I can't believe this needs saying, but discriminating against mothers is wrong (and likely illegal!) no matter how hard you might imagine it would be to be one.
It's certainly not illegal to decline an investment opportunity because a founder is pregnant or just had a child. No one can force you to invest in something if you don't want to.
It may be stupid to turn down a great founder for this reason, it may be ass-holish, but it's not illegal.
You seem very certain about that. IANAL, but I would not be so sure. It's true that no one can force a bank to offer a loan to a female-owned business but I don't think they are allowed to consider the founder's gender anywhere in the process.
What about a bank offering a home loan? The bank needs to verify your capacity to pay, and if a single income isn't going to cover the loan then a pregnancy probably does come into it. I'm just speculating though, and rules/laws in your area may vary.
Actually Eli is right regarding FDIC regulated commercial banks, especially for home loans. Considering gender or pregnancy (in a provable, systematic basis) would certainly be grounds for a lawsuit (in the US at least).
I couldn't find a specific law from Australia, but many lending institutions offer a 6 month deferral of payments for parental leave. I would also assume that if the second parent plans to return to work, then the second income would be included to calculate serviceability.
You appear to be confused. What's illegal is when you discriminate on a candidate based on factors that have nothing to do with their ability to cover the loan.
Denying a black man or a woman when you grant the loan to someone with the exact credit history otherwise, for example.
If a single woman makes enough to pay the mortgage, you shouldn't be denying her the loan based on your moralizing on her inability to survive without a man's wages.
I don't think I am confused. I specifically brought up the ability to service a loan. If a prospective mother is asking for a loan, then the question of whether or not she will be returning to work after the pregnancy should become a relevant question if that income is required to service that particular loan.
And I say that because maybe, just maybe, the poorly phrased "I wouldn't have invested if I knew you were going to get pregnant" actually had to do with the founder not being able to "service" her company. Whether the founder could dedicate enough time, as perceived by said investor, is a relevant concern to that investor. Is that sexist? I'm not sure. Is it a shitty thing to say (in that way)? Most definitely. Is it wrong to use pregnancy as a "signal" (positive or negative) for investment? I have zero ideas considering I'm not an investor.
"I specifically brought up the ability to service a loan."
Again, that is not what is illegal. What is discrimination is to pick one candidate with equal background ability, and drive over another. Yes, it is wrong to use it as a signal for not being invested in a company.
I am not a lawyer myself, but the laws about these things tend to be very specific (what's true for an FDIC regulated bank doesn't carry over to other financial institutions). Discrimination laws tend to exempt startups with less than a certain # of employees.
I'm not commenting on the rightness or wrongness here .. I think startups are very unique and no blanket statements make sense. For example, if it were a baby food startup or pregnancy app, I'm sure it would be a tremendous advantage to be pregnant or a new mother. (talk about talking to users)
The gender is irrelevant. The same would go for an expecting father. I don't think it is wrong for investors to discriminate on the basis of the priorities and time commitments of founders. On the contrary, I think such discrimination is crucial.
