Boss slammed for firing woman after she had baby as replacement was cheaper

A man has been slammed for firing a woman from her job after she came back from maternity leave.

The anonymous man took to Reddit to share his predicament with a staff member who he referred to as "Jess."

He said he "felt like the devil" after sacking the employee, but claimed he wanted to hear people's thoughts on what seemed a complex issue.

READ MORE: 'I caught my neighbour-from-hell pooing in my front garden on my doorbell camera'

In the post, he explained someone was taken on to cover Jess when she went on maternity leave.

The issue arose when she returned, as they were told there was no budget in the company for a seven-person team.

Due to the fact the replacement staff was well into the project, and also being paid at a cheaper rate, it seems the decision was made to keep this person on.

This meant Jess lost her job, and people have been left furious, claiming she was fired simply because she had a baby.

Writing on Instagram, the person said: "I feel like the devil right now, so I’ll accept whatever judgement you all have.

"I run a team of about 6 people. Our company offers a large amount of maternity leave, 10 months.

"One of my employees got pregnant recently, I’ll call her Jess.

"Our team does project based work and in the period between her leaving for ML, we finished up the project we were working on when she left, and started working on a project without her.

"During this period, our team had to adapt to working without her expertise in certain matters.

"We adapted and 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 Jess’s workload, and then some.

"This new employee came at significantly reduced cost, as he was straight out of uni, and we pay him a fraction of what Jess costs currently.

"Now Jess has come back to the team, but there is another issue.

"Our firm has informed us that for some reason we no longer have the budget for a 7 person team, and will have to let someone go.

"This news came about when I submitted the paperwork for Jess’s return."

The post continued: "We are 5 months into a project that should take an estimated 10 months, and my decision came down to Jess and the man we hired to replace her.

"The reason we hired a replacement, which is not normally what we do, is because we anticipated for this project the workload would be far greater than our current capacity, which it is not.

"As you can tell by the title, I chose the replacement. I did so for the following reasons:

  • Far cheaper, thus freeing up a lot more money than keeping Jess on.

  • He was up to date with the project and we would be able to move forward seamlessly, whereas with Jess we would have to take time catching her up to speed on half the project.

  • The clients already knew and liked working with him, whereas they didn’t know Jess at all.

  • She has been out of the field for a prolonged period, whilst he has been here for the past 9 months, so she may, or may not, find it hard to adapt back to work life, while with him it isn’t a question.

  • He performed his work better than she did hers and interacted better with the team.

"Obviously, the ideal situation, which I wanted was to keep both and not put a new single mother with no other job lined up out in the cold, but I had to do right by the team and firm.

"I told her I’d write her a brilliant Letter of Recommendation, and that in a few months she could try, and apply for a job at our firm, hopefully we’ll have the budget, but she snapped at me and told me not to bother, and called me a c**t and left.

"I know I sound cold and heartless, but I had to be fair to both employees, not just Jess, right?"

Since the story has been shared many people think the boss was completely out of order, with users stating it looks like the woman was fired just because "she's a mother."

Some people said – when it comes to the law – it could differ depending on where the company is based in the world, but a lot of Reddit users seem to think he's in the wrong.

The general thought seems to be that it looks like Jess was fired "because she had a baby."

One person said: "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."

Another added: "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."

Meanwhile, a third commented: "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."

READ NEXT:

  • Mum of triplets on hectic daily routine – from 30 nappies to 'pumping milk like cow'

  • Most popular baby names of the year – and Gary is back with a bang

  • Model slammed for sending nudes to random lads via Air Drop at airport

Source: Read Full Article