The Original Poster (OP), known as u/Happy-Mind-2618, posted about the situation in Reddit’s popular “Am I The A**hole” forum where it received more than 9,000 upvotes and 2,800 comments. The post can be found here.
Maternity Leave
In the United States, the Family and Medical Leave Act requires employers to provide at least 12 workweeks of unpaid maternity leave within a 12-month period, according to the U.S. Department of Labor.
But America’s unpaid leave requirements are vastly different than many other Western nations, some of which offer paid maternity leave.
In the U.K., statutory maternity pay is paid for up to 39 weeks, which consists of 90 percent of average weekly earnings before tax for the first six weeks.
It then goes to $188.19 or 90 percent of your average weekly earnings for the next 33 weeks.
The U.K. also offers shared parental leave which is about $167.08 for up to 37 weeks and up to 50 weeks of leave.
‘AITA?’
In the post titled “AITA for firing an employee returning from maternity leave?” the OP said they “feel like the devil” for firing a woman.
The OP said they run a team of six people and that one of their employees, Jess, recently came back from maternity leave, which is 10 months at the company.
Before Jess left, the team finished a project and began a new one without her.
“During this period, our team had to adapt to working without her expertise in certain matters,” the post read. “We adapted and eventually some of us developed the skills needed to do some of her workload.”
Currently, the OP and two others on the team split the work that Jess used to do and hired a new employee to handle the other half of her workload.
“This new employee came at significantly reduced cost, as he was straight out of Uni and we pay him a fraction of what Jess costs currently,” the post read. “Now Jess has come back to the team, but there is another issue.”
‘Called Me a C**t’
While the OP was submitting paperwork for Jess’ return, they were informed that there is not enough in the budget for a seven-person team and that they would have to let someone go.
“We are 5 months into a project that should take an estimated 10 months, and my decision came down to Jess and the man we hired to replace her,” the post read. “As you can tell by the title, I chose the replacement.”
The OP said they decided to keep the new hire for several reasons, including the fact that they are paid significantly less than Jess. The new hire was also “up to date” on the current project and wouldn’t need time to catch up.
Another reason was that the clients knew the new hire and had not met Jess before she left for maternity leave.
“She has been out of the field for a prolonged period, whilst he has been here for the past 9 months, so she may, or may not, find it hard to adapt back to work life, whilst with him it isn’t a question,” the post read.
The OP also said the new hire performed and interacted “better” than Jess did.
“Obviously, the ideal situation which I wanted was to keep both and not put a new single mother with no other job lined up out in the cold,” the post read. “But I had to do right by the team and firm.”
The OP told Jess they would write her a “brilliant” recommendation letter and that she could apply for another job at the firm in a few months if they have the budget.
“But she snapped at me and told me not to bother, and called me a c**t and left,” the post read. “I know I sound cold and heartless but I had to be fair to both employees, not just Jess, right? AITA?”
Redditor Reactions
More than 2,800 users commented on the post, many criticizing the OP for firing the woman and others asking if it was even legal.
“YTA. Every single reason you mentioned was only true because she had been gone on maternity leave which legally CANNOT be a reason to terminate someone,” one user commented. “Yet it is the cause behind everyone reason you gave. Be prepared for a lawsuit.”
“OP: So I fired her because 1. She had a baby. 2. She had a baby. 3. She had a baby. AITA???? YTA OP,” another user commented.
“You’re punishing her for having a baby and taking the maternity leave that your business offers,” another user commented. “You knew she was coming back, why didn’t you hire a temp replacement until that time? You’re not going save money after she takes legal action for being fired because she’s a mother. YTA.”
“I’m going to go with YTA. Even though you listed your reasons, it won’t play that way in court,” another user commented. “Will any woman feel safe in her job at your company if she gets pregnant now?”
“This is why I’m going with YTA. You hire temp, not a full time replacement. New hire should have been let go, as much as that sucks. And when you hired new guy, you should have explained the position was temporary. YTA OP.”
“What’s the point of having a maternity leave policy if you just replace and fire the person taking maternity leave?” another commented.
Newsweek reached out to u/Happy-Mind-2618 for comment.
Other Viral Posts
In another viral post, a boss was criticized for giving a pregnant employee only one week for maternity leave while a woman was backed for relaxing during her maternity leave.
One new mom was urged to leave her partner who was caught sending flirty texts while she was on maternity leave.
