It’s an uncomfortable reality that no mom-to-be wants to confront as she prepares to take a hiatus from office life to give birth to a child: Her job — her day job, that is — isn’t safe. Being on maternity leave offers no automatic protection from layoffs.
And sure, it stands to reason that when dozens of employees are getting the boot, the one or two who happen to be on maternity leave lose their jobs, too.
But more than a few eyebrows are raised — including mine — when the employee on maternity leave is singularly replaced. As a journalist, I’ve seen such unfortunate scenarios play out firsthand in my line of work and recently, a new instance made headlines. Kate Bolduan, a co-anchor at CNN’s “New Day,” has reportedly been replaced by CNN colleague Alisyn Camerota. Camerota had been filling in for Bolduan temporarily while the latter was on maternity leave. CNN announced just days ago that Camerota had been promoted from fill-in to anchor on the morning show. (Full disclosure: I briefly worked with another “New Day” co-anchor at another network, but I have no inside information on this situation.)
Where does that leave Bolduan, who is still home with her baby? She’s been given a new (and, clearly, less prestigious) job at a CNN show airing later in the morning.
I don’t know the particulars of this staff shuffle — for all I know, Bolduan wanted the change — so I don’t want to cast stones specifically at CNN. But what I do know is that it doesn’t look good. Generally speaking, when an employee is replaced while she’s on maternity leave, it doesn’t just hurt her. It can hurt her company. Here’s how:
There can be legal consequences
An employee who is subject to a demotion or, worse, is fired while on maternity leave could choose to file a discrimination lawsuit. A lawsuit is no slam dunk and employment discrimination cases are notoriously hard to win. But even pending lawsuits, whether they are successful (see: HCS Medical in Milwaukee) or not (see Bloomberg), are costly headaches that companies don’t need.
There’s usually a decreased office morale
Do you really want your employees walking around worrying that if they decide to start families, their jobs, too, could be on the line? The New York Post reports that female CNN staffers were angered when they learned Bolduan was being replaced, but I wouldn’t be surprised if they, especially those who are or would like to get pregnant, were frightened for their careers as well.
You’ve damaged your reputation
Being family-friendly is one way for a company to attract talent, especially female talent. If you’re known for demoting or firing employees while they’re on maternity leave, you’ve essentially torpedoed your efforts to appear family-friendly.
I’ll play devil’s advocate for a minute: What if an employer had already made the decision before a woman’s leave that he wanted to demote or fire her for totally legitimate, performance-related reasons? What if the employer just didn’t get a chance to make that move before the woman’s leave began?
Here’s a thought: How about waiting until the employee has returned from leave and, instead of demoting or firing her, work with her on an action plan? Give her a set amount of time to improve her performance by meeting specific, pre-determined goals. If it still doesn’t work out, then an employer can make his move.
The potential downside to this, of course, is that she doesn’t improve and, in the meantime, she’s continued to underperform in her position — which might mean lost revenue or other problems for the business. The employer might also be accused of giving an underperforming employee special treatment by delaying her termination. But is that worse than the three consequences I outlined above?
That’s a question every employer must answer for themselves … but I’ll admit that I hate it when the answer is “yes.”
Image courtesy of ThinkStock