There are several layers to the problem.

First, as noted in this post, there is often a cost and/or inconvenience associated with employing mothers, particularly of infants and young children. This can give rise to a legitimate concern on the part of the employer, even justification for some acts that may be perceived as “discrimination.”

Second, the first point varies tremendously from mom-to-mom, depending on numerous variables, from paid child care options used to backup childcare available (e.g., grandparents) to work ethic, etc.

Third, stereotyping working mothers involves assuming the worst rather than investigating and evaluating on a mom-by-mom basis. This may be illegal. See “EEOC Issues Guidance on Family Responsibilities Discrimination,” http://www.employmentblawg.com/2007/eeoc-issues-guidance-on-family-responsibilities-discrimination/. It also may be quite common. See “Mommified: Social Science Evidence of Discrimination Against Mothers,” http://www.employmentblawg.com/2007/mommified-social-science-evidence-of-discrimination-against-mothers/.

Finally, as this article argues, the cost and/or inconvenience associated with employing mothers is a worthwhile tradeoff for the social good of their reproductive and parenting contributions, which benefit us all. Therefore, movement toward greater accommodation of mothers’ (parents’) needs is desirable.