In what is a Landmark step for Equality in the Workplace, Yahoo! has announced the appointment of a new CEO, Marissa Mayer, who is currently six months pregnant. In stark contrast to the case of O'Brien -v- Persian Properties T/A O'Callaghan Hotels (DEC-E2012-010), where a pregnant employee was mistreated and subsequently claimed constructive dismissal (being awarded €315,000 compensation), the Yahoo! case illustrates a sea change in the mindset of employers, where Pregnancy is not the barrier to employment it may once have seemed.
Admittedly Employer's mindsets and Women's rights have changed considerably since the time where employers would actively refrain from hiring women so they would not have to deal with maternity leave. Women are, in the majority of workplaces, rightly regarded as equals and capable of doing any role a male employee can do, however the number of CEOs of fortune 500 companies is still very low and that is why some observers are reporting that this case as hugely important as it may be the first time a CEO is appointed who is currently pregnant. Under Irish legislation an employee who is pregnant is entitled to take 26 weeks statutory Maternity Leave funded by the state, and if they wish they may take a further 16 weeks additional leave which is unpaid. A worker will retain all rights to annual leave and public holidays when on leave, and will be required to be allowed to return to the role they left once the Maternity leave has expired. Althoug employers are not required to provide payment during this time, they may have to hire additional staff to cover the employees work during maternity leave. Irish Equality legislation maintains nine grounds under which an employee may claim they were discriminated against, with Gender being one such ground, also Section 38 of the Maternity Protection Act provides a that dismissals are seen as automatically unfair if connected with Pregnancy. The Unfair Dismissals Act, provides an exemption to the 12 months service requirement if the dismissal is related to the employee's pregnancy. So it is fair to say that the legislative protections are there for pregnant employees, however that does not stop some employers adopting a draconian stance of concocting farcical reasons for dismissing pregnant employees. The case of Dymnicka -v Kylemore Foods Group Ltd. (UD 1033/2007) illustrates where the EAT was not satisfied that pregnancy was not a relevant factor in a dismissal, and the employee was awarded €10,000. In Richardson -v- Avant Shipping Services (UD 145/2007) an employee who previously had a good relationship with her employer was subjected to a tirade of abuse and irrational behaviour as soon as she informed her employer she was pregnant, and was subsequently awarded €25,0000. Again it is important to stress that the majority of employers do not adopt this stance and see no issue with female workers however some do have that mindset, and so it is important, as a symbol, that a large Fortune 500 company like Yahoo!, who are publicly traded, and deal in million and millions of dollars of revenue see no issue with hiring employees who are currently pregnant...so why should anyone else.
