Pregnancy Test as part of Medical for job

pikku

Hello All,

I want to share a little (true!) story with you, about a Medical i was made to undergo before a large American corporation here in Dublin would finalize a job offer to me. Basically, in addition to all the usual drug screenings etc, i was asked to consent to a pregnancy test, so that they could see if i was preggers or not before offering me the job.

I have to say it was presented to me as something completely standard and acceptable and i was very much made to feel that it would 'not look great' if i refused to take it. I was in dire straits with my old job at the time and therefore, submitted to the test. I felt very pressured into it, and i felt *VERY* uncomfortable about the whole thing, but as I was desperate for a job, i went along with it.

Roll on 6 months and i was still feeling very uncomfortable about the whole thing, so I got in touch with the Irish Equality Authority to see about the legality of the pregnancy test, and whether or not a company has the right to ask this of any female. The answer is NO, they do NOT have the right to ask girls to undergo this. In fact, by even asking your consent to take a pregnancy test, they are actually BREAKING THE LAW.

So, girls, please learn from my experience. You do NOT have to take a pregnancy test and any compnay which asks you to do so have just broken the gender equality laws and ultimately offered you a job for life!

Seriously though. I wish i had known about my right to refuse that test without endangering my chances of employment. I know my rights now and will never, EVER undergo such an invasion of my private life ever again. Hope this helps educate others out there too. Companies are M******rF******rs and will keep trying this on as long as people are unaware of their rights and dont stand up to them.

My 2c.

OttoVonBis

Hi Pikku,

Have you investigated bringing legal action against them? Now I am no legal type but it sounds to me like you might have a case for descrimination there.

What they did was very very bold.


Ottovonbis.

Tom Dunne

Legal action against your current employer?

Yeah, that makes sense. :rolleyes:

Glowing

That is unbelievable!

Even if you were pregnant, can they legally retract the job offer? Hardly .....

Edit: I wouldn't go so far as taking out a law suit, but i'd certainly bring up the complaint with HR! Maybe check with any new starters whether or not they're still enforcing the test.

OttoVonBis

Doh! Didn't get that detail that you were actually currently working for them.


Now you know why I don't post much.

PeakOutput

Glowing wrote:

That is unbelievable!
Even if you were pregnant, can they legally retract the job offer? Hardly .....

they hadnt offered her the job

i dont see the problem seen as they did ask you to consent they didnt say this is a condition of us considering you but maybe i just feel like that coz im a guy and have no possibility of being asked to take a pregnancy test but i dont see how its any more an invasion of privacy than a drug test tbh

/flame guard on

mikemac

I also don't see the problem, for certain types of jobs at least.
What if maybe the OP was an engineer and signing up to a 12 month contract in Iraq?

I think the employer would need to know in a case like this.

pow wow

I can see why you would be offended by it...but you could have said no. I've refused to give consent for testing I thought to be irrelevant before (and no I wasn't avoiding a drug test lol). Yes I know it was illegal to ask you to do it, but from your post you were clearly very offended at the time and could have said something.

By all means report them to a regulatory body for it and good on you for warning women who may feel pressured into it. At the end of the day all pre-employment testing is consensual....and if you feel uncomfortable just say no.

axer

ellscurr wrote:

I can see why you would be offended by it...but you could have said no. I've refused to give consent for testing I thought to be irrelevant before (and no I wasn't avoiding a drug test lol). Yes I know it was illegal to ask you to do it, but from your post you were clearly very offended at the time and could have said something.

By all means report them to a regulatory body for it and good on you for warning women who may feel pressured into it. At the end of the day all pre-employment testing is consensual....and if you feel uncomfortable just say no.

But couldn't that go negatively against you getting the job?

pow wow

Presumably - but if you are that principled about it you will say no.

The issue shouldn't be the type of question they asked, merely that it was illegal to ask it. If she had said "no I won't take it because it's illegal to ask me to" rather than "I am uncomfortable with that for XYZ" I'm guessing she wouldn't have gotten the job either.

I don't think the offence level should come into the equation at all. She could have said no but she didn't. Clearly they are in violation of whatever legislation prevents them from asking such a question so report them to whichever regulatory body enforces that.

the_syco

Dunno why they'd ask you to do it. They afraid you'd go on baby leave 2 weeks after you finish your training?

tHE vAGGABOND

go in to meet the HR manager person, and give them a hefty kick in the balls and tell them tos shove their job

Then go and get a job for someone else, other than 'big brother' who will be reading all your email etc

pikku

Hi All,

Well, it's easy to say -when you're not in certain situation- you shouldnt have taken the test etc, but when you're actually in it, it really isnt that easy. I was in a difficult situation and was practically a nervous wreck and *really needed to change jobs*....So, i was not in a 'strong place' mentally. I felt awful at the time, felt like i was betraying my sisters for giving in, but i felt - was made to feel - like i had no choice.

With regard to the comment about a pregnancy test being the same as a drugs test - no, it isnt the same, it's nothing like the same, for the simple reason that both male and female aplicants can both be screened for the same drugs (said drugs being illegal anyway and therefore not a legitimate thing to object to) but ONLY female aplicants could be screened for pregnancy, and therefore, it is a practise which disciminates against females, and not only that, this particular behaviour is OUTRIGHT illegal and contravenes specific legislation.

PS i object to drugs tests as well, and have no prob with recreational use of substances, so please dont go changing this thread into a drugs/no drugs test one. It isnt about that. It is about blatant gender discrimination. if the company were screening people for race or something similar no-one would even dream of defending the practise.

DublinWriter

tom dunne wrote:

Legal action against your current employer? Yeah, that makes sense. :rolleyes:

It happens all the time. Obviously it wouldn't do your career prospects within the organisation any good!

OP - I have to say that's an absolute disgrace. Can I ask you what type of job it is?

Even though you may not be a member of any particular trade union, I would flag this with SIPTU at least.

Also if you can, write to Joe Higgins TD. He's about the only TD I know who would go absolutely postal about this.

If I were you I'd out the company to the media.

I'll be listening to Joe Duffy intently today!

egan007

Only one thing for it....
Name and shame.

What company??

HashSlinging

thats totally illegal I wonder do they test all the blokes sperm to see if they can have kids, (pass the playboy mag etc) regardless of the fact you work there, I would take this further as its effected you in a negative way.

pikku

DublinWriter wrote:

OP - I have to say that's an absolute disgrace. Can I ask you what type of job it is?!

It's a position in IT (not that it should matter?)?

sozbox

That is unbelievable!. Have you done anything about this since?
Reported it or found out if it is still continuing?

pikku

Am raising awareness of the issue and ones rights here and amongst all I know. Apart from that, not doing anything else. I dont particularly feel like making a martyr out of myself for the good of others (hey, at least im honest about it).

As i said in the origional post though, now that i know my rights and know what is and is not legal, I will not get caught out again!!

pow wow

pikku wrote:

Hi All,

Well, it's easy to say -when you're not in certain situation- you shouldnt have taken the test etc, but when you're actually in it, it really isnt that easy. I was in a difficult situation and was practically a nervous wreck and *really needed to change jobs*....So, i was not in a 'strong place' mentally. I felt awful at the time, felt like i was betraying my sisters for giving in, but i felt - was made to feel - like i had no choice.

With regard to the comment about a pregnancy test being the same as a drugs test - no, it isnt the same, it's nothing like the same, for the simple reason that both male and female aplicants can both be screened for the same drugs (said drugs being illegal anyway and therefore not a legitimate thing to object to) but ONLY female aplicants could be screened for pregnancy, and therefore, it is a practise which disciminates against females, and not only that, this particular behaviour is OUTRIGHT illegal and contravenes specific legislation.

PS i object to drugs tests as well, and have no prob with recreational use of substances, so please dont go changing this thread into a drugs/no drugs test one. It isnt about that. It is about blatant gender discrimination. if the company were screening people for race or something similar no-one would even dream of defending the practise.

I didn't say it was the same as a drugs test, and the ins and outs of drug testing are, as you correctly say, irrelevant to the content of your post. I am not belittling by any means what they did, it is illegal, and yes in a different time or place you may have reacted differently. As I said your post does serve to advise other women that it is illegal to ask such things of them in pre-employment screening. What I was saying was, that like ANYTHING a potential employer may ask of you, you have the choice to say no.

penexpers

Ignore post.

Imposter

If they openly tested males would it be illegal? (Serious question)

axer

Imposter wrote:

If they openly tested males would it be illegal? (Serious question)

openly test males for what?

Noelie

I don't see the big deal with it, The company is just trying to cover itself, why should it offer a job to a person who in 7 or so month is going to be taking nearly as much time off, and then the company has to go look for a new employee to cover.

I think it would be a different thing if they asked when the person is already employed with the company.

axer

Noelie wrote:

I don't see the big deal with it, The company is just trying to cover itself, why should it offer a job to a person who in 7 or so month is going to be taking nearly as much time off, and then the company has to go look for a new employee to cover.

because it is discriminating.

Noelie

Not really, It's about picking the best candidate for the job and that doesn't always mean the smartest person.

axer

Noelie wrote:

Not really, It's about picking the best candidate for the job and that doesn't always mean the smartest person.

What has whether a woman is pregnant or not got to do with teh best candidate for the job?

Vikings

Availability for one. Hiring a pregnant woman who in 6 months time could be taking off just as much time is not the best choice for a company who has an alternative candidate with the same skills.

While it may seem like discrimination, I personally do not think it is. If I was in charge of a company I would rather have an employee who in 12 months time has 12 months experience than someone who has had 6 months experience and been 6 months out of work.

While this post may come across in bad light thats just my opinion on the subject.

Ste.phen

Surely there are some jobs for which being pregnant is something which would seriously and materially degrade the person's ability to do the job, and would possibly put the woman's life / child in danger?

This clearly isn't one of those times, mind, but there must be some granularity here, it's not all black or white.

axer

I see what ye are saying but if such an opinion was legal it would be a discouragement for women getting pregnant.

What if a woman whilst, lets say, 2 weeks preganant gets laid off from a job (the business outsources to india). She goes job hunting to find alternative employment only to find she cannot find employment because she is pregnant. What type of message would that send out? What does she do for the 8-9 months that she is pregnant? How will she cover the costs of being pregnant and preparing for a baby without an income?

Igy wrote:

Surely there are some jobs for which being pregnant is something which would seriously and materially degrade the person's ability to do the job, and would possibly put the woman's life / child in danger?

Thats a different story.

Vikings

I do see your point there axer, im just trying to see this from a companies point of view. Two identical candidates A and B, one is pregnant the other is not, it would benefit the company more to take the person who is not pregnant. I can see where issue's would be raised over this but take the same scenario but instead of being pregnant a man is hired instead of a woman. Discrimination?

Discrimination is a very hard thing to prove. The whole pregnancy issue i'm sure is a huge grey area in terms of it as igy said.

axer

IncredibleBulk wrote:

it would benefit the company more to take the person who is not pregnant.

It would benifit the company but not society. I think that is why there needs to be protection for pregnant women in such cases.

IncredibleBulk wrote:

take the same scenario but instead of being pregnant a man is hired instead of a woman. Discrimination?

If the man is more qualifiled for the job than the woman then there is no problem. The problem arises if pregnancy, or lack of, is a factor of selection.

IncredibleBulk wrote:

Discrimination is a very hard thing to prove. The whole pregnancy issue i'm sure is a huge grey area in terms of it as igy said.

If they don't know about it then they cannot take it into account i.e. they are not allowed to do tests to find out. Although I'm sure if they were sneakier about it they could just have asked for a urine sample for "drugs" testing and found out anyway but again that would be illegal.

My 1,000th post!

PeakOutput

axer wrote:

because it is discriminating.

so is not hiring someone coz they fail a drugs test.......its in the best interest of the company

axer

PeakOutput wrote:

so is not hiring someone coz they fail a drugs test.......its in the best interest of the company

Aye, but getting pregnant is legal and good for society/human life (or whatever).

Companies have to be restricted by law like this in order to protect society as they can be greedy feckers.

DublinWriter

axer wrote:

openly test males for what?

Prostate cancer? One of the jobs I had years ago was for a major US pharmaceutical company. As apart of the application process I was sent down to a local GP who examined me and also 'rolled my balls' (I'm sure there's an exact term for the procedure) to ensure I didn't have any lumps or bumps that I shouldn't have, other than the obvious two (was in the days before the current PSA test, obviously).

I worked for several other Irish companies, and the GPs they used were never that, erm, through.

sozbox

"Availability for one. Hiring a pregnant woman who in 6 months time could be taking off just as much time is not the best choice for a company who has an alternative candidate with the same skills.

While it may seem like discrimination, I personally do not think it is. If I was in charge of a company I would rather have an employee who in 12 months time has 12 months experience than someone who has had 6 months experience and been 6 months out of work.

While this post may come across in bad light thats just my opinion on the subject."


I really don't see your point. What's stopping a woman becoming pregnant 1 day into a new job and leaving the company in the exact same position?

I mean take this to the next logical level and you a company enforcing a policy of "New female hires cannot get pregnant in the first 12 months of employment"

And what about men:

Paternity leave would put a company in the same position you mentioned, albeit to less of a degree, so should they ask all new male hires if they can test their wives/girlfriends too??

Am I missing something?

DublinWriter

axer wrote:

Companies have to be restricted by law like this in order to protect society as they can be greedy feckers.

Exactly. It's short-termism. Who do they think will be buying their crappy products in 20+ years time?

Jesus Wept

Workers in america have almost no rights.

I've no idea why a US company would think that they can act the same way here.

PeakOutput

axer wrote:

Aye, but getting pregnant is legal and good for society/human life (or whatever).

Companies have to be restricted by law like this in order to protect society as they can be greedy feckers.

using drugs is not illegal selling them is

i agree they are wrong to break the law and it is a good thing for women that the law is there BUT i personally dont see it as any more a breach of privacy than the rest of the medical

i also dont see how they are breaking the law if they ask for your consent but maybe they are

pikku

Just quoting from the Citizens Information here first of all:

I contacted the Equality Authority in relation to your query. They informed
me that by asking such a question this would be considered gender
discrimination under the Employment Equality Act, 1998 and the Equal Status
Act, 2000 as amended by the Equality Act 2004. Please view below for
further details.


And quoting from the Legislation Information here:

There are two distinct pieces of legislation in place in Ireland which set
out important rights for citizens and specifically outlaw discrimination
when it occurs.

The Employment Equality Act, 1998 and the Equal Status Act, 2000 as amended
by the Equality Act 2004 outlaw discrimination in employment, vocational
training, advertising, collective agreements, the provision of goods and
services and other opportunities to which the public generally have access.
Specifically, service providers, agencies, and anyone providing
opportunities to which the public have access, cannot discriminate against
citizens on nine distinct grounds.

These grounds are:

gender
marital status
family status
sexual orientation
religion
age (does not apply to a person under 16)
disability
race
membership of the Traveller community.

Discrimination is defined as less favourable treatment. A person is said to
be discriminated against if he/she is treated less favourably than another
is, has been or would be treated in a comparable situation on any of the
nine grounds. To establish direct discrimination, a direct comparison must
be made, for example, in the case of gender discrimination - the comparison
must be between a man and a woman; discrimination based on sexual
orientation - the comparison must be between a person of a particular
sexual orientation, and one who has a different sexual orientation; and
disability discrimination - the comparison must be between a
person who has a disability and another who has not or between persons with
different disabilities.

Indirect discrimination occurs when practices or policies that do not
appear to discriminate against one group more than another actually have a
discriminatory impact. It can also happen where a requirement that may
appear non-discriminatory adversely affects a particular group or class of
persons.

The Equality Authority provides information to the public on the equality
legislation. It can, at its discretion, provide legal assistance to people
who wish to bring claims to the Equality Tribunal.

All claims (except for claims about gender discrimination in employment
which can be referred to the Circuit Court) must be referred to the
Equality Tribunal.

Complaints under the Employment Equality Acts, 1998 and 2004 must be
brought within six months of the last act of discrimination. You can make
your complaint on form EE.1, which is available from the Tribunal.

To make a complaint under the Equal Status Acts, 2000 and 2004 you must
first notify the person or organisation you are making the complaint
against within two months of the last act of discrimination. This time
limit can be extended to four months by the Director of Equality
Investigations. If you are not satisfied with the service provider's
response, or if they have made no response within one month from the date
you notified them, and you wish to pursue the complaint, you should send a
completed complaint form ES.3
to the Equality Tribunal. Your complaint must be brought to the Equality
Tribunal within six months of the last act of discrimination. These time
limits can be extended to 12 months for 'reasonable cause'.

RuggieBear

Tbh, it is discrimination but i don't blame them for not wanting to hire pregnant women. Big organisations tend not to give a **** about anything but making money...last thing they want is to be paying an "unproductive employee" wages.

On an aside, where my girlie works there are 12 people out on maternity leave. The company is practically crippled.

the_syco

The-Rigger wrote:

Workers in america have almost no rights.

I've no idea why a US company would think that they can act the same way here.

When a English company bought a big cinema nearby Palmerstown, the rules were all based on English law.

RuggieBear wrote:

On an aside, where my girlie works there are 12 people out on maternity leave. The company is practically crippled.

Imagine a company with 6 people, and two get preggers. Its against the law to replace them.

PeakOutput

the_syco wrote:

Imagine a company with 6 people, and two get preggers. Its against the law to replace them.

you are allowed hire people to cover the maternity leave

RuggieBear

PeakOutput wrote:

you are allowed hire people to cover the maternity leave

Yep but you end up paying double the salary for one person doing the job.

Glowing

If you're interviewing for a job and are say 6/8 weeks pregnant, are you obliged to tell the company?

PeakOutput

Glowing wrote:

If you're interviewing for a job and are say 6/8 weeks pregnant, are you obliged to tell the company?

nope although i think you should be im all for maternity leave etc etc but if they have not hired you yet they have a right to know if you are pregnant and will be costing them double wages in a few months imo


personally if i ran a business unless the person was an amazing worker if she didnt tell me she was pregnant and ionly mentioned it when she showed and wanted to discuss maternity leave if she was still on probabtion id be looking to get rid of her thats from a purely business point of view of course but if its a decision between paying one person not to work for 9months and letting other staff go becasue the company can't afford its wage bill then i know what id choose

RuggieBear

PeakOutput wrote:

personally if i ran a business unless the person was an amazing worker if she didnt tell me she was pregnant and ionly mentioned it when she showed and wanted to discuss maternity leave if she was still on probabtion id be looking to get rid of her thats from a purely business point of view of course but if its a decision between paying one person not to work for 9months and letting other staff go becasue the company can't afford its wage bill then i know what id choose

That's discrimination...and that is the nub of the problem.

PeakOutput

RuggieBear wrote:

That's discrimination...and that is the nub of the problem.

im aware of it being discrimination but i elieve in certain circumstances the welfare of an individual cannot be held above the welfare of the many.........im talking in a small business with less than say 6- 10 employees were 1 person makes a huge difference

RuggieBear

PeakOutput wrote:

im aware of it being discrimination but i elieve in certain circumstances the welfare of an individual cannot be held above the welfare of the many.........im talking in a small business with less than say 6- 10 employees were 1 person makes a huge difference

I'm totally agreeing with you.

It's a poxy position for a small company to find itself facing. pay double wages or face a gender discrimination suit...

PeakOutput

RuggieBear wrote:

I'm totally agreeing with you.

It's a poxy position for a small company to find itself facing. pay double wages or face a gender discrimination suit...

i wonder if you are letting people go anyway can the person on maternity leave be the first to go????? or if they would be in the positionyou are going to get rid of anyway can they be fired while on maternity leave???

its very easy to fire someone on probabtion but if they are permanent you wont get away with it..........


i was just thinking there as well it must be possible for some enterprising spirit to introduce maternity leave insurance for companies and make a profit out of it

axer

PeakOutput wrote:

i wonder if you are letting people go anyway can the person on maternity leave be the first to go????? or if they would be in the positionyou are going to get rid of anyway can they be fired while on maternity leave???

If the person let go was chosen because they were on maternity leave i.e. if it is a negative factor against the employee, then the employee could sue the company. It would be a very dicey situation and companies would be very careful.

The laws are there to protect society. If a company acts less favourably to a pregnant woman then they can and would most likely be sued. I would expect a judge would not look too kindly on the company where there is even a hint of discrimmination of a pregnant woman.