Ethical Dilemma

Let’s say that I am an HR Director and I am hiring an employee that will fulfill the duties to my company's success. In this situation, the best qualified applicant is a female who appears to be pregnant. Do I hire her who happens to be the best qualified or pass to the next person who isn't pregnant? (Remember, it is illegal to not hire because of pregnancy, but, there is no way to prove that's why you hired the other person.) This is close to home for me. I was six months pregnant when I was looking for a job and nobody would hire me.

I see two issues here from both the company and the qualified applicant. One, is what if I do hire this applicant and then goes on leave or decides not to come back to work, how much money is the company out? The second problem is, what about this qualified applicant? Where else will she get a job and what if we don’t find anyone else with these credentials?

I understand the inconveniences of hiring someone who is several months' pregnant and in time will be on leave, whether for 6 or more weeks and unpaid but at the same time I wonder how many managers consider that, in passing over qualified pregnant candidates, they might be missing out on long-term value in the form of intense employee loyalty. Obviously, there are financial reasons why a company might not want to hire a pregnant woman for example, her health insurance will be more expensive and she'll have to take some leave in the foreseeable future. Even so, if it can be proved that that's the only reason she wasn't hired, that firm could be facing the EEOC and the ADA.

I have to remember that it is illegal to discriminate based on pregnancy. In fact, we as the employer CANNOT ask if you are pregnant or intend to become pregnant and I agree with these laws.

After doing some research I found that only 5% of managers would offer a job to a pregnant candidate. Fifty-two percent said that when making a hire, they assessed the likelihood of a candidate's getting...