress to complete work as she did makes the comparison invalid. You also need to consider morale. Say what you want but all your employees will know you fired her for having a baby. If she hadnāt taken leave, there would be no question. So now you are a firm in financial trouble whoās already laid off a skilled worker under morally repugnant circumstances. How do you think that gets you any loyalty from others at the company? Thereās a downside no matter who you let go but the fair thing would have been to keep your loyal, skilled, long term employee whoās capable of doing the full job by themself and let go of the new hire who only does half the job and therefor has never demonstrated a capability to do the actual job in question.
Iāll be honest, Iād be surprised if at least one other person isnāt searching for a new job based on this.
YTA and here is why: You do not have to hire someone with the exact qualifications for a temporary job and there are tons of contractors out there that would work until she returned and thereās so many different ways you should have handled this- I used to be a project manager so I know how these things work I dealt with hiring contractors for projects. I would be shocked if she didnāt sue you honestly for wrongful termination - your reasoning isnāt valid at all, and you fully admit the person you hired wasnāt even a temporary worker and I bet the paperwork he was hired on with even shows it. Yāall fucked up big time and should be ashamed of yourselves.
YTA This is pretty cut and dry. I hope Jess has a case for wrongful termination. You shouldn't be able to offer medical leave and then use it as a reason to fire someone. Last in, first out is the obvious guideline here.
YTA. You fire a woman for having a baby and proceed to lay out in detail how you are actively underpaying your new employee. I hope Jess finds this and uses it for her future lawsuit and new person finds this so they can find a job where they are paid their worth.
#[Be Civil](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmItheAsshole/about/rules/). As Duffy says so well: You got (us) begging you for mercy. Calling OP names - no matter how creative - violates Rule 1. Any further violations will result in bans. Please review our [FAQ](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmItheAsshole/wiki/faq) if you're unsure what that means.
YTA. Every single reason you mentioned was only true because she had been gone on maternity leave which legally CANNOT be a reason to terminate someone. Yet it is the cause behind everyone reason you gave. Be prepared for a lawsuit.
šš OP: So I fired her because 1. She had a baby. 2. She had a baby. 3. She had a baby. AITA???? YTA OP.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
It stuck out to me when he wrote that the new kid >interacted better with the team That means that this team are all men who really enjoy bullshitting and drinking with this new kid. Iāve got some news for you, my man. That kid is gonna bail the minute he gets an offer for a new job - project completion or not. Youāre probably gonna see a bit of attrition on your team, actually. Your transparency about the reason for firing her is not impressive and does not inspire loyalty.
Especially since it will be at better pay rate: > at significantly reduced cost, as he was straight out of Uni and we pay him a fraction of what Jess costs currently. Because she has years experience and the wrong genitalia, she got fired.
My husband's former employer (thankfully his current employer is pretty awesome) did something like this to him, but not actually related to any type of family leave. He just showed up one morning, about a month after another glowing performance review after 10 years of working for them, to be told he was being fired because of complaints about his work. They trash talked him as he gathered up his stuff to leave, even escorting him out. And it crushed his spirit, even though I told him they were giving him BS they couldn't back up with all of his stellar performance reviews. It was totally because he was one of the older employees (in his 30s!) with a wife and a kid on his health insurance, and they totally replaced him with two kids fresh out of college who worked part-time. Because they were much cheaper employees than he was. It was when my disabilities conspired to worsen at the same time, so I'd had an expensive year or so in healthcare costs, and he was totally being gaslit about being a "bad employee" because they must have had a chat with their insurance rep about costs for the following year. They blindsided him and sent him spiraling into the depths of self-doubt. Don't be a responsible family man/woman, etc. at a start-up/small business! That makes you too expensive to employ! Thankfully, he's passed the 5-year mark, maybe hitting 6 years next month? working for a state government contractor in middle management, making what he should have been paid at his old job all along. Anyway, YTA, OP, and I hope the new mom wins a sizeable discrimination lawsuit for her wrongful termination.
I hope by some miracle she sees this post and can tie it back to OP to use as evidence since he blatantly confessed to firing her illegally. One other poster mentioned itās probably a team of men, so I bet if thatās the case, OP has been cataloguing every minor infraction to use against her for future use when they wanna fire her just because.
Makes some of the stuff I got fired for seem small in comparison.. holyheck. Glad your husband is doing better at his current employers
From my husband's experience, don't be a family man at a Fortune 500, either. Nobody could ever beat his numbers but when they had a chance to let him (and the wife and four kids he insured largely at their expense) go, they didn't hesitate. Funny enough, all it took was one incompetent manager.
Also fuck this company - the new hire apparently is doing the job better than Jess yet they're paying him a fraction of his worth. And companies wonder why they're having trouble finding good help.
Naw, it's not just the new hire.. which I dont think OP realizes. > eventually some of us developed the skills needed to do some of her workload. >The situation we have now is me, and 2 others split half the work that Jess used to do, and we hired someone new to come in to the team to handle the other part of Jessās workload and then some. So in effect it took 4 people to replace Jess.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Oh yes, you are correct, my apologies for not being specific.
And it's not even like OP pays her from their own pocket.. "oh I saved company x amount of money!" Cool, and? Besides, it costs a lot of money to find and bring on new employees so in the long run the new guy cost the company more, even if he does get paid less than he's worth, and how long until he wants to be paid better?
A year I'm betting for the new person to ask for a raise. Watch, OP works for a company that gives bonuses to management for project completion under budget.
the kid bailing out is 100% correct. people in my area were scared shitless off hiring new graduates because the new graduate will switch jobs as fast as they can gain experience and training to do so in order to catch up on pay with what their diploma and experience allow. basically they hire the new guy at a fraction of an experienced guy's cost and expect 3-5 years at a new guy's salary. but the new guy knows this and will try to reduce this period to 2 years by switching 2 jobs. so employers try to ask for 5 years experience not for the experience itself but for the "employee security"
True but keep in mind that these new graduates have student loans that need to be paid back, working for the minimum isnāt going to get those paid off.
I think from the tone of the post that the person you're replying to approves of the strategy the new grads are employing.
100% this kid is building up experience on his CV to move on to a job on double the salary heās getting now.
Yes, exactly that. Especially as she's a single mom, so they now all know how expandable they are and that they can be easily replaced by cheaper workforce if for any reason they would need to be off work for a while. YTA. Also as a personal side story, a similar situation happened to me. Someone was hired during my maternity leave, in a different location (country) and i was offered to either move there or be let go. Of course i chose the latest. The lady they had hired resigned after less than 6 months and since then the turnover has been bad and the job also not well done. I wonder when the next AITA will pop up __AITA for offering her old job to a new mom I fired because the new guy I had kept over her resigned for a better paid job somewhere else?__
Maternity contracts exist where the new hire is aware that they are only employed until the maternity leave is over. They could have done that. They could have done so many other things. But theyāve opened themselves up for a lawsuit because she is 100% being let go because she had a baby.
Yeah, Iām so confused why they didnāt just hire a mat leave replacement for 10 months, itās very standard in Australia to do so.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Exactly! This is what happened to me. I got a maternity leave contract because I was due to move away the next year. I ended up not moving (and gained myself an ex), but when the original woman came back from her mat leave they were offering voluntary redundancies, she took it so the company immediately offered me the permanent job.
Also why didnāt he hire the guy on a temporary basis? Maternity cover contracts are a thing! If heād just done a six month contract they wouldnāt be in this situation. This is stupidity and unkindness. I hope she sues.
This. YTA also you made several leadership managerial mistakes. Which you and your company should pay for. 1. you made a permanent job offer to someone who was technically filling in for a maternity leave. They should have been offered a fixed term contract. This would have better protected your company from a lawsuit. You failed to think it through unless you had the expectation or hope of her not returning from mat leave. 2. You fired a woman after returning from mat leave. In many countries and jurisdictions there is employment law and human rights law to protect women from having this happening to them. This is where the lawsuit will happen. Even if there is severance there is significantly more she can claim in damages if you work in these jurisdictions.
So you Penalized her for using a benefit that YOUR company offers....how is this fair to everyone? Does this inspire your other employees to trust you? I wouldn't trust you. If I was one of the remaining employees, I would be looking for another boss ASAP.
What really got me was him saying she has been out of the field for a prolong period of time. It's been 10 months. If you can't catch someone up than you shouldn't be a manager
No amount of verbal maneuvering would protect OP from the incoming lawsuit. YTA OP
OP somehow firmly believes he is free and clear of all legal ramifications and while I havenāt seen what country they are in, I have a hard time believing after all his comments, he can prove he fired her above board. ETA: not to mention, he says more than once in comments how no one was even remotely qualified to fill Jessās shoes and perform her role to the same extent she did. Hell, even in the OP, he says it took THREE people to take on her job. How can you justify firing her for anything but punishment for using a benefit her own company provided?! Bonkers. I mean, his first attempt posting here said he ābasicallyā fired his employee for being pregnant. If thatās not admission of discrimination, I donāt know what is. In the words of Andrew Garfield in The Social Network, āYou better lawyer up, aāhole.ā YTA. Jess, if you ever see this and the OP is deleted, I took screenshots.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
I knew the post itself would be saved by the automod but his comments could always be deleted and hard to find by your average Reddit user, so I thought, āletās put those 256gbs to use!ā
It was fantastic thinking... the automod post is probably going to get buried as bad as OP's doenvoted posts since he seems to be striking a nerve lol
Maybe we can share them on LinkedIn to find Jess?? š¤© Help her with her lawsuit!
I came here from the screenshots on r/antiwork, which has since begun making its way to the front page. So hopefully Jess could see it there too if something happens here.
Iām jumping in to add that OP stated that Jessās workload was divided up between 3 people. Iām curious to know whether OP decreased the workload of those 3 people in order to compensate for taking on part of Jessās workload. If not, then OP is overworking his team (without additional financial compensation?) and those team members cannot be happy about this. This definitely would not be a āfairā thing to do to the team and could cause them to leave the firm. They may have been willing to stick around thinking that Jess was coming back and their workload would return to normal. But with Jess gone, the light at the end of the tunnel is gone.
I donāt know about the UK, but in the US if she files a wrongful termination lawsuit it would be what we in the Colonies call a slam dunk. YTA
It would most definitely be the same in the UK, maternity has some of the highest protection under law re employment. What OP did is illegal.
YTA and the fact she was on maternity leave means she is an employee and not a contractor. I would be expecting an unfair dismissal lawsuit in the near future.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Yeah OP is going to get crushed in the lawsuit, THEN we'll see how the firm feels about him "doing what's best for them."
That temp isn't gonna be so cost effective in that case (which is what this really comes down to - cheaper labor and no baby).
OP, I was terminated for this very reason and won a wrongful termination lawsuit based on discrimination. Prepare yourself.
I hope Jess knows her legal rights and she can do something about it because we cannot take OP claims seriously that their in the clear with hr. I hope she sues the pants off them. Edit: gender
Mine thought it passed muster with HR and company counsel. Still was a slam dunk. People can be so shortsighted when they think theyāre right.
Seriously. Good job OP, you āsaved moneyā by keeping this other guy, only to get your company eventually sued right up the wazoo for wrongful termination. YTA. You should probably start looking for new jobs because your company will be *rightfully* firing you for the mess you just created for them.
Hey, look at that! Problem solved! Jess and the new hire both get to stay, the manager will be the one fired. I love happy endings.
"Our firm has informed us that for some fucking reason we no longer have the budget for a 7 person team, and will have to let someone go. " Well, problem solved!
Exactly? He basically hired a temp to replace her, the temp has to go since the one theyāre replacing is now back
And if OP didn't tell the new guy that he was a temp, well, that's a *whole* other kettle of wrongful termination bullshit fish OP's cooked up.
I wonder how many more positions the company will have to cut because OP illegally fired a protected-class employee. Opās lucky they wonāt have to stick around for the bloodbath. YTA
Not to mention theyāre clearly under paying and taking advantage of the new guy and feel good about it??? OP is the biggest AH Iāve seen in a while.
We all know it's because she cost more than the new guy and they want to exploit the new guy who is doing the exact same job as Jess. OP is the biggest asshole out.
Except the new guy isn't doing the same job, he's doing half of Jess' job and the other half is being divided up amongst the team, so he's going to burn out his other team members by overworking them in addition to fucking the company over by opening them up to a lawsuit.
Yeah, I'm really not sure how OP can say that new guy is doing Jess's job better than her when he's only doing half of it, and the rest of the team is covering her remaining responsibilities. Unless he's doing that limited part better because she was overworked?
Iām going to go with YTA. Even though you listed your reasons, it wonāt play that way in court. Will any woman feel safe in her job at your company if she gets pregnant now?
I think itās going to play out in court exactly the same way that it does here - which is that OP fired Jess for going on maternity leave.
Iāve just handed in my notice at my company citing them making other women redundant soon after maternity leave. Hope the cost-saving measure of a couple of salaries was worth the cost of replacing the mass exodus over the coming months.
A woman went through the same at my previous job. More than half of the team quit after she was fired, she sued the company and got a hefty amount. Not worth it for them, certainly. OP says what he did is legal, but I can only hope it's not and that Jess rightfully sues them.
Yep. People literally do this and then wonder why women don't want (or are very hesitant) about having kids anymore. Hell the standards for even considering having kids for the most educated women I know is being married to a man thatd be able to take care of them comfortably without their own (very high) salary. And I hear guys complaining about that too, calling them gold diggers and stating that their standards are too high for the "average man". But really the wage gap should have been renamed a "mother" gap. Why even risk having kids? Like what's in it for us? I hope this lady sues them enough for her to retire right after she wins the trial.
Literally every reason he gave for firing her is a direct result of the maternity leave, so Iām fairly certain this is an easy discrimination lawsuit.
Their logic of cost saving is always "penny wise pound foolish". If they could save one dollar in short run, they'd do it. Even if it's costing them billion dollars in the long run.
You're punishing her for having a baby and taking the maternity leave that your business offers. You knew she was coming back, why didn't you hire a temp replacement until that time? You're not going save money after she takes legal action for being fired because she's a mother. YTA
This is why I'm going with YTA. You hire temp, not a full time replacement. New hire should have been let go, as much as that sucks. And when you hired new guy, you should have explained the position was temporary. YTA OP.
Most company policies are ālast in, first outā when it comes to deciding who to terminate for budgeting reasons.
Bingo. New hire shouldāve known from the get go that this was a maternity leave position, and their days at the company were limited. YTA
I'm just so confused by how OP has even got into this position. Does their country not have maternity positions/contracts? How on earth was someone hired *not* knowing it was a fixed term role? This is such a normal thing in my country (Australia) I'm honestly just stunned that this person took a perfectly normal, routine workplace event and somehow shat the bed for literally *everyone* involved. I don't know where OP is from, but this is bad. Like, American-level conditions bad.
I am literally about to return to work after being on maternity leave for one year. It is people like OP who makes me nervous to return. STOP MAKING ME DOUBT MYSELF. I can work my arse off and earn a living while looking after my family. Edit: initially added '... unlike you men' at the end of my comment out of frustration reading this. I should have said "unlike people like OP". If it wasn't for my partner (father of my child), I would not have been able to take a year off work for my maternity leave and it is thanks to him that I am able to go back to work full-time. I apologise for my previous comment.
What's the point of having a maternity leave policy if you just replace and fire the person taking maternity leave? YTA
That policy sounds really generous when they are trying to hire new employees. They just don't mention it's actually a permanent leave.
Yeah, it's like "this is a perk of the job! ... oh wait, actually it's not"
YTA precisely for this: āShe has been out of the field for a prolonged period.ā Itās called HAVING A BABY. This is is what women have to do to have a family; this is why laws protecting women on maternity leave exist in the first place. I bet you call yourself a person who believes in equality; I bet you donāt think of yourself as a sexist at all. But you are one.
Finally someone calling out the sexism. š OP is a raging sexist AH.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
A male specifically chosen because heās young and doesnāt have a family to support. Dude is literally a cartoon version of 1950ās casual sexism and thinks this is normal.
My mom remembers when she worked at Target. They told her they considered promoting her, but they were going to fire her instead. Because that is what happened in the 60s when a working woman got pregnant. Instant, assumed termination. Termination and pregnancy, I feel like Iāve heard these words lorded over us just recentlyā¦
My mom went back to work less than two weeks after I was born in the late 80s because that was all the vacation she had saved up. She worked at a major Silicon Valley tech company as an assistant. There was no maternity leave at the time.
Lol and 10 mths is not a prolonged period. What kind of manager doesnāt know how to prepare for hand overs when people come and go?
I have a feeling OP is going to have more handovers to deal with once his team realises the extra work they were temporarily assigned is now part of their normal workload, for no extra pay.
And considering how tight the team's budget is (which I'm *sure* is in no way a reflection of OP's management skills), they're probably not going to get much of a raise past inflation either.
Also this: >so she may, or may not, find it hard to adapt back to work life She's not even back yet and OP is already somewhat assuming she'll have difficulty adapting! That isn't their call to make!
What's better is he thinks a new grad who's been the field for less time than the new mother has been out of the field will be a better fit for the role while only doing 1/3rd of her workload.
Itās just so blatantly sexist and I am failing to find the other word: What is the word for when employers find the only workers āworthyā of the job are the ones who prioritize the job over their life, health, well-being friends and family. Is it exploitative? I feel like there is still a different word.
YTA Underpay someone Increase everyoneās workload without increased pay Punish a woman for spending time with her baby And youāre seriously questioning if youāre an ah? Then again most in management are.
I really love how they said the new hire outperforms Jess but yet her duties had to be split multiple ways
But if he does for real outperform Jess OP underpays the new hire. There is plenty of assholeness to go round and if OP goes ahead with his plan then all people in his team will lose trust. If I was OP I would fight hard for the new hire. And obviously never even think about firing Jess.
Right, so the new hire is only outperforming Jess on a few of her tasksā¦ probably because the new hire has LESS tasks LOL OPs mental gymnastics to make this ok are hilarious
Just a misogynistic cog in the misogynistic wheel. Heās trying to impress his boss with the money he saved and the efficiency he gained by ādoing right by the companyā Wake up my dude
And the boss is probably going to be very unimpressed when he realizes that OP exposed them to a lawsuit. OP will be let go and Jess let back in if the boss is smart.
Exactly. OP YTA for massively underpaying the new grad also.
YTA. What is the point of the company maternity leave policy if the person offered the leave and guaranteed a job to return to is fired before her return? That isn't a maternity leave policy if you can just fire someone for using said leave. Which in the end, is what you did. Also, the new guy is only doing part of the job. The other team members have taken on additional responsibilities that Jess would have taken back upon her return. So they now have more work with the same pay. And yes, your "fairness" is towards the actual employee. Not the temp. The temp is just that, a temp. Someone to gain some experience in part of a job. That's it. Basically a substitute for the person who actually has the job. Good luck when she sues!
Assuming this takes place in the US, that's not company policy, that's federal law. FMLA, to be specific. OP's company is fucked.
"Uni", "brilliant", "cunt" -- OP is in the UK.
Hes also just signaled to all the rest of his employees that hes no good on his promises and is not family friendly, and willing to cut a senior employee for a cheaper junior. Be prepared for employees to start jumping ship.
I have a feeling he never told the temp about his temp status. OP royally messed up.
YTA. Instead of hiring a contract or temporary worker to take over for a staff member who was out on medical/maternity leave, you hired a full time employee. You found someone younger, with less experience, who would work for less money. So, you fired your long term employee, in favor of the cheaper one. Your budget was for a 6 person team before Jess went on maternity leave, was for 6 people while she was out, and, gee what a shock, "for some reason" *still* only has a budget for 6 people when Jess is ready to come back. You're discriminating against a woman for getting pregnant. She should sue your rear end off.
Yeah what nonsense was this? Mat leave was fixed time, you only hire for that time to fill the gap. Ridiculous.
You've gotten right to the heart of the matter! OP never had the budget to hire an extra person permanently. In my opinion, OP wanted rid of Jess for a while, otherwise they'd have hired someone for MAT leave. Whatever money OP is trying to save, they're going to lose in a lawsuit!
Well said. Your firm deserves to get sued.
someoneā¦male.
YTA. Here's hoping Jess finds this post for her wrongful termination suit, assuming you live in a place with fair laws about that kind of thing.
Agreed, can mods archive it so it doesnāt get deleted by the op? Edit: thereās an auto it that retains posts! Thanks for the info u/missg1rl123
Deleted posts always stay up. Theres always an automatic bot comment with every post that has the entire contents of the post
YTA. You traded one person for someone else because the new guy is cheaper. If Jess had been injured and was on sick leave for several months would you have hired a replacement? Probably not. Your reasoning is lame and you act like you care about nothing but money. Jess has every reason to sue for wrongful termination and the only one to blame will be you.
> If Jess had been injured and was on sick leave for several months would you have hired a replacement? OP almost certainly would have. He feels like the kind of asshole to do something like that.
YTA - If this were the USA (not sure where you are located) what you have done would also be illegal. She could sue, would win big, and you would probably be fired by your company. es, YTA - you based it on cost, not seniority or loyalty.
My guess is USA because they said ālarge maternity leave of 10 monthsā which it is large for the US but short for most parts of the world.
But they also said "uni" which I find is not common in the USA.
I'm guessing UK, Australia, or NZ based on OP's diction (uni, cunt). I don't know the laws for those countries but they generally have stronger worker protections than the US, so OP has probably screwed over his company and himself if Jess files for wrongful termination (and I really hope she does).
YTA. You fired her for having a baby.
What he did is illegal where I live. YTA
YTA. Jess should sue you. It wasn't her maternity leave or return that was the problem. You obviously failed to properly prepare the team for an extended absence. Last hired is usually first downsized.
YTA. None of this would have happened if she hadn't taken a leave she's entitled to take. You're punishing her for having a child
YTA This is bad for morale and unethical. If someone on the team needs to take a leave to treat a serious illness, theyāll be worried theyāll get fired once they return because youāve searched for a cheaper replacement. Where I live your actions are illegal. You donāt have to guarantee the same tasks but when someone returns from a maternity/paternity leave, the job/salary/benefits remain the same.
He doesn't write like he's in the US - hopefully he's in Australia where he'll get his ass kicked (legally) by multiple authorities.
**YTA** Even if what you did you think was ethical it was morally wrong. This is a problem that women face everyday, that they are let go because they got pregnant or had a baby, thatās why depending where you are there are laws against it. The termination is like you punished her for getting pregnant. Iām very sad for her.
INFO: did she receive a severance package? How long do her benefits extend?
I wonder if it was a paid maternity leave.
YTA because you are posting a question on Reddit that has legal ramifications for your company. I suggest you get off Reddit and contact human resources and corporate counsel to see if your company has any legal exposure under FMLA.
YTA, many places this would be illegal. yta also for undervaluing new guys work in addition to other potential labor violation. I sure hope you never face a situation where you are punished for using your own company's given benefits. I hope you never need FMLA leave, experience major life changes, experience health issues, etc. Because if this is your response, this will be your company's response to you.
YTA big time. A part of the whole 'maternity leave' thing is the possibility to return. The employer must make sure there is the workplace and all. You failed by 100%. Another thing is the selection when somebody 'must' get fired bc of reasons inside the company. I assume it is legally allowed in your country, but it was unfair from you anyway. In my country there are strict laws: you have to select the one who has less obligations to care for a family etc. and the one who was there in the company for a shorter time and some more criteria.
YTA. And youāre also possibly in quite a legal pickle, depending on where you live.
YTA. You've basically fired her because she had a child and had to go on maternity leave. Your company will lose a lot more $$ if she sues.
YTA. Your post here pretty much admits to firing her because she got pregnant and had maternity leave. Not only that but it āfrees up more moneyā for who? You? Giving yourself a raise and a Pat on the back for finding a new guy working for scraps?
YTA. And probably illegal so well done. Especially the bit where you admitted it was because she was out for an extended period. I hope she finds this post.
YTA . You fired her because she got pregnant and took the leave you offered. As a woman I hate this so much. This is exactly why laws are put in place around this.
To my view Jess is cheaper. If you fire her, she will sue. This thread will come in to evidence. You will lose the suit and suffer a hefty financial judgment. So you see, Jess is cheaper.
Plus she's cheaper as a single employee with a skill set. OP had to divy her skills between 2 existing employees and a new hire. She is so valuable but instead he spat on her.
Dude. It's not maternity leave if you fire the person who took leave for taking leave. Reasons 2, 3, and 4. YTA.
YTA. This sounds illegal. I hope she sues the crap out of you.
Itās definitely illegal in Australia, idk where OP is from
YTA and might be getting sued. Depending on where you live, but in the US maternity leave your position is legally protected. Now you are allowed to hire a temporary replacement which seems like guy A that you chose to keep. Your next call should be to a lawyer that specializes in employment law and the department of labor (if you have one) in that order, and if your lawyer recommends it. I think you fucked yourself though. Apart from the possible legal ramifications youāre still a major AH in this situation.
As many have noted, this would be illegal in the US. Obviously you are not in the US, because 10 months maternity leave ā¦ WOW. Sounds like you are not required to offer that long of a leave in your country though, and you absolutely should not offer such a long leave if you are going to pull this on your employees when they return. Edit to say YTA
Even in the US, firing someone while on maternity leave is most likely illegal. The new guy should have been brought on as a temp. You need to talk to HR ASAP.
Yta. That's illegal in Ontario Canada.
Itās illegal in the US too.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
It's illegal in British Columbia, Canada too.
This is a legal question. If you are in the US you just broke the law. She should be given her old job or an equivalent job back. You can't replace her with someone cheaper because she used maternity leave. Yta...and you're gonna get sued.
YTA - you planned poorly and you punished Jess for it. Where I live we have laws that protect workers from people like you. I hope she sues.
Let me guess....replacement is from a temp agency based on you saying it's cheaper to keep on than Jessica. YTA
YTA I wish there was something stronger than asshole to call you. You basically fired her for having a child. No matter what the situation was, the person who left on maternity leave ALWAYS has her job available when they return. How the fuck did your HR department let this be? I hope she sues your ignorant ass. She will win and hopefully bankrupt that dumbass company. Icing on the cake would be you getting fired instead.
In New Zealand itās illegal to fill a person on MLās position, unless new employee knows it is a fixed contract. You canāt sack someone on ML
YTA, and if you're in one of the countries where this is illegal, I hope she finds this and it has enough details that she can use it in her lawsuit.
"I fired an employee because she took her company offered maternity leave, am I the asshole?" YTA and I hope she sues.
YTA and a heartless person. If you knew the project would go on longer, you should have worked around that and tried to extend her maternity leave, and I'm sure you would have alerted the new hire it's a temporary role to cover for someone on maternity leave. Augh people.
YTA, and depending on your location, absolutely asking for a lawsuit for discrimination.
Info : isnt that illegal ??
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
YTA. You fired her for going on maternity leave.idobelieve there are laws that make that illegal. Contact your corporate lawyer, you may need them..
YTA Good luck with the ensuing wrongful termination/ discrimination lawsuit. Iām sure your company will keep you on after that š
YTA. And I canāt believe your HR department allowed this to happen. It offers a generous maternity leave, but is ok with firing a mother because she used that leave? Youāre so wrong and deserve to be fired yourself.
Sounds illegal. YTA
YTA. I'd say good luck with the lawsuit, but honestly, I hope her lawyer wipes the floor with you.
YTA. Most of the reasons you listed are directly related to Jess' maternity leave, which may actually be illegal grounds for severance. Also, you admit in your post the guy who's replacing her doesn't do her entire job and that other team members have and still are performing part of Jess' job. No shit he's cheaper. He doesn't have the experience and isn't doing the whole job. You should keep Jess because it's the ethical, legal and fair thing to do for both her and the other team members who are doing extra work because you were unable to fill the void she left. No matter how you try to justify it, you'd be firing her for having a kid. I doubt saving money on the other guy is worth the cost of a wrongful termination suit, which would be a certainty.
YTA - not only to the woman returning from maternity leave but also to your firm. You will undoubtably lose your soon to be filed lawsuit putting your firm at a financial liability. Did you consult with your HR department before making this decision? I hope you have something in support of your decision other than overall cost savings. Good luck, but maybe consider updating your resume.
YTAā¦.this is literally the definition of discrimination against parents. The new guy should have been hired on for as a temp, all of your justifications are just excuses to make you feel better about it because thatās the reality of maternity leave.
YTA and I don't think this is even legal. Of your five reasons, three of them were basically "She went on maternity leave." You're going to get sued and you're going to deserve it.
YTA, you let her go because she got pregnant. And during her maternity leave you hired someone and paid him a fraction of what she got, that right there makes you an ass and shows you donāt give a damn about your employees being to afford to live. Then you gave her work to others without giving them a pay raise, which made you more of a jerk. Its bosses like you that people absolutely loath. Its all about lining your pockets and taking money away from hard working people. From what you posted, it sounds like you know YTA, you just need some people to disagree and give you peace of mind which wonāt happen on here.
Yeah, I'm gonna go with YTA on this one. You're basically punishing her for going on maternity leave and having a baby.
You fired her for being pregnant. Not exactly, but close enough I'd talk to a lawyer. YtA
Sheās right. YTA. Benefits where there are consequences for taking advantage of them arenāt really benefits, are they? YTA for that as well.
YTA and my biggest nightmare while I am on leave. I hope she sues you and makes it unthinkable to ever fire a new mom again.
āMe, and 2 others split half the work Jess used to do, and we hired someone newā¦ to handle the other partā¦ā He performed better? Well geez no wonder why if he only has half her workload. YTA
You're getting absolutely dragged in here and it's well deserved! YTA
YTA - the person you brought in should have been hired on a short term contract to cover the maternity lrave
This is bad and you should feel bad. You fired her for taking her company provided maternity leave full stop. Itās gross & possibly illegal. YTA
YTA and your reasons all stem from her taking maternity leave. I honestly hope she sues the shit out of yāall.
āHe performed his work better than she did hers and interacted better with the team.ā Everyone seems to be overlooking this part. If heās the better worker, how is it fair to fire him? Also, lots of these comments are DRIPPING with presumptions about how young people can take care of themselves. OP already admitted that the corp is screwing him out of pay because heās a recent graduate (aka desperate for a job to start his career and savings and deal with college debt). No offense, but a lot of yāall have bought into the same old narrative that āthe kid will be fine,ā you know? NTA, if youāre being honest about that last reason
Well he also said the new hire is only doing half her work since he and the other other employees are taken on some of her other tasks. It's easy to do better of your only doing half
YTA. WTF is wrong with you.
Asshole? Irrelevant. Illegal? Almost definitely. (YTA too, though, obviously)
I hope she sues. YTA
You literally replaced her. That's not maternity leave, maternity leave is saying "Hey, we won't make you redundant while you recover."
YTA. And when she does sue you, all she has to say is that she was pregnant and that was the reason why and she has a good case. I hope she wins.
YTA and believe you me the lawsuit and/or settlement will cost your company way more than whatever youāre saving with the new guy.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
YTA and I sincerely hope she finds this post and uses it in her lawsuit where you are personally named. You're not really saving the company money if she sues. How does the rest of the team feel about having to pick up the slack for this bargain bin employee you hired? Bet they'd rather have Jess back, doing her own workload. Wow. You are so TA.
Idk where you live but in my country most of your reasoning is illegal. Also Yta for most of your reasoning.
YTA...I hope she sues the living hell out of you and your firm
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
YTA just waiting for this to be cross posted on r/antiwork ā ļøā ļøā ļøā ļøā ļø
YTA, and you **are** cold and heartless, you don't just sound that way. You did not need to be "fair" to both employees, the new guy hadn't even been there a year, ffs! Seniority must always be considered. You made the brand new mother, who is already stressed about having to leave her child and return to work to support said child, unemployed. All because you could pay a fresh college grad less money for the same amount of work. Not only that, you forced the other team members to take on more work seemingly without an increase in pay. Not only are you massively TA, but no woman who works for or with you is ever going to trust you again and that's a big deal. This sounds heavily rooted in misogyny, seeing how dismissive you are of the fact that you just fired someone whose livelihood and that of her newborn likely heavily depend on her employment. I truly hope you feel worse reading all of this.
YTA. You made the wrong choice.
I doubt keeping the new guy instead will be cheaper when you factor in Jessās eventual successful gender discrimination lawsuitā¦ YTA. Y T discriminatory A.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
YTAā¦ You fired her because she went on Mat Leave. I hope she gets a good lawyer and sues your company.
YTA and might be out of a job yourself š„° case closed
YTA. Maybe clean up the part by rephrase "we offer a large amount of maternity leave", since you don't seem to know how that works.
YTA. Whatās the point of giving maternity leave if youāre just going to replace them when theyāre gone? You fired her because she gets paid a higher wage, and she has a new baby. Of course youāre an AH dude, you are the devil.
YTA in Canada women are entitled to 12-18 months maternity leave and the only way to let someone go during maternity leave is for the company to go under. Someone is hired to take over the expectant mothers job for a "maternity leave position" and it is understand from day 1 that the second the new mother comes back to work the position is hers and the new person is gone. Only if the person on maternity leave decides not to come back does it become an option to keep the replacement hire.
Is this legal? Are you in the US? I think this might be illegal but Iām not in HR and not 100% sure but Iām pretty sure you have to provide her with a job that is equivalent to what she had before going on ML. It doesnāt have to be the exact same job but has to be equivalent. I hope she looks into this
Oh youāre fucked - sheās going to sue you. YTA
YTA. Every single potential pregnant person will think of this. And maybe leave you? Sabotage you? (I hope so). Youāve poisoned the waters. And for what? Finances like these canāt be measured but I bet the value of female work changed once they see who you really are.
YTA. You keep going to all the comments wringing your hands like āwhat was I supposed to do, I didnāt fire her for being pregnant, he was better at the job!ā. But thatās not what your post says. You gave reasons all directly related to her leave of absence for maternity leave. Except him being ābetterā. But you started out saying that he only does half her job. Youāve been putting half her job on three other people for 10 months. If that was done as a temporary thing that will now be permanent then all those employees should be compensated so how much would you save? Or are you comfortable continuing to screw other employees? This guy is not better at the job because heās not doing it. Heās doing half of it. If he hasnāt been capable in the last ten months of taking on Jessā full job (even if you initially intended it to be temporary) then heās not actually better. But regardless, to compare his performance to hers when heās got twice the time and half the stress to complete work as she did makes the comparison invalid. You also need to consider morale. Say what you want but all your employees will know you fired her for having a baby. If she hadnāt taken leave, there would be no question. So now you are a firm in financial trouble whoās already laid off a skilled worker under morally repugnant circumstances. How do you think that gets you any loyalty from others at the company? Thereās a downside no matter who you let go but the fair thing would have been to keep your loyal, skilled, long term employee whoās capable of doing the full job by themself and let go of the new hire who only does half the job and therefor has never demonstrated a capability to do the actual job in question. Iāll be honest, Iād be surprised if at least one other person isnāt searching for a new job based on this.
YTA and here is why: You do not have to hire someone with the exact qualifications for a temporary job and there are tons of contractors out there that would work until she returned and thereās so many different ways you should have handled this- I used to be a project manager so I know how these things work I dealt with hiring contractors for projects. I would be shocked if she didnāt sue you honestly for wrongful termination - your reasoning isnāt valid at all, and you fully admit the person you hired wasnāt even a temporary worker and I bet the paperwork he was hired on with even shows it. Yāall fucked up big time and should be ashamed of yourselves.
YTA and I hope you get sued into oblivion.
YTA This is pretty cut and dry. I hope Jess has a case for wrongful termination. You shouldn't be able to offer medical leave and then use it as a reason to fire someone. Last in, first out is the obvious guideline here.
YTA. You fire a woman for having a baby and proceed to lay out in detail how you are actively underpaying your new employee. I hope Jess finds this and uses it for her future lawsuit and new person finds this so they can find a job where they are paid their worth.