In a recent Globe and Mail article discussing a similarly recent decision of the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario relating to a young woman who had been fired by her employer after finding out she was pregnant, the following advice was given:

"…it's wise for women to think strategically about when to disclose a pregnancy to employers.."

  Photo credit:buzzybee

One would think that we're past the point where, in addition to worrying about getting to that all-important first trimester before we normally feel comfortable enough announcing our pregnancy to the world, that women have to think critically about when to announce their pregnancy to a potential or current employer.  But, sadly, that's not the case as is highlighted by the tale of Jessica Maciel v. Fashion Coiffures Ltd. and Crystal Coiffures Ltd..

After graduating from a business college, Ms. Maciel, at age 20, applied for a full-time receptionist position with two related hair salons.  This was to be her first full-time job.  At the time of her application, Ms. Maciel was four months pregnant.  She made no mention of her pregnancy either at the time she applied for the job or upon being offered the job.  Unfortunately for her, though, she was fired the same day she started.  The employee claimed she was let go after experinencing nausea and disclosing her pregnancy to the person training her.  The employer claimed it was unaware that their new employee was pregnant when her employment was terminated.  Instead, the employer said that Ms. Maciel had indicated during her first day of work that she no longer wanted to work full-time.  This was a game-changer from the employer's perspective, as it needed someone to work day shifts during the week and contended that there was no part-time work available.

The Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario did not, however, buy what the employer was selling, primarily because the employer's defense of Ms. Maciel's termination lacked credibility.  The Tribunal honed in on a number of problems with the employer's position, the key ones from my perspective being as follows:

• the employer failed to put forward a credible reason why Ms. Maciel, having applied for and accepted a full-time position, would propose working part-time on her very first day of work when she was no longer in school and had no restrictions on her ability to work full-time;
• the employer's contention that Ms. Maciel requested part-time work did not make sense in light of the fact that: 
• • the employer admitted it did not ask any questions about when and how many hours Ms. Maciel might be able to work yet apparently promised her that it would find out if other salons in the same mall were looking for a part-time receptionist.  The Tribunal questioned how this would be possible when the employer had no information about Ms. Maciel's availability to give these other salons;    
  • Ms. Maciel would have needed to work at least 30 hours a week between her start date and her due date in order to be eligible for Employment Insurance benefits;    
  • the employer shredded Ms. Maciel's employment contract yet took the time to outline in a letter to her post-termination that there was no part-time position available and specifically set out which hours Ms. Maciel was expected to work.  The Tribunal found this letter to be "carefully constructed" and consistent with Ms. Maciel's assertion that she received it after advising the employer that it was discriminatory to fire someone because they were pregnant and making a request for a copy of her contract.    

After Ms. Maciel was fired by the salons she attempted to find other work.  But, interestingly, as her pregnancy was far more visible at this point, she found herself unable to obtain further employment. 

In the end, the Tribunal ordered the salons to pay Ms. Maciel $15,000.00 in general damages, $20,719.00 in lost wages and benefits (due to her inability to claim EI benefits) plus applicable interest on those amounts.  The salons were also ordered to jointly prepare a written policy detailing accommodations to be made to pregnant employees and maternity/parental leave practices that would apply post-birth.

Business (in)convenience does not trump human rights protections

Given some conversations I have had in the past, I know that there are likely some employers who will read this decision and think that it is completely unfair to the business owner.  They will say that it was inappropriate of Ms. Maciel to fail to disclose her pregnancy when she applied for the job. They will say that they had the right to know she was pregnant given that they were hiring someone to do a particular job for the foreseeable future, without having to look for another replacement a few months down the road.  They will point out the costs and time involved with hiring and replacing employees, and the business limitations associated with needing to keep a comparable position open for a female employee to return to after completion of her maternity leave.  Others will say that Ms. Maciel was fired during what could be considered her probationary period so the employer was fully in its rights to terminate her for any reason.  [And, just in case you're wondering, I've heard these concerns being raised by female business owners as well as from male business owners -- keep in mind, too, that in the Maciel case, she was fired by, you guessed it, a woman].

While I certainly understand these arguments, particularly when the business in question is relatively small and subject to a potentially greater impact whenever any administrative challenge arises, if these arguments were allowed to win the day women would simply disappear from the workplace — once again.  The major problem with these arguments is they are all predicated on a model of business convenience (or inconvenience, depending on your perspective).  And the problem with the model of business convenience is that it will never be convenient for any business to employ anyone who gets pregnant and has to temporarily leave the workplace — which, coincidentally, only impacts women.   These arguments also suffer from a fatal logical flaw.  Whenever any employer hires any person, regardless of sex, there is never a guarantee that that employee is going to work out or that the employee is going to remain in the workplace without interruption.  Beyond that, you should know that human rights protections apply regardless of whether you are a job applicant, a new hire or a long-time employee of a business.  There is no "pass" on human rights law obligations during a person's probationary period or otherwise.

Strategy is the best policy — unfortunately

Ms. Maciel might have been the best darned employee the salon owners in this case had ever hired. Instead, not only will the salons never find that out but they are now faced with having to pay a large damage award and recovering from a huge public black eye associated with the negative publicity following from the Tribunal's decision.  Keep in mind that this is a workplace where it appears women predominately work and I would presume is a business frequented by female customers.    

It turns out that applying strategy in disclosing a pregnancy is still, in fact, the best policy for a woman to adopt when applying for a job or when already gainfully employed.  It's, unfortunately, a lesson that even today Ms. Maciel had to learn the hard way.