new manager is angry that I’m pregnant

by Alison Green on October 15, 2024

A reader writes:

I’ve just gone through a long interview process for a job I was referred to a while back. I have not been actively applying for jobs because I am pregnant but this one came to me. During the process, I realized this is the best job I’ve ever been considered for — both in regards to the work itself and the compensation — and I felt I had to take it if offered.

I did not disclose my pregnancy until after I got a verbal offer. The hiring manager freaked out — not so much in an angry way but more in a very stressed out way. Apparently, they’ve been grossly understaffed for a very long time and my maternity leave (company policy is to give five months fully paid despite me being new) will be a huge burden. He said some pretty offensive, sexist things:

• “I would’ve been pissed if I’d met you in person and saw your were about to pop.”
• “You should’ve told me this to begin with.”
• “I won’t hold a grudge. I would have lied to get this job too.”
• “We’ll just have to think this over and maybe revisit this job offer in a year.”
• “What, do you think you’re gonna have a six-month-old at home and just be like ‘See ya! Be back in 4 days’?” This job does require a fair amount of travel, but I have done this work for some time and I already have a child. I did this when he was a newborn too.
• In response to my saying I feel I’m in a tough spot and my husband will need paternity leave too although this has not affected his career advancement, he told me that he never took any parental leave for any of his eight (!) children.

This is in addition to repeatedly reiterating how overstretched and busy the team has been. He also tried to assure me that a job offer is binding and that if I just tell HR that I’d like to start in one year, they would be forced to hold the job for me since it would be signed by the CEO. He also said it WOULD NOT be binding for me. He was trying to get me to reach out to them myself and request this. This honestly would have been preferable to me as my current company gives longer maternity leave. However, I obviously did not trust him about a binding job offer. I think I’d have been okay with a little uncertainty on that, but he just seemed so full of it. I did consult with an employment attorney, who basically said I cannot sue when they did not actually rescind the offer.

Shortly after I spoke with him at length, talent acquisition called to tell me how excited they are for me to start immediately and seemed very confused when I explained the hiring manager does not want me to start immediately. I also told her I cannot see myself working under this manager. I assumed they already somewhat knew of the situation, but I think that was wrong.

Anyway, the company’s reaction was swift. The VP called me several times from his European vacation, immediately committed to move me under a different manager, and came up with a plan to arrange the departments so this won’t look weird. I met with the other manager and she seems lovely. She’s a mom too, which is great.

I’ve now accepted the job and given notice to my current employer, but my stomach is in knots about it. I’m terrified that everyone is going to hate me from day one because of what this guy has told them about how I “lied.” I’m also really wrestling with how to report the full context of what happened to HR. Any advice or a script for HR would be most appreciated. I’ve never accepted a job under such fraught conditions.

Whoa, this guy is unhinged — and the reason the VP called multiple times from his European vacation is that the company knows he put them in legal jeopardy, as well as just making the company look terrible. I can almost guarantee you that someone had Serious Words with him. (And yes, your attorney said you couldn’t sue unless they revoked the offer — but if you had started working there and experienced other forms of pregnancy discrimination or sex discrimination, the manager’s comments to you absolutely would have made legal action at that point significantly easier.)

Also, the hiring manager’s claim that job offers are “binding” was 100% false. Offers can be revoked at any time, as long as it’s not for an illegal reason (like that you’re pregnant).

People are very unlikely to hate you because this manager told them you “lied.” Anyone with any sense knows that you’re not obligated to disclose you’re pregnant when you’re interviewing, and that women have very good reasons for not disclosing it (this manager being exhibit #1). It also sounds extremely likely that the company will have schooled everyone involved about pregnancy discrimination and their legal obligations to ensure that you don’t face any hostility over it. (In fact, I wouldn’t be surprised if your new manager makes a point of ensuring it’s clear that they don’t harbor ill will toward you over it.)

You also didn’t act in any way aggressively here! When the talent acquisition person called you, all you said was that it seemed like the hiring manager would prefer you start in a year; you were pretty low-key about it! You would have had every right to take a more assertive approach, and the company knows that; the fact that you didn’t do that is likely to be helpful in terms of relationship-building when you start. (And yes, it is messed up that that’s the case; standing up to discrimination shouldn’t make relationship-building at a new job harder, but in reality it sometimes can. In your case, they’re probably quite aware that you gave them more grace than you had to.)

Regarding reporting the full context of what happened to HR: all else being equal, I’d probably wait until you’ve been there a couple of weeks and have seen how things are going and then check in with them. Hopefully you’ll be able to tell them that everything is going great with the new team, and then say that you want to fill them in on your conversation with the original manager, “since it seems like something you should know for other pregnant hires in the future.”

I’m sorry this happened, and I strongly suspect that after you’ve been working there for a while, you’re going to find out this guy sucks in other ways too … and I wouldn’t be surprised if your new colleagues already know it.

You may also like:
{ 297 comments }

{ 297 comments… read them below }

  1. TheGirlintheAfternoon*

    You did nothing wrong. That manager sucks. The company’s response to that is good to hear! Hopefully that manager will either 1) completely mend his ways – unlikely! or 2) be managed out sooner rather than later.

    1. Nicosloanica*

      Think of this way, OP. The company decided to set their leave policy knowing exactly what this could mean in a new hire. They proactively chose to do more than the minimum because they believed it would help them recruit and retain high quality people. This individual manager was the one being a wild card.

      1. JSPA*

        Which maybe why he is so under-staffed. You don’t have to be pregnant (or have a functional uterus, or have 2 X chromosomes) to flee from somebody who freely expresses these sorts of attitudes.

        1. goddessoftransitory*

          Right? If you can’t keep your department staffed and every other issue has been eliminated, YOU are the problem, my dude.

    2. Goldenrod*

      +1.

      I’m saying this as someone who never had kids or wanted them – fuck this guy! I especially hate the part where he admitted he worked when he had a toddler…So obviously, he feels that a woman should give up a good opportunity, but not him!

      He’s not only behaving illegally, because if you are the best hire (which clearly they all felt you were), you’ll still be a great hire when you return from maternity leave. And if you felt supported and valued, you may stay in this role a very long time, benefiting everyone. As it is, he’s making you feel more tenuous about your commitment, which is stupid of him.

      As Alison said, this all reflects on him and is not predictive of how anyone else will respond to you. Enjoy your maternity leave and afterwards, enjoy your job! I hope you don’t let this one bad actor ruin it for you.

      1. goddessoftransitory*

        I wish more companies would read this letter and your post, because it really illustrates how one bad apple can spread rot and instability. This ONE guy had the LW, for very good reasons, uncertain about even taking a job they wanted her for, and worried about her ability to do that job because of him and his horrible attitudes.

        Keeping people like this around is not worth it. No matter how much time and trouble it would be to replace them, they generate more of both every day they’re there.

      2. Elio*

        This. Never taking paternity leave for 8 kids is not a flex. If his workplace(s) did not offer it, then that’s sad. If they did and he never used it, that makes him the a-hole who pawns the majority of the newborn child care onto his wife.

        He is being sexist too by saying it’s totally fine for him to have a career and a baby, bot not OP.

    3. Momma Bear*

      I agree – you did nothing wrong, OP. MANY women do not disclose pregnancy during interviews for just this reason.

      The company’s response should be all you have to worry about. The VP called and figured it out, you’re under a new manager who seems lovely, and I bet that other guy got a refresher in how not to get the company in legal trouble for discrimination. It doesn’t matter if he didn’t take any leave for his 8 kids. Your company is generous and sounds like they really want you to work there. Take the job, hold your head high, enjoy your leave and baby when they come.

    4. LizardOfOz*

      Definitely. I’ve got all the advantages you can have except having been born to a rich family (I’m a guy, white, straight, local, my education followed the ‘standard’ path, etc.), and I really wouldn’t want to work for this guy, even if I’m pretty sure I’m not gonna need parental leave.

      I really prefer to work for/with people who treat ALL their coworkers as human beings, not just the subset they happen to like, tyvm.

      You did nothing wrong, hope that guy gets managed out asap, preferably to a position where he’s not managing anyone.

    5. Julie*

      I am the OP. Thank you so much! This situation was so incredibly stressful that these responses literally bring tears to my eyes. I am overwhelmed by the support here.

      Yes I really hope he is managed out soon. Yesterday was my first day and he was already acting like an ass humiliating one of his new hires on a call we were all on together.

      1. DJ Hymnotic*

        I may be reading too much into this but between the eight kids, the never taking any paternity leave to care for them (and thinking that’s a bragging point!), plus the blatantly misogynistic behavior, I think he is very likely to have religious–or at least religion-influenced–beliefs that oppose women working in professional settings. I say that because it’s the sort of values system that pushes you to continue being an ass even after almost certainly having been told some Very Serious Words (to borrow Alison’s terms). I was raised by an employment and labor union lawyer so I may be biased, but if this guy’s behavior towards you resurfaces it may be worth consulting with another attorney. Even if you don’t sue and even if the company is once again responsive, I genuinely think that having a thoughtful lawyer whom you trust to advise you behind the scenes can be a real asset in such a situation. Best of luck to you and your new kiddo.

  2. T.N.H*

    Even if you wait to tell HR, make sure you have everything documented. It can help to know what he said on specific dates (check your phone’s call log). Good luck with the new job and please update us!

    1. bamcheeks*

      I was going to say exactly this. The account here is a bit confused in terms of what happened when, in what order, who said what etc. Whilst it’s still fresh in your memory and the emails are reasonably close to the surface, make yourself a Word doc that says:

      29.08 – Received job offer direct from HR. [cut and paste the email into the Word doc, including the header with the time/date info]
      02.09 – Teams meeting with New Manager. Informed him I was pregnant. Manager’s comments included “WFT” “More WTF” “Seriously, WTFFFF” and “ohhhh holy sh*t am I going to have to sue this guy”.
      02.09 – Emailed New Manager to confirm conversation and start date. [cut and paste email]”

      You may never ever have to go back to this, but it is MUCH easier to do in the moment when everything is still pretty fresh, and if you ever do need to report it, it’s right there. Much easier than re-constructing it several months later.

      Good luck and I hope it’s all unnecessary!

      1. JFC*

        I agree the account was hard to follow. I can see why HR was confused when OP said the manager didn’t want them to start for a year. It sounds like the manager casually tossed that out as an option, not that it was “start in a year or don’t start at all.” Very few companies will hold a position open for that long, especially for a new hire and especially if they are severely understaffed. Surely HR knows this, hence the confusion.

        I’m not sure I would count on the new colleagues to be as understanding as you would hope. They may all be lovely people and professional enough not to make any comments about the pregnancy, but if they’ve been understaffed for a while, then see the new hire come in for a few months and then take leave for almost half a year (however justified it is), that’s unfortunately going to ruffle some feathers. Add to that the fact that there was enough drama in the hiring process to assign you to a new manager before you even start and… yeah, the optics may not be too good here.

        To be clear, I don’t think the OP is at fault here for anything except ignoring some red flags (the HR confusion, the ‘binding’ job offer, the original manager’s overall attitude). But, man, this sounds like a super messy way to start at a new place.

        1. Orv*

          I’ve been in that situation before. I’d never say anything out loud, but it’s hard not to feel resentment. Maternity leave is important but always comes at the cost of unpaid work by other staff.

          1. MigraineMonth*

            That’s true of every type of leave. I don’t get huffy at Joe for taking paternity leave or bereavement leave after his father passes. I don’t resent Meryl for taking time for her chemotherapy treatments or Alex for going home with migraines.

            Workers are human, with messy human needs. If management doesn’t adequately staff for that, I resent management, not my coworkers in need.

            1. Orv*

              To me it just feels like another one of those perks that people get for choosing to have kids, at the expense of people who don’t. This is on top of all the flex time and WFH benefits that people with kids usually get that everyone else just has to cover for. That makes it different than medical leave or bereavement leave.

              1. Silver Robin*

                That is still a management problem though? Somebody who goes through major surgery is also going to be out for extended periods of time. Or somebody who has chronic illness might be out many times for shorter stints. Or somebody who takes a sabbatical (rare in the US, but extant).

                If the organization is saying only parents get WFH when in office work is not actually necessary, then it is the organization that is being crap for not letting everyone WFH. If the organization is only giving parents flexibility when coverage is not actually a necessity, that is an organizational problem.

                Resenting people for deciding to have children in a context where there is inequity between parents and non-parents is weird. They are not having kids at you.

              2. Scintillating Water*

                Perhaps this is a feature of your workplace or industry? At my (very large university) workplace, parents don’t get any more flexibility than anyone else.

                Accommodating other people’s needs is a pain sometimes, but it’s also part of living in a society. I’d rather advocate for expanding flexibility and accommodations to others who need it (for disability, other caregiving work, bereavement, religious observance, etc.) than resent parents.

              3. Goldenrod*

                “To me it just feels like another one of those perks that people get for choosing to have kids, at the expense of people who don’t.”

                As a childless cat lady, I just want to say: I don’t agree with this AT ALL. I guess I just see it as a human rights issue.

                Let’s support this and all other laws making jobs serve us and NOT the other way around.

                1. TechWorker*

                  Yeah I am childless and will remain so but guess what I was once a child & would have benefited if there were decent policies around parental leave at that point. I guess you were too Orv…

                2. Orv*

                  If it really were “jobs serving us” I’d be for it. But it’s never the employer making the sacrifices. It’s the people who don’t have kids serving the people who do by taking on their workload.

                3. STLBlues*

                  As another childless cat lady, I just want to say: I totally get it and agree.

                  It is a human rights issue, but it is not on one demographic (the childless) to take on more to support another demographic (parents). That would not be the parents’ fault, to be clear — but that is very often how the situation works.

                  And if “human rights” requires one group to be subjugated under another group, then it’s not really about equality or rights, eh?

                1. mom with perks*

                  uhhhh yeah, it certainly didn’t feel like one to me as I was bleeding for half the time I was out, sleep deprived and barely able to shower, but go off, Orv.

                3. Susan*

                  Well, paid maternity leave definitely is a perk in that the vast majority of jobs in the US don’t have it. I live in one of the few states that has mandated extremely minimal family and medical leave. I worked in professional jobs when my kids were born and, sadly, had no paid maternity leave. If you work for a company with good maternity leave, it probably means that they treat their employees well in other ways too.

                4. STLBlues*

                  That’s a pretty privileged point of view when many, many jobs do not include paid maternity leave at all.

                5. SimonTheGreyWarden*

                  Would have been a perk to me. I was on a 9-month contract by the time I had my son (job had been refigured) so yeah, I had him in early summer and got three months off, unpaid. I mean, it was good not having to pay for infant day care on top of not having a full-time job any longer, but boy would I have liked it to be paid.

                6. Broadway Duchess*

                  I am a mother and I understand why it seems to be a perk that’s not available to everyone, especially when someone without children has to (or in many cases, is expected to) pick up the slack left behind.

                  Part of the reason is that Bereavement happens to almost everyone, independent of their actions, while giving birth is a choice. It is most definitely a management issue, not the employees who are rightfully availing themselves of the leave to which they are entitled, but “the company” doesn’t necessarily absorb that and the co-workers often do.

                7. Katara's side braids*

                  Re: maternity leave being a “perk” because so many people don’t have it – I don’t think that’s what defines a perk! To me, it’s a bare minimum need that, shamefully, isn’t being met by many (most?) employers in the US, including mine. That just means my employer is below the bare minimum standard for decency, not that my friends who do get maternity leave are getting a “perk.: Describing it that way gives the impression that it’s some kind of vacation, when it very much is not.

              5. Just Me*

                If only! I have a really decent job and a great union. I get the same generous PTO as everyone else. Although about 80% of my job can be done remotely, the boss and grandboss are 100% against it and are unwilling to make changes.

                I’m a single parent with 2 kids. When I started here five years ago, they were 3 and 6, and let me tell you, every single strep throat, ear infection, broken arm, orthodontist appointment or “is it a strain or a sprain?” day adds up. I take three people’s worth of sick time because I chose to have kids and get divorced. My kids seem to have a special knack for getting sick consecutively rather than congruently.

                The flexibility I receive is “You can bring your sick kid to work today. Stick him in a conference room with an iPad.” I don’t want to bring a sick kid to work. My supervisors want me to be working and working in-office.

                I value the time off that I’ve earned. I’ll use less of it as sick time when my kids are older, and I look forward to a time when I can use it for other things. I don’t imagine I’ll begrudge other working parents any flexibility they are afforded.

                1. Orv*

                  My workplace is a little different. We’re not supposed to do WFH (that ended after COVID) but people with kids just sort of come and go as they please based on when they have to take the kids to sports practice or camp or whatever’s going on.

              6. Good Lord Ratty*

                It’s not free vacation for the person, though. Mat leave exists because pregnancy and giving birth are extremely physically taxing, and caring for a newborn is very time-consuming and exhausting. Someone on mat leave is not just kicking back. Your resentment is understandable, but it doesn’t reflect well on you.

              7. AMH*

                It’s much closer to medical leave than a perk, though. It’s used to care for a newborn infant or a new family member (adoption, etc.), which is very necessary domestic labor. Having children be cared for is absolutely essential not just for the child and the family but also for all of society, and I say that as someone who has chosen not to have children.

                I get what you’re saying and I understand the frustration at the situation in companies that don’t plan adequately for leave, but I don’t like the reframing of it as a perk.

              9. NurseThis*

                I agree. I worked full time for 54 years and spent most of that working extra to cover for leaves. There are a lot of them in nursing. Double shifts, 16 hour shifts. I know it is in the end a management problem but it’s hard to be the one who has to make it work, over and over again.

              10. Immaterial*

                are you also resentful when you work extra because someone is out for bereavement or medical leave? It seems like the same situation.

                If not, maybe something else is contributing here too?

                1. Alice*

                  I am glad my emploer offers six months maternity leave, even though I am never going to use it. But it’s disingenuous to pretend that covering for three days of bereavement leave or six months of maternity leave both have the same impact on coworkers.

              11. Ineffable Bastard*

                You’re not serving the people who do have kids. You are serving a company with a crap policy. There’s a world of difference. And, considering how reproductive rights are nonexistent or under fire in several parts of the world, lots of people who did not choose to have kids are having to have kids. Many of them lose jobs to people who do not have kids — and, again, it’s a company/policy/human rights issue. It should be us against the problem, not against each other.

                1. Flor*

                  Agreed! It’s not the people who have kids who are expecting the rest of their team to pick up the slack while they’re on leave. It’s a combination of employers failing to properly plan around it and, in the US, inadequate parental leave rights that mean new parents aren’t off for long enough to make hiring a replacement “worth it”. In contrast, in countries where 1+ year of leave is protected by law, it’s common to hire a replacement, and the rest of the team isn’t landed with extra work.

              12. aebhel*

                This is like saying that medical leave is a perk offered to people who get sick or have family to care for. If the company is not adequately staffed to cover for these things without unduly burdening the other employees, that is a management failure and not the responsibility of women who have the temerity to reproduce while having a job. So it’s, you know, interesting and telling to me that the resentment in these cases always seems to land on pregnant people and not the managers actually making these staffing decisions.

              13. Media Monkey*

                wow. maternity leave is not a perk or a fun holiday – it is mandated in the vast majority of countries in the world (US a notable exception)

              14. basically functional*

                Spoken like someone who has never given birth or taken care of a baby. Maternity leave is not a “perk.” It is absolutely impossible to work for a while after having a child, for both medical and logistical reasons. It’s not a vacation; it’s a miserable, exhausting slog. Do you really want to live in a society where people (mostly women) have to choose between working and having children? Most of us are only able to do both because parental leave exists. Personally, I prefer a more equitable society.

                I do agree it’s unfair when parents are given more WFH and flex time at their coworkers’ expense. That shouldn’t happen and it’s valid to resent it. But maternity leave is completely different and is, in fact, much closer to medical or bereavement leave – necessary leave for a time-limited situation caused by a physically and/or emotionally traumatic life event – than perks like WFH or flex time.

              15. Jackie*

                Recovering from my c-section on no sleep while I kept a newborn alive didn’t feel like a “perk.” Maternity. Leave. Is. Not. A. Vacation.

            2. Silver Robin*

              +1

              I understand being understaffed and being upset about that. Teams really should have redundancies/slack built in for exactly this reason.

              And, even in an appropriately staffed team, somebody being out means the rest of the team handles the work. That is part of what “teamwork” means. Calling that “unpaid work” is kind of weird.

              1. Orv*

                Part of my resistance to it is, in my experience, if you do something that’s outside your job description once it becomes a permanent part of it. That’s how I ended up at a job where I was doing 2.5 jobs for the pay of one.

                1. Silver Robin*

                  orv, you made sweeping generalizations and have a lot of resentment that boils down to the fact that your current job has sucky management.

                  Folks deciding to flaunt the rules around flexibility and WFH, as you mentioned earlier, is not a perk, it is poor management.

                  Meanwhile, “perks” like adequate parental leave and healthcare are about human rights for children and parents. Society benefits from strong family policies, regardless of whether you specifically have children. You would have benefitted as a child.

                  Your situation sounds bad and I am sorry for that. But that is *all* management, and your comments read as resentful of the parents getting “perks”.

                2. AngryOwl*

                  I think the point is that all this isn’t because parents get paternity leave, it’s because companies fail at planning, hiring, and supporting people. We should put the blame in the right place.

                3. Orv*

                  ““perks” like adequate parental leave and healthcare are about human rights for children and parents.”

                  I realize that. It’s just that human rights are very unevenly distributed. As a childless atheist I end up on the short end of the stick for everyone else’s religious and parenting rights, because I’m the one it’s legal to discriminate against.

                4. Filofaxes*

                  “Part of my resistance to it is, in my experience, if you do something that’s outside your job description once it becomes a permanent part of it. That’s how I ended up at a job where I was doing 2.5 jobs for the pay of one.”

                  I hear ‘ya but again, this all sounds like a Your Workplace/Management Problem as opposed to a These Damn Parents and Them Having Damn Kids How Dare They Problem. And lord knows I’ve had the not-so-fun experience of doing something that wasn’t explicitly in my job description and now it’s forever part of my job description without even a minor salary bump. But if you’re working at a place like that and it’s grinding you down to this point of resentment, then lashing out at all parents everywhere–or even just the parents at your workplace–isn’t actually going to solve anything. Your company’s management policies are not great–that’s the overall problem. So either band together with your coworkers and be like, “hey fix this” or polish up your resume and find something else.

                  (for the record: not a parent, never going to be a parent for Reasons, have worked with lots of parents, still not really ever feeling the need to blame them for systemic lack of worker protections in the US)

                5. Question*

                  As a childless atheist I end up on the short end of the stick for everyone else’s religious and parenting rights

                  If you’re an atheist, why do you need religious holidays off?

                6. Snudence Prooter*

                  Speaking as a fellow childless athiest….I get the same number of days off as my coworkers. The difference is that all my days off are for me. I don’t have to spend my sick days taking care of someone else who is completely dependent on me, and I don’t devote my holidays to logistically complicated, personally important events that also require me to tend to the care, feeding, and education of another person.

                7. SimonTheGreyWarden*

                  @Question – even atheists may secularly celebrate some holidays or may have family who celebrate those holidays that they wish to spend time with.

                8. Orv*

                  @Question – Why should I be entitled to less time off just because my days off don’t come with a mythology attached? Also as an LGBTQ person I’m painfully aware of how often “religious rights” are used as a sword against me.

          2. T.N.H*

            If the company prepares properly, it shouldn’t. Mine hires paid maternity covers. I realize that’s not the case a lot of places, but put the blame where it belongs.

            1. Silver Robin*

              In places where parental leave is 1 year, sure. But somebody on my team is out for three months because that is all they could get. And it takes three months just to get somebody up to speed where we are (really complex legal casework). It would make no sense to hire a temp to cover that coworker in the meantime, even if the org could.

              1. T.N.H*

                I’m sure that’s true in very particular circumstances. But I’m pregnant and both my husband and I will have covers for 3 month leave.

                1. Silver Robin*

                  I think there are more situations like mine than you can first imagine.

                  But also, my point is that the current situation creates impossibilities for some situations when there should be none. This is not an issue of my org managing improperly; it is about lack of leave that should be longer and tax funded.

              2. metadata minion*

                This really feels like a situation where having decent maternity leave would make things better for the employer *and* employee(s). I’m also in a field where hiring a temp for three or even six months really doesn’t make sense — there are a lot of very institution-specific things to learn and someone’s going to take at least three months just to get up to speed unless they’re hired for an extremely specific project (e.g., doing the initial processing for a massive donation).

                But if a year of maternity leave was standard, it would make much more sense to hire someone to cover that year. The work would get done without straining the remaining staff, there would be less pressure on the new parent to come back to work before they were ready, and that kind of long-term temp job is a great opportunity for a lot of people.

                (And just to be clear, not everyone wants to take a year+ leave, and they shouldn’t have to!)

                1. Cj*

                  In countries where 1 year maternity leave is standard, isn’t it usually paid? Few people would be able to take that much time off without pay, and in the US I can’t see 1 year of paid maternity leave happening anytime soon. It’s not that I don’t think it should, I just think it is going to take awhile to get there.

                2. metadata minion*

                  @Cj — Oh, I totally agree that it’s not happening any time soon! I’m just frustrated that it would benefit *literally everyone involved* and yet no, we can’t do that, because individualism and capitalism and misogyny.

                3. Silver Robin*

                  absolutely; if we had sensible leave policies, this would be a million times easier for all involved

                4. Julie*

                  I am the OP. Just wanted to add too that this is the type of role where contractors are often hired and it is a sort of “audition” for them to become permanent. They are going to be hiring 14 new positions so it actually makes a whole lot of sense to hire contractors temporarily although they are not doing that.

              3. Orv*

                It often takes us more than three months just to hire someone, much less get them up to speed. We have positions that have been open for over a year.

                1. Silver Robin*

                  same, it takes us forever due to lack of folks with the right qualifications among other thingd; but maternity leave can often be planned for ahead of time in a functional organization. So hiring can start ahead of time with an expected start date around the expected due date (or whatever the organization agrees on with the relevant employee).

                2. SJ Coffee Adict*

                  because you work at a crappy company? you doing 2.5 jobs for the price of one is because your company sucks. Find a new job with someone who gives you the work life balance and support you seem to need.People with kids are not the problem, your company is.

                3. Kt*

                  I notice you have a fair number of complaints about your current position: you’re doing 2.5 jobs, they can’t hire, and so on. But you are attributing a large part of the blame to women who get pregnant, as if hiring only men would fix your workload and the hiring practices.

                  Would hiring only men (or maybe allowing people with hysterectomies as well) solve your problems?

                  If not, then it’s not you being a childless atheist at a company full of fertile women with religious holidays that is the problem.

                4. Orv*

                  @Kt – To be clear, my current job isn’t the one where I was working 2.5 jobs; I burned out on that one and quit, and they hired two people to replace me. But that experience taught me the danger of taking on other workers’ responsibilities, even temporarily. Here, though, we have a situation where I’m basically legally required to do so.

          3. Dahlia*

            “but always comes at the cost of unpaid work by other staff.”

            This is only true in places where the workplace is poorly designed to handle leave. It’s extremely common in Canada to hire people for a year contract to cover a maternity leave, or the like.

            2. Statler von Waldorf*

              You’re both right and you’re both wrong. It is common in Canada for companies to hire to cover mat leave, that’s actually how I got my first office job. The laws protecting mat leave are also stronger up here, so on the whole things are usually better handled here.

              That said, I have also worked in places in Canada with poor management that didn’t want to pay for staff to cover any leaves. I’ll point out the labor laws in the provinces that I am familiar with don’t actually demand they do that. They have to hold the job for when the employee returns, but there are no laws that I am aware of that demand they hire a temp to cover the work that employee did.

              So while the government pays the employee while they are on leave, the employer would need to pay for someone to cover, and some simply don’t want to and are not legally required to do so. They would rather get the existing workers to cover the work. Sometimes, even in Canada, it does come at the cost of unpaid work by other staff.

              For the record, I’ll repeat the phrase “poor management” and that I think this is wrong. That doesn’t mean it still doesn’t happen.

              1. iglwif*

                Yeah, you can’t make a company manage its workforce well, unfortunately.

                Just like some companies do mass layoffs “to improve the bottom line” and then have to hire a bunch of new people because guess what, those folks you laid off were in fact doing something, some companies will decide they’d rather have a lower payroll this year than pay a parental leave replacement. It’s short-sighted and stupid but I have no doubt that it happens!

              2. Dahlia*

                “poor management that didn’t want to pay for staff to cover any leaves”

                That is literally what I said. I don’t think I’m “wrong” when that’s exactly what I said. That’s a workplace poorly designed to handle leave.

                Also weird logic. If the person on mat leave was there, they’d be paying them. Same cost.

              3. Julie*

                I am the OP and I do completely empathize with this. I used to work in more of a staffing role where I was always having to work extra to cover leaves. I once started a job that was supposed to require me to work every 4th weekend but it immediately because every other weekend due to a maternity leave. Those types of things are actually reasons why I moved to another industry where budgets are not micromanaged to that point.

            3. NurseThis*

              Well, that’s every place I ever worked. You could hear a low grade groan every time someone announced they were pregnant. PTO would be cancelled, bans on time off, mandatory overtime. And that’s every hospital and every professional nursing job I’ve had over 5 decades+.

              1. Julie*

                I am the OP and I used to be in a role like that in healthcare as well. I have covered many maternity leaves. I have now moved to a different industry where generally we are treated more like humans and work life balances are respected.

            4. Immaterial*

              or management could just staff so that there is some extra capacity all the time in case of emergencies.

              1. pandop*

                It’s normally a great way to get experience in a ‘higher’ role, going for a maternity cover.

          4. iglwif*

            Not always! If the leave is long enough, you can hire someone to fill in. (My kid is currently halfway through a mat leave contract, and we have at least 3 people at my current workplace who are mat leave replacements — it’s an AFAB-heavy workplace lol.) In fact, one reason for “extending” the leave amount to 5 months might even be to make that easier.

        3. Ellie*

          I took that, ‘we’ll hold the job open for a year’ remark as his attempt to get her to rescind her acceptance of the offer. In other words, he didn’t want to deal with pregnancy coverage, would have rescinded the offer if he could, and since he can’t, tried to get her to.

          If she experiences any resentment it will be from people who don’t know the law and what she’s entitled to. If she’s a good hire, then it won’t matter. 5 months is nothing in the scheme of things. I once hired a man who confessed during his interview that his wife was 8 and a half months pregnant and that it probably wasn’t the time to start a new job, but this was such a great place to work that he had to throw his hat in for it. Sure, I had some misgivings (as did the other two who interviewed him with me), but apart from that, he was exactly what we were looking for. We hired him, he worked out great, and has now been in the position for six years. I also hired a new father who didn’t disclose during the interview, and was an absolute disaster (attendance all over the place). You really don’t know.

        1. Silver Robin*

          she was pointing out to the manager, who was making a big fuss about how this could affect LW’s career, that her husband has taken parental leave with no such consequences, so why should she get consequences?

          1. Ellie*

            Also probably that she had an involved partner who would help to carry the burden. It has a big impact if the childcare burden is born roughly 50/50, instead of all on the one person. I emphasised when I was pregnant, that my husband was taking 3 months off after my maternity leave finished as well, because it implied that I would be more focussed once I returned. It wasn’t information he was entitled to know, but it usually helps to smooth things over.

        2. Admin Lackey*

          I think it was added as context – the manager made discriminatory comments in response to that remark

      3. ariel*

        Agree! Also write it down for your own sanity, so you don’t second-guess yourself later. OP, you are fine and this manager is bananas trash. (Side note: men in the workplace who have several kids have become a pink flag for me, in my experience they often seem to do almost nothing at home and expect everyone else to have no out of work responsibilities as well)

        1. NerdyPrettyThings*

          Agree with the pink flag. They expect men to have no out of work responsibilities, but they expect women to have so many that they really shouldn’t be working. Ugh.

        2. JSPA*

          Family structure based discrimination isn’t just for some family structures, though. (But bragging about not taking parental leave? Discriminate on that basis all you like.)

      4. Aerin*

        I have found that when confronted with upsetting discriminatory remarks/behavior, quickly documenting the specifics in case you need them later does wonders for giving my brain permission to stop going over and over the experience. Even if you’re sure you’ll never need to refer back to it, it can be worth it for that alone.

      5. Julie*

        Oh I have done all of that. I have a lot of documentation. Thank you though. That is great advice.

    2. Julie*

      Oh I did! I documented evvvverything! I actually recorded some of it but I don’t want to tell HR that. I guess if they are out googling for advice on this topic, maybe they will find out here and I don’t care. Thank you so much for the support!

  3. Justme, The OG*

    You did nothing wrong. And it seems like the company really does want you to work there, hence the severe damage control.

    1. learnedthehardway*

      Agreeing. Also, the company clearly understands their legal jeopardy based on what the original hiring manager said to the OP.

      Sounds like they take their obligations seriously and that the new manager will welcome the OP.

      1. tw1968*

        Here’s hoping when OP starts the job, she finds out that idiot manager has “left the company recently” …and who else wonders if that interview was recorded and after OP made complaint, someone higher up viewed it and went nuclear on the idiot?

        1. Ally McBeal*

          Or has at least been demoted and no longer manages people. Good gravy. I know a few very large families where the fathers/husbands are like this (what? women aren’t breeding stock??), and feel sorry for this guy’s wife.

        2. Julie*

          I am the OP and I recorded part of it but they don’t know that. I already sent some of the details to HR before I received this great advice. They haven’t replied and it has been about 10 days. I am slightly worried they will just chalk it up to he-said-she-said and document it somewhere. I don’t want to seem litigious by proactively telling them I have proof. Time will tell I guess.

    2. Paint N Drip*

      Agreed! And even though this manager seems bonkers, if this is such a great exciting job AND they went out of their way to remedy the bonkers manager’s impact… seems like it will be a FANTASTIC job OP! I wish you luck and I hope you can relax and trust in yourself and the VP/HR

      1. Slow Gin Lizz*

        I sure hope this is the case! While this is an overly dramatic and stressful way to start a new job, the good news is that the company reacted in the way they should rather than siding with that garbage dump of a manager and I hope that that is merely a sign of good things to come!

        1. Julie*

          Thank you all so much for the supportive comments! This was incredibly stressful and not how anyone wants to start a new job. I was honestly expecting commenters to call me sneaky or agree that I “lied.” These responses truly mean a lot.

  4. Lab Boss*

    Nobody is going to think you “lied,” or hate you, unless they’re as unhinged as your your nearly-manager, and not many people are that particular brand of awful.

    Years back my lab department was terribly stretched to the point we got permission to hire someone out of the normal budget cycle. We got a great candidate who disclosed her pregnancy shortly after being hired- because she found out she was going to be working with Listeria, which pregnant women should NOT be around. So our brand new, desperately-needed employee got sent to another department for the duration of her pregnancy, and her maternity leave, before she finally came down to help relieve the pressure. (We were chronically understaffed at the time, so we couldn’t even temporarily “trade” her to get immediate help).

    It sucked and was miserable- just when we saw relief coming the rug got pulled out from under us and we continued to get wrung dry for over 6 months. Our terrible boss made comments similar to yours (although not directly to her, I think) until HR slapped him down. But nobody ever held it against her, it was just a quirk of timing that wasn’t anyone’s fault. Now it’s just a bit of amusing workplace lore- “remember when you started and then didn’t start for months?” And the boss is long gone and unlamented.

    1. 2 Cents*

      Wow, sorry your boss was such a jerk. Sure, let’s have the pregnant person work with something that could physically harm her for this *short* time that has an end date. It’s not like she wanted to be a vet tech and get hives while being in proximity to animal dander (like me!).

      1. Lab Boss*

        He didn’t want her to work with the pathogens, it was more a bunch of snark giving the general impression that he wished we’d picked someone else, or blaming the rest of the interview panel (but not himself) for not specifying we worked with Listeria since that might have made her withdraw, or disclose her pregnancy so we could pick another candidate. But he was just an all around piece of work. One of those brown-nosing guys who gets in the right people’s good graces early and then the company outgrows him and has to shake him loose.

        1. mariemac*

          By the time I’m at an offer stage, I’m usually set on that specific person and willing to accommodate what that person needs, vs. thinking I should have made the offer to the other person. Plus, anyone you make an offer to is going to have a life outside of the job. It’s a part of working with humans.

          That guy sounds like he doesn’t take accountability for much or have empathy for others.

          1. Lab Boss*

            Correct on both counts. He was a bad boss and not a nice person who did a WHOLE lot of just really off-putting stuff, much of which I’ve already shared here, and then he left and it was great :D

    2. Manders*

      We had a similar situation with someone hired specifically for Zika research, who then disclosed her pregnancy. Not much could be done about it, but she’s a great researcher and it’s just one of those life things.

    3. Cat Tree*

      Sometimes people have lives that are inconvenient for employers, but that’s a big part of why we have managers. I manage a team of 3. One is out on extended medical leave. One has a lot of caregiver responsibilities for a family member. And the third one is a low performer. It stinks but it’s my job to deal with it. That’s one of the reasons I make a lot more money than they do.

    4. Jay (no, the other one)*

      We are currently desperately understaffed and we hired someone in August to work per diem. She worked August and September and is now on mat leave until January. I’m not angry at her. I’m frustrated with leadership that has rewritten the per diem contract to make it really unappealing.

  5. MsM*

    Yeah, OP, I very much doubt you’re the first person (and particularly the first woman) to have a problem with this guy. You might be a hero for standing up to him.

    1. Love to WFH*

      Eight children, and he never took any paternity leave? This guy’s got some SERIOUS gender role attitudes.

      1. Bunch Harmon*

        His age could be a really relevant factor here. His 8 kids might be adults, and therefore born before paternity leave was common.

        1. Overit*

          Or he could be a guy in his 40s who is deep into the tradwife ideology.
          Very tired of every horrible person being assumed to be older. The guy driving around here with the bumper sticker that says, “No hymen = no diamond” is in his 20s.

            1. ThatOtherClare*

              It does kind of scream single, doesn’t it?

              ‘I can’t get a parnter because I have such high standardaaaaaards, definitely not because I’m incurably awful.’

              Even the most deeply religious person should be able to see that that particular choice of phrasing would be deeply re-traumatising to SA victims of their own religion. It’s pretty repellent that he can’t be bothered to even take a minute to have some empathy for wounded people of his own in-group, even if he could never bring himself to care about the rest of society.

          3. bleh*

            Please tell me this is a joke.

            Also, thank you for “Very tired of every horrible person being assumed to be older,” from a Gen Xer who is likely more forward thinking than your average youngster.

            1. Bunch Harmon*

              There difference I was pointing out here there is a correlation between age and availability of paternity leave. I was not excusing ignorant views based on his age.

        2. MigraineMonth*

          Doesn’t have to have been that long ago.

          Just ten years ago I worked for a tech company with over 10k employees and no paid parental leave whatsoever. They did put a photo of your baby in the all-company staff meeting slideshow, which is just as good, right?

          If you wanted to take time off to have a kid, you used FMLA to take unpaid leave and the birthing parent could use short-term disability if they’d planned ahead enough to buy it that year during open enrollment.

        3. Radioactive Cyborg Llama*

          My kids are adults and paternity leave was a thing when they were born. Paternity leave has been a thing for 30+ years.

          1. JustaTech*

            Parental leave (as separate from maternity leave) only became a thing at my company 3 years ago. You get 2 weeks.

            So, it hasn’t been a thing for everyone for 30+ years.

            1. JustaTech*

              Which is not to say that many, many, many men haven’t taken some kind of leave when they have a new baby in the house! And they should!
              My dad took some kind of leave for me, and most of the guys I’ve worked with who have had kids have taken at least some leave, even though they didn’t have paternity leave specifically.

              Bragging about *not* taking leave is a whole special level of ick.

              1. Julie*

                I am the OP and I agree wholeheartedly. Even if leave was not available to him, he could have used some PTO to BE A PARENT. Also, even if leave was not available to him, he now works at a company which offers 5 months paid leave to ALL new parents – regardless of gender or birthing designation. He should realize that is a good thing and support his direct reports in taking leave.

                Thank you so much for the supportive comments! I really thought there would be people here who agreed with him that I “lied” by failing to disclose the contents of my uterus. This has been so stressful and the support truly means a lot!

            2. Ellie*

              Parental leave only came in at my company about ten years ago. Before that, it offered maternity leave, but nothing for the father. Even so, every man I know took between 2-4 weeks off when their children were born. It was just regular annual leave, not parental leave, but they still took it. Quite a few took long service leave for it.

              I’d definitely be side-eyeing a man who had 8 children and bragged about never taking any time off when they were born, regardless of his age. I really hope his wife had someone else helping her, since he wasn’t.

              1. Julie*

                I am the OP and that was exactly my reply – “I hope your wife had help from someone then.” He said she had her parents.

                Thank you for the support! I really thought people would be mean. I have been so stressed out by this.

          2. Ineffable Bastard*

            in Brazil it is of 15 days since 2016. Before that, it was of 5 days. My partner took his vacation time (20 days, being some from the previous year) to sum to his 5 days.

        4. MikeM_inMD*

          I’m old enough to have 3 adult children who were born before paternity leave or FMLA existed in the US, and traditional enough to agree to my wife becoming a stay-at-home mom after the first one was born, and I think this guy’s banana-pants are more black spots than yellow.

          1. MikeM_inMD*

            Also, I took at least a week of my personal leave after each kid was born, and reduced hours for at least another week after that – to give my wife a break and better recovery.

      2. Anon4this*

        Many people didn’t get paternity leave. My husband works for a world wide known name brand organization and until the last couple years the paternity leave was only 2 weeks. Now it’s 6 month paid for any parental leave but I even heard within the last 20 years men got 0 leave or had to use vacation. So it was normal. One of our children was born in the last 2010s let’s say and my husband only got 2 weeks paid at that time. He also used vacation he banked. So it was fairly recent.

          1. SimonTheGreyWarden*

            My husband got the day I went into labor and the 3 days our (slightly preemie son) was in hospital following as paid time off, and then got 2 weeks paid which we scheduled for after I returned to work to give us a gap until our in home, family friend child care was able to start taking care of him. That was 2017.

        2. Radioactive Cyborg Llama*

          Maybe if a man brags about not taking leave for any of his children in the middle of a sexist tirade about how pregnant women are liars and should be discriminated against, we should not be thinking up excuses for him.

          2. metadata minion*

            THANK YOU. If he just didn’t have access to paternity leave, he had the option of saying “oh, how great that your husband is able to take paternity leave; I wish I’d been able to spend more time with my children when they were infants”.

          3. iglwif*

            ^ THIS ^

            There are many possible responses to what OP said, including “Man, I wish I’d had that option!” and “Huh, you’re right, that’s really unfair” and “It sucks, but that’s how things work.” Instead of any of those responses, this buttbasket chose to say what he said. Nobody made him.

          4. Florence Reece*

            That’s not what’s happening. One person made an assumption about his view of gender roles — which he’s displaying very well on his own, as you point out — based on something that may or may not have been available to him at the time and isn’t really a metric to judge sexism by. Nobody’s making excuses for him, they’re just pointing out that saying “men who didn’t take paternity leave MUST BE sexist a-holes” is sort of a broad brush, tiny canvas situation.

            Maybe we can assume the best of each other and not jump down people’s throats accusing them of things they’ve never said???

        3. Nonanon*

          That timeline is consistent with my experiences with paternity leave; the first time I heard about it was one of my high school teachers taking it in 2011/2012ish. If hiring manager’s children are old enough, it’s possible paternity leave wasn’t an option… but there’s a difference between “didn’t take a day off” and “would have loved the option if I had it”

  6. Properlike*

    Gee, wonder why that hiring manager’s department is so understaffed? Maybe some of his eight kids can come in – someone with these views is likely in favor of abolishing those pesky child labor laws too.

    1. Brain the Brian*

      I was just about to comment this. He sounds like a nightmare manager, and HR / senior management seem glad to be moving work and employees away from him.

      1. Julie*

        I am the OP. He just got this promotion and I believe I was the first person he hired or tried to hire.

    2. Antilles*

      I agree.
      I’ll also add that if we get an update in a year or so, OP is absolutely going to have some stories and a conclusion that she’s lucky she never ended up working under this guy.
      There’s no way a guy like this wouldn’t *also* have been a jackhole around OP being a parent in general and be ridiculous about OP asking for totally normal parental stuff (e.g., taking a PTO day because the baby is too sick to go to day care).

      1. Julie*

        I am the OP. Yesterday was day one. I wound up on a group call with him because it was all 3 of the new hires that started yesterday – 2 under him and myself under the other manager. He just got promoted to this role and this was supposed to be building out his team while the other manager already has a full team – so I hope that made him feel awkward AF. He already managed to act like a jerk on that call by embarrassing one of his new hires for being late with a perfectly good excuse (first day on the job, time zones screwy in new laptop, and another overlapping work meeting).

    3. Slow Gin Lizz*

      I desperately want to know how many moms those 8 kids have and if the manager is still coupled with any of them. And if he actually knows the names of all his kids.

  7. rebelwithmouseyhair*

    Wow just wow. He’d rather have you start in a year’s time (really? or was that BS?) even though they are terribly short-staffed?
    Eight children and no paternity leave just screams “trad-dad with trad-wife at home” to me but maybe I’m jaded.
    Make sure to make note of any possible fallout: the department has been rearranged to fit you in so he’s not your boss, but if he’s been hauled over the coals for discriminating against you, he might still try to undermine you in some way.

    1. Veryanon*

      Oh absolutely trad dad. And yeah, you just *know* that job offer would mysteriously disappear if she said she’d start in a year. That was total BS.

    2. Observer*

      He’d rather have you start in a year’s time (really? or was that BS?) even though they are terribly short-staffed?

      No. He knows that they won’t hold the job. So he wants her to say that she “won’t” take the job till next year, resulting in them pulling the offer and finding someone else.

      Eight children and no paternity leave just screams “trad-dad with trad-wife at home” to me but maybe I’m jaded.

      Nah. Paternity leave is a relatively recent thing, and many place still don’t offer it.

      he might still try to undermine you in some way.

      Unfortunately, I think you might be right on this.

    3. Not on board*

      Exactly what I was thinking. This screams “trad-dad with a trad-wife”. People who fall in this category aren’t inherently bad or misogynistic but a large number of them are. He probably refuses to be alone with any woman who’s not his wife as well…..

      1. BatManDan*

        In fairness to HIS (probable) position on that, I wouldn’t WANT him alone with a woman. I want him GONE, and I don’t even work there.

        1. Julie*

          I am the OP. He also made a comment about needing my background and prior experience so that I can train the new hires not to do “stupid” stuff when traveling such as “renting compact cars and wearing high heels in snowstorms.” High heels. So it’s women who do stupid stuff apparently. Sometimes you just KNOW someone is a sexual harasser.

    4. Cat Tree*

      Yeah, I know that paternity leave wasn’t really a thing until very recently. BUT it was always common for fathers in white-collar office jobs (which this seems to be) to save up vacation and take at least a week or two after the birth. Taking zero time to care for his children is not the flex he thinks it is.

      1. Baunilha*

        Yeah, paternity leave is laughable where I am, but most people save their vacation time to time it with the birth.

    5. Julie*

      I am the OP. Yeah that did not make sense. I wouldn’t have believed any company is going to hold a job for a year anyway. But his logic also made it seem totally dishonest. It makes no sense that he’d rather just have the position unfilled versus have me trained and started in the role and then out on leave and able to come back and jump right into the role.

      I’m also fully expecting he will try to undermine me. I am debating what to say when someone inevitably asks why I am under the other manager because it doesn’t really make sense. She already has a full team and this is a new role for him where he was supposed to be filling his team.

  8. Observer*

    this manager being exhibit #1

    I snorted when I read that line. Because it’s true, and also he’s being an utterly ridiculous idiot.

    I do think that you should check in with HR, and then just give them an unvarnished run down similar to what you did here. Because this guy really *is* an idiot, he’s saying things that are placing the company in legal jeopardy, he’s lying – and in ways that can be discovered in a heartbeat, and contradicting himself within the same discussion.

    So, he’s *certainly* on shaky ground regarding the pregnancy issues. But any competent HR (which it sounds like these folks may be) will also recognize that he’s likely to also pose problem around gender (men are not supposed to take their parental leave? Women can’t “truly” commit to their jobs if they have kids? etc.)

    And both HR and upper management would also be looking at this and worrying about this guy just being a loose cannon, with little (or no) filter, judgement of capacity to manage his stress appropriately. Now, it’s true that perhaps they need to do more to reduce his stress, but he’s still handling things in the *worst* possible way.

    1. Lisa*

      Based on how the leadership responded, HR has probably been made aware of the situation, but Alison’s advice to go to them after a couple of weeks to give details and say how it’s been going is really good.

      1. HonorBox*

        My guess which I noted below is that HR will probably come check in with her first actually. This seems like a company that “gets it” or at the very least recognizes that the hiring manager put them in serious legal peril, and they’ll probably want to be sure everything is OK and perhaps get additional information to get their ducks in a row if they choose to discipline the guy.

  9. Veryanon*

    Oh. My. God. This guy sounds like a nightmare and frankly, if I were the OP, I would have turned down the offer and explained exactly why to HR and the CEO. Yikes on bikes.

    1. HonorBox*

      I might agree with you if they’d have asked OP to give the guy a chance after giving him a reprimand of some sort. But they didn’t. They’ve moved her to a new manager and a company VP called multiple times from overseas to help smooth things over. I think this shows good company culture versus the opposite.

      2. Le Sigh*

        I do think that part is good, though I’d like to know the fate of the original manager. He really shouldn’t be managing anyone and I’d eat my hat if you told me no one on his team had ever suffered under his outdated, crappy views.

        2. Blue Pen*

          Same. And how big is the company and what is the likelihood of the OP and this manager crossing paths, having to work together on projects, sit in on the same meetings together, etc. I think the company did everything they were supposed to do in this case, and I know the OP said this was a great offer for them, but dang this would’ve really tainted it to the point of no return for me.

      3. Tuckerman*

        I see it differently. Instead of moving (or removing) the manager, they moved her. That’s not handling discrimination and bias, that’s sweeping it under the rug.

        1. HonorBox*

          We can’t assume that they’re just sweeping it under the rug. They moved OP to report to a different manager. They acted swiftly to ensure not only that they maintained a good hire but dodged a legal situation. We don’t know what else has happened beyond that because OP doesn’t know that yet.

        2. Captain dddd-cccc-ddWdd*

          I almost feel like they just invoked the “damage control protocol” that already existed, and that this isn’t the first time this has occurred (probably not the exact issue, but more generally this guy saying something he shouldn’t and then things having to be rearranged because of him).

        3. Annie*

          I don’t think it’s sweeping it under the rug. What he did was inexcusable, but perhaps he’s usually is a good employee. I don’t think you have to fire him immediately, just remove him from the situation and train him.

          If there were other issues with him, obviously he deserves to be fired. But we don’t know the whole story except this glaring, obvious awful conduct in this instance.

        4. JB*

          We’re not aware of any discipline he’s gotten, and OP shouldn’t be privy to that beyond what directly affects her.

        5. Julie*

          I am the OP. That is a very good point. I did not think of it that way. I was sort of, in the back of my mind, assuming he would be fired but he has not been.

  10. Czhorat*

    Somebody is in trouble there, and it isn’t OP. As Alison said, VPs don’t interrupt their vacation to make multiple calls unless something is very much amiss. The worst person whose shoes to be in right now is the manager who made a higher up deal with this during an overseas vacation – and those are shoes he very much deserves to wear.

    That the reaction was swift and thorough with no “we’ve talked to him and want you to give him a chance he’s a really great guy other than this laps in judgement” nonsense says that you’re probably going to be in good standing there.

    1. ThisIsNotADuplicateComment*

      This. 100%. LW if your new company agreed with that manager’s unhinged views (explicitly or secretly) the VP would not have phoned you even once during his vacation.

      1. Adds*

        +1
        Nor would they have shuffled departments to put LW under a new manager in as inconspicuous a way as they could manage.

  11. Rex Libris*

    I’m honestly amazed (and appalled) that this guy exists outside of management training videos. He’s literally the “bad manager who gets the company sued” from those videos. A living, breathing stereotype. I’m almost impressed.

    1. Czhorat*

      A year ago we got almost exactly the same letter from the manager’s point of view: “My new hire didn’t tell me that she’s pregnant. Can I fire her?”

      (the answer, of course, was a clear “NO. BAD BAD MANAGER” and a squirt with the spray bottle)

    2. Le Sigh*

      I once worked in an industry that truly felt like it was out of the Mad Men era. Like, things you’d think only Don Draper would say or do (blaming moods on periods — in an office setting). But no, here it was, in real life. I didn’t stick around.

    4. Ann O'Nemity*

      Unfortunately, I’ve encountered several managers who discriminated against pregnant women through their words or actions. While things seem to have improved compared to 10 years ago, it still happens.

      When I got pregnant the first time, I strategically chose to inform my CEO while dropping her off at the airport. I anticipated a negative reaction, so I waited until we were literally at the passenger drop-off, as she was stepping out of the car. Her expression was furious, but she didn’t have time to respond. By the time she returned from her trip, she was much calmer.

    5. Meep*

      I am not. My former boss (A WOMAN) was a lot like him. She threatened to fire me on numerous occasions if I got pregnant because I was sick (it was the freaking flu, a cold, and COVID). She even told me once that my 102-degree fever was just me ovulating. Didn’t matter I had bronchitis and the office AC was out in summer (I was the only one in waiting on the repairman because she forced me).

      She was also a mother (albeit an adoptive one) and you should’ve heard how she spoke about her own daughter.

      Evil people exist all the time and some do not hide their evil.

    6. Quinalla*

      I understand the reaction, but I also know the last time we did harassment training (we don’t do it every year) all the dudes in the training were like, sure we definitely should never do this kind of thing, but surely these examples are from like 10-20 years ago, right? Stuff this bad isn’t still happening, right? Person doing the training tells them every single example was from that same year or the year before. That bad of thing happens less, but it still happens!

      1. Le Sigh*

        Sigh. I’m not shocked they thought those were old examples, but this is always a frustrating response. My good friend had a boss accuse her of being on her period bc she was legit frustrated with a problem they were having with a client. That was *checks notes* 2019 and she has many, many other stories like that. You don’t have to dig hard to find people who think Don Draper is aspirational, rather than a sad cautionary tale.

      2. Ellie*

        Lol yes. We had training 2 days ago, where a senior manager talked about the many sexist insults she’d endured. She also talked about how angry she got when their personal protective equipment arrived in men’s sizes only, and did not fit women at all. This was after reminding them 4 or 5 times about the need for women’s sizes. The first question, from a man, was if any of those men were still with the company. Lol, of course they are.

    7. Ellie*

      Oh I’ve met a few. There are some people who really seem to have no idea how they come across. Absolutely no insight into their behaviour at all.

    8. amoeba*

      Hah, unfortunately this still sounds pretty “normal” (and I don’t mean as in not illegal, because it would be, but as in… I wouldn’t be very surprised) for me as a German. Guess not everything’s better in Europe, haha!

    9. Media Monkey*

      i was on mandatory discrimination training in a previous role with the worst guy in the company – literally he was sexist, homophobic, i don’t think he was racist but otherwise he was an equal opportunities discriminator. he literally was nodding away, clearly with no idea that the training was brought about due to complaints about him. some people just are that oblivious.

  12. DramaQ*

    Considering how fast they came down you are likely not the only woman who has encountered him and his attitude.

    This was possibly the first one where they could finally bring down the hammer on him. Not only is it crystal clear he’s discriminating but you are in a position where you don’t NEED that job. You had the power here and you used it. It can be a lot harder if you are already working under this guy to come forward for reasons we all know and many of us have faced.

    I doubt anyone will hate you or dislike you, you will probably find a team who is really supportive because they either have been or know someone who has been in the same boat. You may have actually done them a favor by blowing the lid on this manager.

    It sounds company wise outside the manager that the culture is good. Even if it was all performance to cover their behinds it is still a good sign that they recognize when they are in hot water and course correct. Many companies just look the other way and sweep the manager under the rug.

    Also you did not “lie”. You simply didn’t share your personal life with a stranger. Nobody is owed knowledge of your medical condition and given I am assuming you are in the United States it is very reasonably to not want to disclose your pregnancy, marital status, parental status as a woman to companies you are interviewing with. It is just a sad fact of life. The majority of people understand this. Those that don’t it is THEIR problem not yours.

    1. Bonkers*

      Why assume she’s in the US? If this company offers five months of maternity leave to a brand new employee, and her current company offers even *more*, it seems rather unlikely that she’s in the states.

      1. Mouse named Anon*

        Actually its not unlikely. I know several US companies that pay the maternity leave itself. Why assume that they are assuming?

      2. Fluffy Fish*

        Because its a US based blog and the vast majority of readers and letters are also US based.

        I will never understand why people bristle at assuming the default is…the default.

        1. Anonymouse*

          I think because taking it beyond this context makes the world harder for a lot of people because the “default” is (at least in the US) white Christian cisgender and heterosexual. And many people have been hurt by those assumptions. (Such as me every time someone assumes I’m straight or Christian or my spouse is cisgender)

          1. Pickle Coke*

            Going around waiting to be offended is exhausting and pointless. Learn to assume neutral intent rather than malicious intent and you won’t spend your time jumping to conclusions the internet. It’s basic etiquette.

            (Speaking as a bi-woman who is often erased of that identity when dating men.)

            1. Lily Potter*

              Pickle Coke, I am going to steal the wording of your first paragraph. I could probably cut-and-paste the message three times a week on this comment page.

            2. Anonymouse*

              I was… answering the implied question about why people bristle at assuming the default to be the default? I never said I wait around and look for opportunities to be offended. I… provided an example from my own life to highlight why assuming the default can be hurtful. I didn’t assume any intent. I was simply offering a counterpoint.

              I said in my life it’s hurtful when those assumptions are made. These are micro aggressions and the idea is a single one doesn’t hurt but like paper cuts over time they build up. (See Sue & Sue’s research as well as research on the minority stress model for more information).

              As for etiquette? I don’t think I was rude. If I was, I apologize. I thought the purpose here was to engage in conversation. Which to my understanding I was doing.

              1. Anonymouse*

                I also want to be clear I am not saying that the assumption LW is American bothers me. Usually non Americans letter writer’s do identify that they are not American so AAM can tailor the advice. I was truly just responding to Fluffy Fish’s implied question in a more general way.

          2. Dawn*

            I’m Canadian (and gay and trans but that’s not actually relevant here) and I recognize and am not bothered by the fact that this blog is entirely US-centric, owing particularly to the author being US-based. Posters know that too and will typically identify themselves as non-American in their letters.

            1. Anonymouse*

              Agreed re: LW who aren’t US Americans usually make it clear. I want to be clear that I am not offended by that assumption. I was truly responding to the implied question that Fluffy Fish posed more generally. Extrapolating, etc. I wasn’t coming from an offended place.

                1. Anonymouse*

                  Thanks for that context. I often miss that because I’m neurodivergent and that’s why I don’t often comment on forums like this. My bad.

          3. Fluffy Fish*

            You took that in a direction it was not meant.

            I was specifically talking about the default of people assuming letters and comments are US based. That is it. Not any other “default” and not extrapolated out into any discussion surrounding vulnerable or marginalized people.

      3. Amy*

        It’s not that uncommon in the NYC financial world. My spouse is a recruiter for NYC legal and finance roles and this situation comes up fairly frequently. 4-6 months for a new employee isn’t strange.

      4. Will "scifantasy" Frank*

        In my case, I’d assume US because the completely unhinged reaction to the news wouldn’t happen in a country with decent employee protections.

        (Plus, the “European vacation” comment.)

        1. UKDancer*

          Yes I think if they were based in Europe then they would just say “vacation” or ” holiday” (if they were UK then holiday is more commonly used than vacation). That form of words “European vacation” made me think US.

        2. amoeba*

          Yeah, exactly. I mean, I guess it could be Canada or, whatever, Australia, but I’d assume they’d mention it!

          Also, I don’t think they are in a country where five months of maternity leave is the legal standard, as then they wouldn’t specifically mention that the company offers it to everybody. It would just be, well, the law!

      5. Cat Tree*

        There’s a huge discrepancy for sure, but it’s actually pretty common for white-collar type jobs to offer a lot of paid parental leave as a way to attract employees. Just in the past 5 years or so, my company has jumped from 6/8 weeks paid for mothers only, to 20 weeks for birth mothers and 12 weeks for all other parents, fully paid.

        The US isn’t some desolate wasteland where everyone is always miserable. In fact, the inequality is a huge part of the problem. People in many jobs get nothing. People in high-demand jobs get a lot more perks. But it’s still done for the benefit of the company. My company does it to retain employees, and it works because I’m staying until I retire.

      6. iglwif*

        I also assumed the US, because

        (a) in most OECD countries, the amount of maternity / paternity / parental leave people get isn’t decided by individual companies, it’s a legal requirement, and

        (b) in most OECD countries, five months’ mat/par leave is not something anyone would be impressed by (out of 40+ OECD countries, <10 offer 6 months or less).

      7. Julie*

        I am the OP and I am in the US. I just happen to work in an industry that typically offers very good benefits. I am in an extremely lucky minority and very appreciative of it.

  13. Three Flowers*

    So your ex-future-manager obviously sucks like the truck that empties my septic tank (more than; the truck does not spew effluent everywhere). However: I find it extremely promising that as soon as you breathed the mildest word of this to the recruiter, the company took decisive and meaningful action. (Actually I wonder if Mr Septic Truck is still employed, or at least employed in a managerial position.) I would feel pretty good about this employer. And I like Alison’s advice of seeing how the first two weeks go so you can document everything with HR while hopefully also saying everything is going great. I’m excited for you!

    1. Not Australian*

      Late to the party, but I’m voting for ‘sucks like a septic truck’ to be a new category on here!

  14. Dawn*

    You have nothing to be concerned about. What this guy did was staggeringly illegal, and it sounds like everyone involved is well aware of it. You were even referred to the job in the first place!

    You’re fine, and you’re going to be fine.

  15. pally*

    OP, I’m betting folks will be grateful you didn’t simply bolt after what all that hiring manager said.

  16. HonorBox*

    Holy smokes! In addition to everyone else, I’m thinking you’re going to be just fine here. What happened sucks, but none of that was your doing. The fact that a VP called from Europe to check in with you and their willingness to adjust the working relationship shows how much they recognize the terrible misstep the hiring manager took.

    I agree that you probably don’t need to go to HR to report everything. My hunch is they’ll probably come check in with you at some point, just to ensure they have everything they need related to this and to ensure you’re doing OK.

  17. Tesuji*

    What the manager did was incredibly stupid as well as illegal.

    That said, I think it’s silly to be surprised when someone freaks out at this kind of situation: We’ve decided–very reasonably–that protecting pregnant women is a good thing that benefits all of society… and then decided that society as a whole is going to pay nothing for this, that all of the cost must be borne by the specific company that a pregnant woman happens to end up, and then that commonly rolls downhill so that the full cost of picking up the slack is whatever team a pregnant woman happens to be on.

    I mean, his freakout was completely ridiculous… but at the same time, if your business structure effectively penalizes managers who hire pregnant woman by forcing them to remain understaffed, that feels like a ridiculous response to a ridiculous situation.

    If society as a whole really cared about pregnant women, we’d have maternity leave paid for by tax dollars, rather than it effectively being paid for by whoever’s unlucky enough to be on the pregnant woman’s team and have to do (typically unpaid) extra work to make up for that.

    1. Observer*

      That said, I think it’s silly to be surprised when someone freaks out at this kind of situation:

      Which is not remotely what happened here.

      No one is “surprised” at a “freak out”. Because the manager didn’t just “freak out”. They said a number of illegal, stupid, sexist and untrue things. They tried to trick the LW into refusing the job and essentially threatened the LW with making her life miserable if she does take the job.

      It’s unfortunately not surprising that some people are jerks who don’t mind doing illegal things. It is a bit surprising when they are apparently in management positions but are incredibly stupid about it.

    2. Silver Robin*

      Yes, the underlying issue is structural. Absolutely, all medical care should be universal and socialized.

      I do not see my team members as the ones paying for my medical care though. The company/organization pays for it. Yes, my team members pick up slack, but that would happen regardless of who paid for my care and is part of teamwork. Even on a well staffed team with redundancies built in, somebody is going to end up doing work they do not normally do when I am around.

    3. Dawn*

      We expect managers to understand that they should not “freak out” in a discriminatory, illegal manner, and we are of course surprised when they don’t understand that they should not do that.

      Of course the business should penalize managers who do things that are highly discriminatory and illegal and could expose the business to litigation and I don’t think that’s “a ridiculous response” whatsoever.

    4. a trans person*

      It is NEVER reasonable to put anger at structural issues on people who are *even more oppressed* by that structure. If you recognize the structural nature of oppression, then you *must* find a way to cleanse your mind of this “victim-blaming is normal” idea, because that is also part of the same structure.

    5. Julie*

      I am the OP and I mostly agree. However, I was not surprised by the sentiment. That was expected which is why I waited until after I had a job offer to disclose. This interview process was a tremendous amount of work including creating a presentation for the hiring team. I went through all of that knowing they could easily tell me they do not offer parental leave within a year of hire (as many companies do) and that I would not be able to accept the job on that basis anyway. The whole thing was extremely stressful and took away from work I needed to be doing for my actual job. What surprised me was the level of misogyny.

  18. Poison I.V. drip*

    The hiring manager is an asshole, no question. That being said, at my workplace hiring is such a drawn-out process that hiring someone only to find they’re going to be indisposed for many weeks shortly after their start date is frustrating. But I never hold it against the expectant parent.

    1. JFC*

      Hiring always seems to take longer than people expect. We advertised for a new position on my team in early August. We received about 90 applications, then had to sift through them, weed out everyone who wasn’t remotely qualified (which was well over half of them), arrange interviews with our finalists, conduct those interviews, review materials they submitted as part of the application process, etc. That was all on top of our day-to-day duties. It was a LOT. We just made an offer to someone last week, so the entire process took a little over two months.

    2. VintageLydia*

      I think this is especially true when hiring takes so long that it the applicant maybe wasn’t pregnant (or was too early to tell) at the initial application.

      1. Julie*

        I am the OP and I was not actually pregnant when I was first referred for the job. Note that I never applied for this job. The hiring manager reached out to me based on that referral but it was months later.

    3. HannahS*

      I think you’re spot-on. The feeling of frustration is human. No one likes to be inconvenienced. Then the better part of you remembers that it’s just part of life and you don’t hold it against the person.

      I was once working on a team of five people where in the span of a month, three had family emergencies or family deaths. That left me and my supervisor handling the work of five, working 12-hour days to get everything done. When the third person texted the group about, I was frustrated! But I sent my condolences, buckled down, and we managed. It just goes that way sometimes.

  19. Sara without an H*

    LW, this statement leaped out at me:

    The VP called me several times from his European vacation, immediately committed to move me under a different manager, and came up with a plan to arrange the departments so this won’t look weird.

    LW, trust me, it’s very, very unlikely that anybody’s going to hate you for “lying.” VPs do NOT call in from European vacations AND take the other actions you described for a candidate they’re reluctant to hire. Your new employer obviously took firm and drastic action, both to acquire you and to protect themselves from the legal jeopardy this idiot exposed them to. Sounds like a well-run business to me!

    As to whether to talk with HR, take Alison’s advice and wait a couple of weeks to settle in. Then schedule time to talk with them, being as concise and specific as you can. And please, please include all the quotes you put in your post. They’re priceless.

    Congratulations on your new job!

  20. CubeFarmer*

    I’m really surprised that Alison’s advice didn’t include documentation. Document, document, document: dates, times, and what the manager said. When the talent acquisition person reached out, and what was said. When the VP reached out and what was said. Store this information on your home computer.

    This, of course, is just in case the first manager’s attitude is indicative of the company’s culture.

  21. Alton Brown's Evil Twin*

    It would be one thing if the hiring manager freaked out, in the moment ran at the mouth at how he’s going to have to figure out how to handle being short-staffed even more, and then collected himself. That’s still a bad sign and worthy of his management getting involved, but I can understand it on a human level.

    But he started inventing policies out of thin air, including some very blatant retaliatory statements. Hopefully with the job shuffle and the multiple calls from Europe, senior management is aware that this guy is a loose cannon and will be consistently on top of him.

    1. Observer*

      I think this is a very valid point. No one is perfect, so a less than perfect response to the situation would be one thing. A yellow flag, for sure. But not necessarily “no way I’m working with this guy.”

      But then he went off the deep end. The craziest is the “policy” he made up. How did he think that this would not come back to bite him?

      1. i am a human*

        How did he think that this would not come back to bite him?

        Because she’s just a delicate little lady in a delicate position! /s/

    2. Julie*

      Oh yes and this occurred in 2 different conversations that were on 2 different days. I was shocked he hadn’t come to his senses (or had some sense smacked into him by HR) by the second conversation.

  22. H.Regalis*

    Immediately committed to move me under a different manager.

    GOOD. I am so glad you won’t be supervised by that sexist hothead.

    I don’t think anyone there is going to hate you. If this guy was that much of an asshole to you, someone he ostensibly would be on his best behavior for since he’s trying to court you for a job he desperately needs to hire for, then imagine how he is to be around every day. I’m betting everyone there knows what he’s like.

    1. Captain dddd-cccc-ddWdd*

      I can understand why OP has been moved under a different manager obviously, but also I am still wondering how this will work in practice. OP was hired to fill a gap in a particular team, right? (the team that the sexist manager heads up) – so does it now mean that OP will have the same role, but managed by someone different, so that the team’s work as a whole is now managed by two different people? How will that work in terms of priorities, strategy, liaising with sexist-manager’s other direct reports, etc. Or has a new role been created for OP in which case there’s still a vacancy for the sexist manager’s team? The problem is roles/teams/managers don’t just exist in a vacuum, they are all linked parts of a system that presumably was the way it was for a reason. For one thing OP’s new team mates will need an answer to “why does OP report to Bob rather than John?”. I think there may also be resentment from the team-mates if sexist-manager is a jerk about everything (which I bet he is): “why is it that OP can get moved to a different manager but we are stuck with him?”.

  23. n.m.*

    Ah yes, “lying”, defined as “not telling a complete stranger about your internal organs.” I don’t think you need to be concerned about anyone hating you, except that one specific guy, and an early check-in with HR should keep that under control.

  24. BLL*

    The commentariat here is refreshing and hopeful – I hit “surprise me” the other day and pulled up a post from 2008 where a pregnant person in the midst of interviewing asked when to disclose. Alison gave solid advice (disclose post-offer), and the commenters were incredibly disgruntled about the “lying”, how pregnant people should just “stay home”, and other rather appalling remarks. It says a lot about the community here and about the work Alison has put in that the needle has moved so far on this issue.

    2. Julie*

      And I am SO thankful for that! I was expecting a lot of those sorts of comments here and it really means a lot to receive such positive support.

  25. Bee*

    Oof. This vaguely reminds me of a situation I witnessed at work a while back. Two people on my team who were recent hires ended up going on paternity leave around the same time, about 2-3 months after they started their jobs. (One of the new hires had previously worked for us part-time, the other was a part-time employee.) In the staff meeting where my old boss mentioned both colleagues going on paternity leave, he said “When we’re hiring again, we should make sure to ask if they’re planning on having kids anytime soon.”

    Everyone in the meeting fell silent and looked absolutely horrified for a moment, then one co-worker piped up and said “Uh, [boss], I think that’s illegal.” Boss was a little flustered for a moment, then completely changed the subject and acted like nothing happened.

    2. a trans person*

      I would have loudly emailed HR immediately during the meeting, assuming I had my laptop. Calling it out in the moment is no longer enough for me.

    3. Julie*

      I am the OP here. I have been in a similar situation where a coworker, “Megan,” was out on maternity leave. During a staff meeting, the department head asked if anyone would be interested in permanently taking over half of Megan’s job. I spoke up and said “I haven’t heard Megan say anything about wanting to step down to part time.” He then reminded me that she had just had a baby and that changes a person’s life. Silly me.

  26. Jinni*

    Me when reading Askamanager: what emergency would require someone to interrupt their vacation for work?

    **this is the best example in a long time**

    Also, that hiring manager needs to be…managed out. If he says this problematic thing *out loud,* I can only imagine what else he says or thinks and uses as bases for how he treats his reports.

    1. frenchblue*

      Totally agree. It sounds like there’s a good chance he will be managed out, judging from the company’s reaction. I mean, if one of my reports pulled something like that… I would definitely be managing them very, very closely. In my experience, when people like that face scrutiny, they either leave voluntarily or management finds enough of a problem to let them go.

  27. Turtlewings*

    My condolences to this twit’s wife, taking care of eight kids with no help from him whatsoever.

  28. Magnolia woods*

    100% agree with all the other comments but have to know how do you find a job with 5 months paid maternity leave and the job you already have has even better maternity leave!

      1. Julie*

        I am in the US. I just happen to work in an industry where companies typically offer great benefits including parental leave. I am very lucky.

  29. Anon Attorney*

    I’m not sure it’s correct she couldn’t sue – federal pregnancy discrimination law does protect applicants. The supervisor asking her to postpone her start date for a year potentially would be a discriminatory act. That said, I’m glad she didn’t have to and she was able to work under a new supervisor.

  30. SB*

    I can understand frustration and disappointment from the manager if they were really counting on someone to help deal with workload. We’re all human. I get it.

    But the manager should have NEVER expressed that to the LW. Those are INSIDE thoughts. Those are journaling thoughts and therapy thoughts and sometimes group chat thoughts. But mostly, those are inside thoughts.

    And ideally, the hiring manager should have gone to HR (or their boss, whatever) and said something like, “We’ve got a great candidate who will need to take time off for maternity leave. What are our other options for getting the work done?”

    There are always solutions to this type of thing. Work can get moved around. Priorities can be re-prioritized. Sometimes they can make new roles. Like….there are options other than voicing frustration at the new employee that until you knew she was pregnant was your best candidate for the job. (She still is. She’s just pregnant)

  31. Dedicated1776*

    American employers have no idea how easy they have it (I am in the US). My Canadian and UK colleagues take off a year or more, and we MUST hold their jobs. (I think more leave should be mandated here. I’m just stating current state from the employer’s POV.)

    Also, the only acceptable response as a human when someone tells you they’re pregnant is “Congratulations!” (Unless you know for a fact this isn’t welcome news, but that’s a whole other comment!)

    1. Ellis Bell*

      It’s really not a big deal staffing wise, when people take their year of maternity leave in the UK. I work in education so it’s not a field dripping in money, and we manage just fine. Our SendCo (special educational needs coordinator) was out for her year off last year, and we temporarily promoted the Asst SendCo for 12 months. The Asst SendCo post was given to another member of staff for the year (but she’s decided to stay on the team in another capacity) and some of her classes were given to a temporary hire. I don’t understand why maternity positions are not covered; there is plenty of notice!

      1. Hazel*

        It’s actually easier, as someone pointed out upthread, to cope with when leave is longer (up to 18 months in Canada now). It’s enough time to hire and give someone a real opportunity.

        I got my first supervisory experience covering a mat leave, many years ago when they were only 17 weeks. It helped me in my career, the part timer who got full time hours to backfill me, and I think the company did pretty well out of it too since I worked hard to impress and they got to see what I could do.

        Even back then my boss said she was told to hire because not to do so might be construed as being anti woman ie. ‘don’t hire women of childbearing age because they’ll go off on leave’.

        2. iglwif*

          Yep. I (also in Canada) have been in the workforce long enough to see mat/par leave expanded from ~6 months to 12 to 18, and every time that happens, hiring a replacement gets easier and more cost-effective.

        3. Selina Luna*

          I looked up once how Finland dealt with this specifically with regard to teachers… and hiring someone for an entire year to fill in for someone on parental leave is literally how they train new teachers. It’s not just parental leave; if a teacher needs leave for a decent period of time (1 year for parental leave, but other periods like one semester are not uncommon for different kinds of medical leave), they’ll put in a newbie and make sure they have tons of support, and then when the primary teacher returns, the newbie will have a lot of actual teaching experience under their belt and be better prepared for their next job. Then I looked around, and many other industries do something similar. People fresh out of university or training or whatever fill in for people on medical or parental leave for a year, and then they could use that experience to get a long-term job.

      2. amoeba*

        And in addition (no idea how it is in Canada though) they don’t have to keep paying them, because that’s handled by the state! I mean, giving a year of parental leave would certainly not happen in Europe either if they had to pay their salary for the whole time – that’s not a feasible option, financially, they need that money to hire a replacement so the work can still be done. So I do actually find employers giving generous parental leave in the US pretty impressive, even though I’m from a place where more leave is the law. They are the ones who shoulder the cost, which, in my opinion, simply isn’t how a society should handle people having kids!

        1. iglwif*

          Yeah, in Canada maternity and parental leave are a type of EI (Employment Insurance) benefit. Companies can choose to “top up” to a higher percentage of the employee’s salary, and many do because it helps them keep good people, but they are not required to do so.

          The obvious problem with this way of handling mat/par leave is that you are only eligible for paid leave if you have been paying into EI for some specified number of weeks, which leaves out a significant proportion of workers. But it certainly works better than not having paid leave available at all.

    2. Varthema*

      I live in Ireland and I and several other women I know work for US-based companies who really struggle with this. By contrast, my husband works for an Irish company, and they roll with it MUCH better, because mat leave cover temporary contracts are SO common. and when someone’s out for 6 months to a year, it’s worth it to train someone up. It’s actually a great practice – doesn’t leave teams short-handed, keeps the job market lively, makes getting a foot in the door easy because by the time the mat leave is up a FT position will often have cropped up.

      US-based companies (tech ones) tend to be SO allergic to anything that’s not a full-time job – part-time jobs, temporary contracts… I mean, I get that it’s more complex, but they don’t seem to shy away from complexity in other spheres. but propose something that’s not a full-time 40/week role (even as a hiring manager) and it’s just like, ‘does not compute, couldn’t possibly work that out’.

  32. A Simple Narwhal*

    A few years ago a woman was hired at my company to an adjacent team. When her hiring was announced it was mentioned alongside her start date that she would be taking (a long) maternity leave less than a month after she started. Want to know what the reaction was?

    “Good for her!” or “Oh man she must be awesome to negotiate (and get) an extra long maternity leave.”

    Literally nothing negative against her at all. If she took the standard maternity leave it wouldn’t have even been a thing, just information to have. If anything taking a longer one made her seem more impressive.

  33. TheBunny*

    First, congrats OP…on the job and the coming new baby.

    As for that manager: Egads.

    You did nothing wrong.

    I get where the manager is coming from…to an extent…as people being out for an extended time IS something that takes work to cover. But the memo he clearly missed is that this is the MANAGER’S responsibility, not that of the person taking the time off.

    He was 100% out of line for putting any of this on you.

    As Alison said, I bet he’s a lot of fun in other ways too.

  34. Maleficent*

    What companies are offering five month maternity leaves? What is the old company that is offering more?!? that sounds amazing!

      1. NotTechStandard*

        I’ve been in tech for more than 30 years as have most of my friends and I’ve never seen nor heard of a maternity leave lasting more than 3 months.

  35. Bob*

    when my wife was pregnant our boss got her a fancy chair so she could sit down to do her customer facing job. He was the most angry person I ever met.

    As someone once said “Your boss sucks”

  36. I Have RBF*

    Oh, FFS! That manager is a lulu! His reaction is over the top bad, out of touch, and asinine. I’m glad the VP stepped in and rearranged things so you don’t have to work for that jackass.

    However, as other people have said: Document, document, document! Write down what happened ASAP, with dates and times, if you can recall them. Why? Because if he tried to do it with you (pregnancy discrimination), he may succeed in doing it to someone else, and if there’s a documented pattern, then HR can yank him up short or manage him out. Also helps if he tries to retaliate in any way.

    Just because this chump dumped all the work of raising his eight kids on his poor wife doesn’t mean that you are that type of jerk. I seriously wonder if his kids even know him as anything more than “that guy who is sometimes around on the evenings and weekends, drinking beer and watching sports.”

  38. WorkInnit*

    Although I know that plenty of these types of managers exist, I’m still shocked and appalled by the blatant sexism and discrimination.
    It sounds like the VP handled things very well, but I could understand if you feel that this pancake of a hiring manager ruined the excitement of the new job.

    The only thing you can do now is to start with a positive energy but keep your eyes peeled for any other signs of disfunction in this org. I would definitely actively maintain my business network in case it turns out that this hiring manager is not an exception and you need to flee.

  39. Six Feldspar*

    OP, you’re done nothing wrong, enjoy that job!

    Thanks for describing how you raised it with talent acquisition before you accepted the job, because that would not have occurred to me at ALL – if a potential manager had spoken to me like that, I would have cancelled my application immediately (maybe with regret if the rest of the job sounded really good). Who wants to work for a company that lets someone like him manage? Which makes me wonder, how many OTHER potential talented employees has this company lost because they saw how this guy behaves?

    It’s a good reminder to at least check with other people in the company if the culture is that bad. It worked out well in the end and all it took was an extra phone call.

    1. Julie*

      Honestly, I think the only reason I did raise the issue with talent acquisition is because she happened to call me a few hours after I spoke to him. I was still in so much shock from that conversation and I was mad. I told her I want the job but I cannot work under this manager. If I’d had more time to process I might not have said that stuff. But in the end, I’m glad I did because it worked out.

Comments are closed.