Manager draws fire from HR for his "bias" for not rewarding single-mother employee with the same raises and bonuses as her better-performing coworker: '[Since he] is willing to put in extra hours (maybe 5-10 hrs per week), he gets more done'

Author image for Brad Dickson
Brad Dickson • Managing Editor
Dec 31, 2025 12:00 PM EST

It's ok, even healthy, to set boundaries, especially in the workplace. However, it is not the fault of others when the boundaries you have set for yourself become limiting to your workplace and development. I think that's what makes this topic so interesting, there's not really a clear right or wrong answer here, but merely a balance to be struck and grey areas where differences in expectation have caused a conflict due to a divergence of understanding of the realities of the situation. 

Setting good boundaries is important for letting people know where you stand and that you can't be walked all over. But you also can't go too hard and be inflexible and unreachable, far behind the moats and castle walls that you have fortified yourself in. As with most things in life, it's delicate, and there is a balance to be struck.

Communication is important in any line of work, and when your "boundaries" begin to upset the normal operations of a business, you can't be surprised when they proceed to hurt your chances at promotion or a raise. But these things need to be communicated back and forth regularly enough that the boundary setter and the manager, focused on the business interests, understand where each one stands. 

It's a difficult situation to navigate as a manager, too. You, of course, want to be unbiased, impartial, and fair. And being flexible with your staff is important, but usually the other side of that same coin is that they offer the same flexibility when business necessitates it. Being in a line of work where weekends and late hours for deadlines may be required occasionally, you would say that it's fair that the best workers, the top performers, would be available for most or even some of these periods. 

But again, that's back to boundaries, perhaps the manager could have communicated more clearly as part of their own boundaries that it was fine for the worker to not be available for these periods, but that it may mean that, while they do good work, they fall behind their fellows who do the same level of work but are available and flexible for these periods of extraneous needs.

Either way, it does seem here that the "bias" that is showing is merely happenstance and a lack of communication. One worker simply cannot expect the same rewards and compensation as their coworkers when they are doing less work, regardless of circumstance. 

Add as a preferred
source on Google
Advertisement
  • Two workers and their manager work together in a conference room
    via Creatopy

  • "AITAH for respecting a worker's stated boundaries, leading to lower raises and bonuses than her coworker"

    I manage a small team of two people, "Jack" and "Jill," in a contracts department of a manufacturer. I hired both of them myself as shortly after being promoted to manage the group after my then-boss left, both of my direct reports left --
    via ConfusedManager18
  • one because he retired, the other because she got pregnant and decided to be a SAHM. It was a struggle at first since Jack and Jill were new to the company but we quickly got into what I thought was a good place. They've both worked for me for 2 years.
    via ConfusedManager18
  • Jack is a single guy, no kids. Jill is also single, but explained to me in her interview (two years ago) that she is a mom to a 5- year-old and work-life balance was extremely important to her. She said she'd give 100% during
    via ConfusedManager18
  • the scheduled working hours (8:30 to 5, of which 1/2 hour is lunch) but that she would not work extra hours, wouldn't take work home, wouldn't work weekends, and couldn't travel. I hired her with that understanding.
    via ConfusedManager18
  • We have a lot of routine work that can just be done anytime (part of the reason I can respect Jill's boundaries), but sometimes projects come along that require immediate attention. For example, we're in the Eastern time zone and a contract may come in at 4 pm
    via ConfusedManager18
  • our time from our West Coast team and they may want it reviewed and turned around that same day, with whoever does the review being available for follow-up into the early evening, as they're trying to close the deal. Jill can't take those
    via ConfusedManager18
  • projects because of her strict 5 pm limitation, so I either do them myself, or if Jack is willing and able to do them, he takes some of them. To be clear, I do not dump all of these on Jack; I do my share of after-hours. work.
    via ConfusedManager18
  • I thought this arrangement was working well. Both Jack and Jill are skilled, competent workers and if they both worked the same hours their output would be almost identical. However, because Jack is willing to put in extra hours (maybe 5-10 hrs per
    via ConfusedManager18
  • week), he gets more done. I've also sent him on some trips for on-site negotiations with clients that required overnight travel - which Jill can't do. The result is that, while I hired them at the same salary, Jack has received
    via ConfusedManager18
  • slightly higher raises and bigger year-end bonuses than Jill, although I didn't think Jill knew this since we don't share this information and I doubt Jack told her.
    via ConfusedManager18
  • This all came to a head when I was called into HR after Jill's most recent performance review (to close out her 2nd year). As I did the first time, I rated her "successful." We only have three options - "needs improvement," "successful" and "outstanding." We also are
    via ConfusedManager18
  • limited overall within the company to no more than 10% "outstanding"; since I only have 2 direct reports, I have to lobby just to get even one "outstanding." The first year I rated them both successful and this year I rated Jack outstanding and Jill successful.
    via ConfusedManager18
  • If I had to pick between the two, Jack is going to get the higher rating every time because of his willingness to go above and beyond the call when needed.
    via ConfusedManager18
  • Jill was upset that she was being "penalized" (her words) for her work boundaries. Somehow she had learned that Jack got bigger raises and bonuses than she did. (Again, I don't know how she learned this; maybe Jack told someone else what he made and this got
    via ConfusedManager18
  • back to Jill through the grapevine.) I said, yes, that's because he does more work, because he is willing and able to stay late/work weekends when we're in a crunch, etc. Jill said it was her understanding that she was allowed to work 8:30 to 5
    via ConfusedManager18
  • M-F and that's it. I said yes, I agreed to that when she was hired, and she is a good worker and I love having her on the team, but that shouldn't mean I couldn't reward someone who objectively did more work than
    via ConfusedManager18
  • she did because they didn't have those same strict boundaries. She asked how she could become "outstanding" and I looked at the HR rep and said, "If we're limited to 10% outstanding I don't see how Jill
    via ConfusedManager18
  • would ever be outstanding as long as Jack is here, unless she suddenly becomes way more efficient or he suddenly becomes less so, because they do equally good work but he does more of it." The HR rep
    via ConfusedManager18
  • then said, "I understand," asked Jill to leave, and then reamed me for what I said, saying employee ratings weren't just about "hours worked." I said I agree, but in this case, their work is the same quality, their clients both like them equally,
    via ConfusedManager18
  • etc.; I have no basis to rate one over the other EXCEPT the fact that one is willing to put in more time (unpaid, since we're all on salary) and that I would stand by giving Jack bigger raises and bonuses and a higher rating
    via ConfusedManager18
  • every time. The HR rep said my bias against a single mom was showing and I said, "What?" and walked out. None of this made any sense to me. AITAH?
    via ConfusedManager18
  • Moggetti NTA since it sounds like this situation is created by corporate policy. That said, your response needed work. For example, I could imagine a universe where Jill does such incredible work with, say, a new difficult client that she ends up being your outstanding one despite the extra hours Jack puts in. So I would have said something like this, "Every year is unique. Getting an outstanding is about opportunity and what you do with it. You're doing great, Jill. I cannot guarantee either yo
    via ConfusedManager18
  • OP ConfusedManager 18 Yeah I was honestly so blindsided by the fact this was even an issue (I didn't know what the HR meeting was about) that I'm sure with some prep I could have come up with a better-worded response. To be clear, though, it's going to be very hard for Jill to do "incredible" work that vaults her over Jack simply because the nature of the work doesn't allow for it. Most of the work these two do is the legal equivalent of packing boxes at the Amazon warehouse; no one can really d
    via ConfusedManager18
  • HeadHuntOrUK OP very clearly states their efficiency is almost identical. Jack works more hours, therefore his output is higher. This was clearly stated in what OP wrote. \>but that shouldn't mean I couldn't reward someone who objectively did more work one of a number of times OP has explictly stated "more work" that directly and unambigiously refers to output.
    via ConfusedManager18
  • OP ConfusedManager18 Yeah, this is (apparently) where I messed up, according to Reddit. It is true that in the HR meeting, I discussed Jack working more hours. It's also true that, because the work they do in the same amount of time is roughly equal, he is producing more output. To me, it's silly that I have to play these semantic games around "output" vs. "hours." If Jill had asked (or we had advertised) for a part-time position where she only worked 30 hours a week instead of 40, I presume she
    via ConfusedManager18
  • Action_Limp >Look at output. Am I blind, or did OP absolutely base it on output: "If we're limited to 10% outstanding, I don't see how Jill would ever be outstanding as long as Jack is here, unless she suddenly becomes way more efficient or he suddenly becomes less so, because they do equally good work but he does more of it."
    via ConfusedManager18
  • OP ConfusedManager 18 OP here, and thank you for noticing this. If I had been prepared for the meeting with HR instead of blindsided, I could have prepared my words better so that it didn't sound like I was overly focusing on hours worked as the metric. But at the end of the day, given that they do equally good work on a per-hour basis, the extra hours worked by Jack (along with his willingness to travel) are the differentiator. -- And to those saying I didn't give Jill a path to being outstandi
    via ConfusedManager18
  • Significant_Bid2142 You put yourself in a corner by using "hours worked" as a metric. It should be about output. Jack is clearly going above and beyond and qualifying for "outstanding", while Jill is doing what she's supposed to do, so she's "successful", that's clear as day. But yeah, you went about it the wrong way by even mentioning hours worked. You should have very concrete metrics for your ratings, how many contracts did they handle, etc.
    via ConfusedManager18
  • Interesting-Ride-710 HR doesn't like you admitting that the only way to get ahead is to work extra hours for free. They'll need to scapegoat you if she sues. It does sound very biased to those who can and will work extra hours for free. HR wants you to make it sound less so.
    via ConfusedManager18
  • chicaltimore I would start offering them both the opportunity to do the last- minute work, overnight travel, work beyond their shift and then document when she declines or refuses. In the United States we have a law that protects against discrimination based on parental status, so that's why documenting every single incident is important. You have to give them both the opportunity every single time even though she set boundaries in the beginning. Then at the end of the year, you have the documen
    via ConfusedManager18
  • AdAccomplished6870 There is being penalized and there is being not rewarded. If her raises and bonuses are in the range of standard for the company for a person doing well at their job, then she should not complain if someone is outperforming her. If her raises are below standard, then she has a point. And I think you need to escalate this with your boss and the head of HR. You are being accused of a firable offense with no basis.
    via ConfusedManager18
  • Fantastic_List3029 Damn, this kinda sucks that the opportunity for financial growth is dependent on time avaliable outside of a 40 hour work week. Not that i dont understand the logic, but its a bleak reminder of how difficult it can be for women, or parents, to grow financially while also choosing to have a family/be involved parents. We really can't have it all. Anywho, good luck OP - you got some great advice here. Hopefully everyone finds a happy resolve.
    via ConfusedManager18
  • k23_k23 Stop talking about hours. Talk about cases solved, percentage of ugent cases solved
    via ConfusedManager18
  • vin1025 You agreed to Jill's boundaries from the beginning and from a straightforward, transactional viewpoint it seems fair that someone who works more hours earns more rewards. But workplaces run on trust and psychological safety,. Not just logic. When an employee hears that her boundaries are accepted, she expects they will not limit her growth. When she later learns that the only path to an outstanding rating is working beyond those boundaries, it feels. like the agreement was never truly ho
    via ConfusedManager18

Want More? Follow Us and Add Us as a Preferred Source on Google.

Tags

workplace discussion employment issues antiwork jobs employees Horrible Bosses workplace story employment
Scroll Down For The Next Article