Interested to know:

[LdiJ]

This happened about 40 years ago but I would be interested to know if it would be considered illegal discrimination today.

The company I was working for set up a task force to put together (pretty quickly) a new program that was kind of radical for the company. They had to put it together and staff from existing staff, as it was going to need experienced (within the company, experienced) people. When discussing the 12 staff members that could be considered to be experienced, the comment was made "we only have 12 experienced people and 7 of them are pregnant". This was said in the context of possibly not having enough people to cover the new program as well as the existing program. Keeping in mind that 40 years ago working from home was not really an option (no internet yet) would that be considered illegal discrimination today?

It was definitely the kind of job that could be done from home, today.

 

[Zigner]

The comment alone, without any adverse actions taken based on the pregnancies, is not illegal discrimination. Were the 7 people excluded from the project due to their pregnancy?

 

[quincy]

This happened about 40 years ago but I would be interested to know if it would be considered illegal discrimination today.

The company I was working for set up a task force to put together (pretty quickly) a new program that was kind of radical for the company. They had to put it together and staff from existing staff, as it was going to need experienced (within the company, experienced) people. When discussing the 12 staff members that could be considered to be experienced, the comment was made "we only have 12 experienced people and 7 of them are pregnant". This was said in the context of possibly not having enough people to cover the new program as well as the existing program. Keeping in mind that 40 years ago working from home was not really an option (no internet yet) would that be considered illegal discrimination today?

It was definitely the kind of job that could be done from home, today.

Probably illegal today.

Unless there was something else about the task force that could legitimately eliminate the pregnant women from consideration (and I cannot think of any legitimate reason offhand), an otherwise well-qualified woman should not be excluded from a task force due simply to pregnancy.

 

[quincy]

Here is a link to information on pregnancy discrimination and how certain factors, like the size of the employer, can play a role.

From AAUW: https://www.aauw.org/resources/legal/7-things-pregnancy-discrimination/

 

[adjusterjack]

Probably illegal today.

Unless there was something else about the task force that could legitimately eliminate the pregnant women from consideration (and I cannot think of any legitimate reason offhand), an otherwise well-qualified woman should not be excluded from a task force due simply to pregnancy.

Physical and/or medical limitations might arise at some point.

 

[quincy]

Physical and/or medical limitations might arise at some point.

That still would not justify exclusion of the pregnant women from consideration for the task force. What it might mean is that the task force should have possible backups lined up for ANY of the members who might become incapacitated at some point.

 

[LdiJ]

Correction: The pregnancy comment was made in one of the task force meetings. Pregnant women were not excluded from the task force, they were being considered as possibly being excluded from the new program since they would go on maternity leave shortly after it started. There was also the problem that there might be staffing shortages because so many of the experienced people were pregnant.

 

[zddoodah]

would that be considered illegal discrimination today?

As far as I can tell, "that" refers to the "comment [that] was made [that] 'we only have 12 experienced people and 7 of them are pregnant.'" No, that comment, by itself, is not illegal discrimination.

That said, a person's unavailability for something because of maternity/paternity leave is not an illegitimate reason for being excluded from something that will happen while that person is unavailable.

 

[Taxing Matters]

When discussing the 12 staff members that could be considered to be experienced, the comment was made "we only have 12 experienced people and 7 of them are pregnant". This was said in the context of possibly not having enough people to cover the new program as well as the existing program. Keeping in mind that 40 years ago working from home was not really an option (no internet yet) would that be considered illegal discrimination today?

Not illegal discrimination in itself. Illegal discrimination would be treating a pregnant woman different from other employees because of her being pregnant. In other words, it's not commenting on the fact that they are pregnant but rather acting on it that would be the problem. That said, today that comment would be a stupid one for management to make. Why? Because if some of the pregnant women were not included and they sued for illegal discrimination, that comment may be introduced as evidence by the women to help prove that it was their pregnancy that kept them off the task force. Imagine, for example, if instead of the word "pregnant" the person had instead inserted a particular race in that sentence, e.g. "and 7 of them are Black." You can imagine how bad that would look if the Black employees then sued if they weren't selected, as the comment makes it look like race was a significant factor in the selection. It's no different using the term "pregnant". It's going to look bad if litigation results later. As a result, well advised employers will be counseled by their lawyers to train employees not to refer to protected characteristics in discussions like this.

 

[quincy]

Correction: The pregnancy comment was made in one of the task force meetings. Pregnant women were not excluded from the task force, they were being considered as possibly being excluded from the new program since they would go on maternity leave shortly after it started. There was also the problem that there might be staffing shortages because so many of the experienced people were pregnant.

The context of the comments can make a difference.

If the pregnancies of the women were mentioned only in the context of maternity leave and staffing shortages that is different than mentioning pregnancy as a reason to exclude certain otherwise qualified women from the task force.