Lay off employee who is pregnant?

[yobi5888]

My wife company is laying off 6 people this year, but they didn't say who yet.

Can they lay off my wife who is 6 months pregnant?

If they can, how does the EI thing works? Do we still get the 1 year maternity benefit?

I can only find info about lay off when an employee already on maternity leave, but not during pregnancy.

Thanks

[bigboom]

laying off a woman thats pregnant will never happen. i can guarantee that, unless she does something really really messed up she wont get laid off.

[Masked Bandit]

I don't see why she wouldn't still get the same one year benefits. It would just start from the layoff date instead.

[Eleanor]

It might be in poor taste, but I can't see there being anything legally wrong with it :dunno:

[DJ_NAV]

EI has nothing to do with the company... it has to with EI... if she had been paying EI, she will get mat. leave money.

[dr_jared88]

I don't see it happening as she would be considered a "minority" right now and laying of a minority is tough to do. They would have to have rock solid evidence that they aren't laying her off because she is pregnant. Just my thought.

[BlackArcher101]

And that evidence would be the other people being laid off at the same time.

I've seen it happen before... but only if there's multiple layoffs at one time. They just argue the position isn't required anymore, which is true. Now, if they laid her off and then rehired for the same position, there's grounds there for appeal.

[SScott]

You can't expect your wife to be sheilded from being fired because she is pregnant, if she gets fired its due to poor performance

[Rat Fink]

.

[fivesn6s]

Actually there is alot of places that dont offer maternity leave. Wether or not you have a baby you still dont come to work for a long time. So yes they can get rid of her.

[supe]

I worked at a hotel where the GM who was very visibly pregnant was laid off, so it happens.

[sputnik]

Originally posted by fivesn6s
Actually there is alot of places that dont offer maternity leave. Wether or not you have a baby you still dont come to work for a long time. So yes they can get rid of her.

Maternity leave is like EI.

It has nothing to do with the company.

The only thing that she might lose is her medical benefits. She will still get her maternity pay.

[clem24]

Originally posted by fivesn6s
Actually there is alot of places that dont offer maternity leave. Wether or not you have a baby you still dont come to work for a long time. So yes they can get rid of her.

Wut..... :facepalm:

[Spoons]

Originally posted by SScott
You can't expect your wife to be sheilded from being fired because she is pregnant, if she gets fired its due to poor performance

Readin > You

None the less I would say her chances are more slim (just because the risk is always there that when you lay off someone who is pregnant etc. they blow up in the companies faces) but I wouldn't say there is 100% chance she won't be laid off.

[Melinda]

I agree with the above posters. It is unlikely that she will be amongst the lay offs just because pregnancy is one of those issues that can be blown out of proportion if given the right circumstances.

As for her mat leave, she won't qualify to start it right away as there are rules for how soon she can be off (I think up to 8 weeks before she's due) The exception to that is if it is doctor prescribed, in which case she goes on disability before she goes on mat leave (pregnancy disability can last for up to 15 weeks before mat leave kicks in). But if she's worked 600 hours in the last year, then she will still get her 50 weeks of maternity leave, lay off or no lay off.

[topmade]

Originally posted by fivesn6s
Actually there is alot of places that dont offer maternity leave. Wether or not you have a baby you still dont come to work for a long time. So yes they can get rid of her.
IT'S NOT UP TO THE EMPLOYER. I've heard this way to many times, Maternity and Paternity leave is EI, nothing to do with work. If you pay EI, you are entitled to receive the benefits. Some of the stories I've heard piss me off because these so called employers try to tell their workers that they are not allowed to take more then a couple of weeks off after having a baby. If you've put in enough hours, you can reap the benefits of EI.

And just to keep the thread on track I agree with Melinda. Even if they have reasonable grounds to lay her off, they probably won't just to stay on the moral and safe side of things.

[hrdkore]

You can lay off an pregnant employee if your company is downsizing?? You just can't lay them off if its directly related to them being pregnant, then you can get HR involved.

[Weapon_R]

If she is laid off during her pregnancy, contact a lawyer.

[Melinda]

Originally posted by hrdkore
You can lay off an pregnant employee if your company is downsizing?? You just can't lay them off if its directly related to them being pregnant, then you can get HR involved.
You can do that, but it's murky waters if you do. Especially if there is more than one person in a dept she works in. The law is SOOOO strict with rights for pregnant women that it is relatively easy to get the heat turned on a company who would try to lay off a pregnant woman, especially so close to her mat leave.

[yobi5888]

Maybe my post was a bit misleading, I'm not saying my wife should be excluded from the lay off, business is business, whatever decision they made I would see that as a business decision and I won't blame them.

The thing I concern the most are how the EI, mat leave benefits gonna works. As we are not super rich, we have to plan ahead to make both ends meet.

Thanks for you reply.

[Melinda]

^^ As I said, she wont be able to go on maternity leave until 8 weeks before her due date. But so long as she has worked 600 hours in the last year, she will be able to still get her mat leave.

It might be worth talking to her doctor about as well if she's really worried. As much as I think abusing the system sucks, he might be able to come up with a cause to put her on pregnancy disability. Mine did, and it wasn't from my asking, but he decided that my work conditions weren't great for pregnancy and put me on pregnancy disability 7 or 8 weeks ago (9 or 10 weeks before my due date).

EDIT: Keep in mind maternity benefits are only a MAXIMUM of 55 or 60% of her regular salary, depending on what she makes. It might be worth it for you guys to look into now, so planning for the cut in family income wont come as such a surprise later on

[Xtrema]

Originally posted by Melinda
EDIT: Keep in mind maternity benefits are only a MAXIMUM of 55 or 60% of her regular salary


The basic benefit rate is 55% of your average insured earnings up to a yearly maximum insurable amount of $41,100. This means you can receive a maximum payment of $435 per week. Your EI payment is a taxable income, meaning federal and provincial or territorial, if it applies, taxes will be deducted.

[urban.one]

1) Call the EI office for questions relating to EI.

2) The other part of it is what benefits does your wife's employer offer for mat leave (ie. top-up of salary, continued health benefits, continued payment of rrsp or pension contributions, etc.)

[Xtrema]

To OP,

unless your wife is firmly in power, she's probably a good candidate.

The more perks employer offer for mat leave, the more reason to get rid of pregnant staff.

[Melinda]

Originally posted by Xtrema
To OP,

unless your wife is firmly in power, she's probably a good candidate.

The more perks employer offer for mat leave, the more reason to get rid of pregnant staff.
It is 100% illegal to lay off a pregnant staff member based on "perks" that were promised to her as a regular staff member when she was hired, even if she wasn't pregnant when she was started. The company would be in HUGE trouble if those reasons were used against her. As I've said a few times, laying off a pregnant staff member is difficult to do without penalties, deserved or undeserved.

[Xtrema]

Originally posted by Melinda

It is 100% illegal to lay off a pregnant staff member based on "perks" that were promised to her as a regular staff member when she was hired, even if she wasn't pregnant when she was started. The company would be in HUGE trouble if those reasons were used against her. As I've said a few times, laying off a pregnant staff member is difficult to do without penalties, deserved or undeserved.

Having a target on the back is not the same as pulling the trigger.

All I'm saying is forgivable mistakes before will become performance issue and ground for dismissal now.

Heck, if our HR fire everyone that surf porn, there will be nobody working. But if management had it in for you and found out you surf porn, you'll be gone next day.

It's difficult and you really have to be an ass to do it, but there are ways to do it within limits of the law and I have seen it done.

[Melinda]

Originally posted by Xtrema


Having a target on the back is not the same as pulling the trigger.

All I'm saying is forgivable mistakes before will become performance issue and ground for dismissal now.

Heck, if our HR fire everyone that surf porn, there will be nobody working. But if management had it in for you and found out you surf porn, you'll be gone next day.

There are ways to do it within limits of the law.
I agree, but pregnancy is one of those areas that becomes EXTREMELY tough to get around, provided she's a competant employee who's been with the company for a while. Most HR departments won't touch it with a 10 ft pole.

[urban.one]

Agreed but totally depends on the situation. If only person gets let go and its the pregnant woman then thats one thing. But if theres cuts across the board and every laid off employees profile is similar (ie. position, time with company, department,etc) then it would be almost impossible to prove. I dont think things are as bad as people in this thread are making it seem. Maybe its all perspective... in a small company where one person gets let go, it could be pretty obvious or at least suspicous. In a large company where more people, 6 in the OPs case, it might not be out of place at all.


Originally posted by Melinda

I agree, but pregnancy is one of those areas that becomes EXTREMELY tough to get around, provided she's a competant employee who's been with the company for a while. Most HR departments won't touch it with a 10 ft pole.

[Melinda]

Originally posted by urban.one
Agreed but totally depends on the situation. If only person gets let go and its the pregnant woman then thats one thing. But if theres cuts across the board and every laid off employees profile is similar (ie. position, time with company, department,etc) then it would be almost impossible to prove. I dont think things are as bad as people in this thread are making it seem. Maybe its all perspective... in a small company where one person gets let go, it could be pretty obvious or at least suspicous. In a large company where more people, 6 in the OPs case, it might not be out of place at all.


If it's a larger company with all employees doing the same level of work with the same level of knowledge in that department, the non pregnant employees should be more worried about their jobs than the pregnant one should be, even if there is a round of mass lay offs within the company. Might not be fair, but it's the truth.

[urban.one]

^^ i dont think it is.

from my experience, ive seen serveral rounds of layoffs and several pregnant women let go.

if youve seen different, id like to hear it.

id be interested to see some studies on this. im sure academics somewhere must have looked into this.

[Melinda]

Originally posted by urban.one
^^ i dont think it is.

from my experience, ive seen serveral rounds of layoffs and several pregnant women let go.

if youve seen different, id like to hear it.

id be interested to see some studies on this. im sure academics somewhere must have looked into this.
I'm 2 weeks away from being due with baby #1. In the last 9 months I've spent more time on an expectant mothers forum than I have on here (if you can believe that). And trust me, the cases and stories that some of these women have to tell would shock you. There are several expecting lawyers on there who are often quick to chime in on the rights a pregnant woman has and ways to fight lay offs and what not, situations where women were let go but to avoid the legalities that may come their way, the company came up with a compromise on continued benefits, woman who fought a lay off decision and were successfully re-hired, etc.

I think one of the top 10 thread topics on there is "I'm pregnant, when should I tell work?" And just about EVERY response rings something to the tune of "whenever you want, they can't fire you for being pregnant", but really, it runs a hell of a lot deeper than that in a lot of cases. And a company can say "well we didn't fire her just for being pregnant, look at all the others we laid off in the other departments too," it could easily be said "Well there are others in her department, what made you pick her over any of the others?" If there aren't any SOLID reasons, your company could be in for some serious legal headaches.

[Xtrema]

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20070905120142AAZ7ylr

I think that make sense, as long as you can apply the same seniority rule everywhere.

http://www.hrhero.com/pregnancy/q-a.shtml

This make sense too.

[urban.one]

Melinda, thats interesting.

Are the forums Canadian or US focused or just moms from everywhere? I honestly cant even think of hearing a Canadian story relating to this topic.

[Melinda]

Originally posted by urban.one
Melinda, thats interesting.

Are the forums Canadian or US focused or just moms from everywhere? I honestly cant even think of hearing a Canadian story relating to this topic.
All Canadian women actually. The laws here are pretty strict to protect pregnant women because it used to be pretty common practice for women to be laid off for that specific reason. It's a major human rights violation since it is considered one of our basic rights to be able to have children whenever we please. Now the laws are being so strictly enforced that it becomes a virtual nightmare for *most* companies to "win" after laying off a pregnant woman.

[Melinda]

Originally posted by Xtrema
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20070905120142AAZ7ylr

I think that make sense, as long as you can apply the same seniority rule everywhere.

http://www.hrhero.com/pregnancy/q-a.shtml

This make sense too.
Yep, I already said there needs to be a darn good reason and a good amount of proof to get away with firing a pregnant employee, no matter when she told work (days or months ago). But if it's random lay offs in a moderate to large sized company, it could end up being pretty ugly.

As for that first link, the woman saying she wasn't coming back after her leave is virtually the same as "giving her notice". I think most employers could get away with laying her off after giving her 2 weeks notice/pay and no further reprocussions could come from that, provided there is DOCUMENTED PROOF that she actually did say that (email, letter, tape recording, etc.) Otherwise, she could deny ever saying it. (I'm not a lawyer, so dont quote me on that). But unless the woman offers up that information, I don't actually think employers are allowed to ask if a woman is planning on returning after maternity leave is over.

[mwmhong]

Originally posted by supe
I worked at a hotel where the GM who was very visibly pregnant was laid off, so it happens.

PM'd

[Spoons]

I agree 100% with melinda...

Like I said earlier the chances are pretty slim. I didn't realize she was close to her maternity leave.

If the company had any brains, they probably should leave her alone. Even with good reasons (don't need her anymore, etc.) One good lawyer could easily turn it around making it look as if they laid her off so they didn't have to give her maternity leave perks (if offered).

I know if I owned a business and I had to choose between laying off a pregnant women and a non pregnant women, I would choose the non pregnant women in a heart beat. Yes you may lose the pregnant lady for mat leave, but it is worth to dodge the hassle of dealing with pregnant lady law suits.

[SlowLude]

My wife was laid off about 4 months into her pregnancy last year so yes it does happen. I had considered contacting a lawyer, but the hassle, time and costs involved did not justify the return we'd get since her job was not a high-profile one (clerical position at a small company). In the end, she just found a temporary job since the market was hot at the time and filed for maternity leave afterwards. With a million things to think about with the baby, a law suit wasn't really worth it for us. I did contact the Alberta government concerning our options and was told that an investigation was needed to determine if the company had violated any human rights, but they could do no more than that.

Also, I'd like to warn the expiration for EI is 52 weeks from the time of filing. What happened for us was that my wife filed for EI after being laid off but found a job, stopped the EI and re-applied for maternity leave afterwards thinking that the 52 weeks could be broken up accordingly. (at least we were told that over the phone..) To make a long story short, I had to go to a tribunal to make a case for a few missing weeks that they would not cover. Luckily I won the case and was reimbursed. I was just given wrong information over the phone, so just be careful of what they tell you and whether it applies to your scenario.

[clem24]

Originally posted by Melinda
EDIT: Keep in mind maternity benefits are only a MAXIMUM of 55 or 60% of her regular salary, depending on what she makes. It might be worth it for you guys to look into now, so planning for the cut in family income wont come as such a surprise later on

Not sure where you're getting that number from. The absolute MAXIMUM you can claim through EI for maternity leave is about $750 EVERY 2 WEEKS after deductions. This lasts a full year. I am not sure how much your wife needs to be making to claim this amount, but I would guess it's in the $40k region (I need to re-check the rules LOL).

The 2nd part of the equation is what your employer offers while you're on leave. An employer can offer NOTHING, offer a salary top-up (so your monthly EI + top up = regular monthly salary), offer no top-up but full/partial benefits, or some combination there of. Their ONLY obligation is to hold your position for one year. So after a year, you don't go back to work, they can sack you.

That's it. Simple.

[Melinda]

Originally posted by clem24


Not sure where you're getting that number from. The absolute MAXIMUM you can claim through EI for maternity leave is about $750 EVERY 2 WEEKS after deductions. This lasts a full year.
Uhh, it's on the governtment's website. See xtrema's first post on this page of the thread, he quoted it right from the government of Canada's website. I did say it depended on how much money you made as well. Obviously someone who makes $200,000 a year isn't going to get 55% of that, that's why it's a maximum percentage and not a set number. Someone who only makes $15,000 a year won't be receiving $750 every two weeks either, it's just a guideline to follow. And no, your benefits technically only last 50 weeks, not 52 (don't ask me why, I still can't figure out why the government can't make it 52, possibly because of the 2 week waiting period). You can also split a lot of that time with your spouse if you want and then his salary comes into play (even though I *think* the % is lower if it's a father taking time off, but I can't remember, we didnt look into this part too much), but it does deduct time that you're allowed to be on maternity leave.

[clem24]

Originally posted by Melinda

Obviously someone who makes $200,000 a year isn't going to get 55% of that, that's why it's a maximum percentage and not a set number.

There I just checked. It's not a maximum percentage. It's a straight percentage with a ceiling on the amount paid. It's 55% of your average insured earned salary up to $435/week, so $870 every 2 weeks assuming you earn at least $41k/year. Take off deductions and you get about $750.

http://www.hrsdc.gc.ca/eng/ei/types/special.shtml

As for the time splitting, I used to know this one. It's basically 1 year maximum between mother and father. It's the same %. But there was a catch to it. I think it was something like only the mother can take time off before the baby comes. And then there might, might possibly have been something in there that has a maximum amount of time the father can take off.

[Melinda]

^^ Yeah, maternity leave isn't actually called that anymore, and it isn't a straight 50 weeks. It's broken into a 15 week period and then a 35 week period (both called different things and they follow one another which is why it's all lumped together to be called mat leave). Mother and father can only share the 35 week period, not the whole 50 weeks.

[lint]

Originally posted by clem24

http://www.hrsdc.gc.ca/eng/ei/types/special.shtml

As for the time splitting, I used to know this one. It's basically 1 year maximum between mother and father. It's the same %. But there was a catch to it. I think it was something like only the mother can take time off before the baby comes. And then there might, might possibly have been something in there that has a maximum amount of time the father can take off.

From your link, Maternity vs Parental benefits:


Maternity benefits

Maternity benefits are payable to the birth mother or surrogate mother for a maximum of 15 weeks. To receive maternity benefits you are required to have worked for 600 hours in the last 52 weeks or since your last claim. You need to prove your pregnancy by signing a statement declaring the expected due or actual date of birth.

The mother can start collecting maternity benefits either up to 8 weeks before she is expected to give birth or at the week she gives birth. Maternity benefits can be collected within 17 weeks of the actual or expected week of birth, whichever is later. Please note that the date you file your claim is very important in order for you to receive the maximum maternity benefits you are entitled to. If you are unsure about your most advantageous maternity period to receive maximum benefits, please contact us. If the actual date of birth is different from the expected date of birth, it is very important that you provide this date as soon as possible after the birth of your child. Please contact us at 1 800 206-7218 from 8:30 am to 4:30 pm and press "0" to speak to a representative. You can also write us or go in person to your Service Canada Centre. This way we will be able to determine the most advantageous maternity period, in order to receive the maximum maternity benefits you are entitled to.


Parental benefits

Parental benefits are payable either to the biological or adoptive parents while they are caring for a new-born or an adopted child, up to a maximum of 35 weeks. To receive parental benefits you are required to have worked for 600 hours in the last 52 weeks or since your last claim. You must sign a statement declaring the newborn's date of birth, or, when there is an adoption, the child's date of placement for the purpose of the adoption, and the name and address of the adoption authority.

Parental benefits can be claimed by one parent or shared between the two partners but will not exceed a combined maximum of 35 weeks. Claimants making application for parental benefits must provide the name and Social Insurance Number (SIN) of the other parent for cross-reference purposes.

Parental benefits for biological parents and their partners are payable from the child's birth date, and for adoptive parents and their partners from the date the child is placed with you. Parental benefits are only available within the 52 weeks following the child's birth, or for adoptive parents, within the 52 weeks from the date the child is placed with you, unless your child is hospitalized.

The weekly EI payment and the number of weeks to be paid remain the same even if you give birth to more than one child or if you adopt at the same time.

When determining how you and your partner want to take advantage of your parental leave several choices can be made, here are some examples:
Example 1
You and your partner are sharing parental benefits, you can take the time together, the 35 weeks would be shared between the two of you.

Example 2
You may want to go back to work after your maternity leave is finished and let your partner take the full 35 weeks.

Example 3
You may only want to take a few weeks of parental benefits and then return to work, while your partner takes the remaining time choice.

Example 4
You may decide to go back to work after you have taken a couple of weeks of parental leave. Then, a few weeks later you realize you would like to be home with your child. You can still use the weeks of parental benefits you have left as long as the weeks you take do not exceed the 52 weeks since your child's birth or placement with you for adoption.

[blownz]

To the OP: If you wife does happen to get laid off (which I would personally think is unlikely), if she doesn't receive a payout equivelant to her working full time up until her due date, then definitely talk to provincial labour board.

They will likely rule that by her being pregnant, her odds of finding a job for the next few months will be very unlikely and there is also the chance that if she did, she would be unable to deal with the stress of a new job.

I would say the odds are very good for her to get 100% pay until her due date. And I would personally think that since the company is then conveniently off the hook for providing her a job at the end of her maternity leave the labour board will also rule that they have to pay for lost wages at the end of the year or retraining to help get her back into the workforce. :thumbsup:

[yobi5888]

Thanks for all the replies and info.

After talking to the wife last night, we figure her chance to be one of the candidate are slim, but you never know, we'll just keep our fingers crossed.

On a side note, I was searching for some info about Day Care, and Alberta has a Child Care Subsidy program, so I was using their Estimator to see how much we would received. And the result is ZERO, then I decided to play around with that "estimator",
in order to get $546 per month for subsidy, you have to be a family of 3 with total annual income of $24,000. Given today's day care cost around $750 and up, you would still have to chip in a couple hundreds dollars for it. Which makes me wonder how a family of 3 can live and survive in Calgary these days?

And I found there isn't much support from the government for people having babies, unless you are financially well prepared, you might better off to ask your wife to swallow it instead

.https://www.childcaresubsidy.gov.ab.ca/ccs/ccs_public.nsf/Estimator?OpenForm&Seq=1#_RefreshKW_Region

[Melinda]

Originally posted by yobi5888
Thanks for all the replies and info.

After talking to the wife last night, we figure her chance to be one of the candidate are slim, but you never know, we'll just keep our fingers crossed.

On a side note, I was searching for some info about Day Care, and Alberta has a Child Care Subsidy program, so I was using their Estimator to see how much we would received. And the result is ZERO, then I decided to play around with that "estimator",
in order to get $546 per month for subsidy, you have to be a family of 3 with total annual income of $24,000. Given today's day care cost around $750 and up, you would still have to chip in a couple hundreds dollars for it. Which makes me wonder how a family of 3 can live and survive in Calgary these days?

And I found there isn't much support from the government for people having babies, unless you are financially well prepared, you might better off to ask your wife to swallow it instead

.https://www.childcaresubsidy.gov.ab.ca/ccs/ccs_public.nsf/Estimator?OpenForm&Seq=1#_RefreshKW_Region
Nope, if your family makes something like $70,000 a year, you essentially get nothing. Which is hilarious since people who make that much money also get taxed more than someone who make less so it should balance out. There are two different government funded programs though, so you probably do qualify for the other one (although it really isn't much either, $100 a month I think). They really don't do anything to encourage Canadians to have their own children though, it's sick how bad it's gotten since our parents were kids. Maybe it's cheaper to import them from everywhere else :dunno:

[SlowLude]

Originally posted by yobi5888
... unless you are financially well prepared, you might better off to ask your wife to swallow it instead


You should of thought of this before having a baby! :rofl:

[blownz]

The child care subsidy is mainly there to help out single parents. Day care really isn't a big deal. It is easy for anyone to clear more than $750 a month when they go back to work after maternity leave so it shouldn't be a problem unless you are already living paycheque to paycheque.

And remember you get a tax credit for your child care expenses. :thumbsup:

[CLiVE]

I did a case study in one of my law courses similar to this issue. I'll see if I can dig it up. :banghead:

[clem24]

Originally posted by SlowLude


You should of thought of this before having a baby! :rofl:

It's a big scam, that's all it is...

"oohhh yeah fill me up Jim, fill me up" (man what movie was that from, had Reese Witherspoon and Matthew Broderick).

[yobi5888]

Originally posted by SlowLude


You should of thought of this before having a baby! :rofl:

Actually I did ask, but she refused. :rofl:

[Supa Dexta]

Originally posted by clem24


It's a big scam, that's all it is...

"oohhh yeah fill me up Jim, fill me up" (man what movie was that from, had Reese Witherspoon and Matthew Broderick).

http://images.amazon.com/images/P/B00001MXXJ.01.LZZZZZZZ.jpg