Got it Posted May 8, 2013 Share Posted May 8, 2013 You mean you can get fired in the US for being gay ? The Federal protected classes are: Race – Federal: Civil Rights Act of 1964 Color – Federal: Civil Rights Act of 1964 Religion – Federal: Civil Rights Act of 1964 National origin – Federal: Civil Rights Act of 1964 Age (40 and over) – Federal: Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 Sex – Federal: Equal Pay Act of 1963 & Civil Rights Act of 1964 Familial status - Federal: Civil Rights Act of 1968 Title VIII (Housing, cannot discriminate for having children, exception for senior housing) Disability status – Federal: Vocational Rehabilitation and Other Rehabilitation Services of 1973 & Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 Veteran status – Federal Vietnam Era Veterans Readjustment Assistance Act of 1974 Genetic information – Federal: Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act Some states do recognize sexual orientation so in those states it is illegal to discriminate if one is gay. But at this time it is not recognized on a Federal level. Link to post Share on other sites
Author USMCHokie Posted May 8, 2013 Author Share Posted May 8, 2013 It is not discriminator as not having children is not a protected class so those that do not qualify are not protected. It is a preferential benefits like other benefits such as stoke options, executive benefits, etc. A company is not required to offer equal benefits for all employees, they are expected to not discriminate negatively against one on a protected class. They can discriminate positively towards those in a protected class. Well done. This covers the legal aspect of it. But benefits such as stock options and executive benefits are awarded based on merit rather than a lifestyle choice... Link to post Share on other sites
carhill Posted May 8, 2013 Share Posted May 8, 2013 I was just reading a random article about Yahoo's CEO boosting the amount of maternity leave granted new mothers. Are the benefits afforded new mothers a form of discrimination against employees who don't bear children while employed? Is it a form of discrimination against male employees who can't bear children? Should these employees be entitled to the same paid leave and benefits? And why would people cry discrimination if an employer chooses not to hire a woman of child-bearing age so that he wouldn't have to deal with paying for an employee that contributes nothing while she's on maternity leave? It just seems ironic that someone would cry discrimination because an employer did not want to give them preferential treatment (i.e., discriminate against those who don't bear chlidren). IMO, the CEO is signaling that he/she is pro-family and pro-children. Prospective employees can use that information to decide if that corporate culture is beneficial to them or not. If the CEO offers maternity/paternity leave/pay in excess of state/federal statute, they are providing additional benefits/incentives for those employees. In Cali, from reading the statute, the 'rules' apply to companies with five or more employees. If I were working for a company which was keeping a position open for a mother on maternity leave and that choice/process was causing an undue burden upon myself due to handling part or all of their workload, I'd be gone in a flash. Then again, I don't like being an employee anyway. The company does what it does. I do what I do. We're not friends. Link to post Share on other sites
clia Posted May 8, 2013 Share Posted May 8, 2013 I wouldn't really call it discrimination. I see it as a huge disadvantage for anyone in a professional environment to have to take multiple months away from work. My issue with it arises when people try to cry "pay disparity" without taking into account all of these 3 month, 6 month, or what have you absences from work over a period of years. My other issue arises when childless people are taken advantage of at work, as though their life/plans are less important because they don't have children. I can't tell you how many times I've had to pick up the slack for some mother or father who has to run off at 3 p.m. to attend a dance recital or go to parent-teacher conference, or have had to travel because some mother or father couldn't find a sitter. These are the same women who will complain about their pay later on, without acknowledging that they do far less than their childless counterparts. It's absurd. Link to post Share on other sites
Star Gazer Posted May 8, 2013 Share Posted May 8, 2013 Right. In the US, we have paternity leave too. But what about those individuals (men and women) who elect not to have a child while employed? This is like asking what about those individuals who don't become disabled while employed? Pregnancy is a form of temporary disability. Parental leave is a form of leave from FMLA, the same kind you're elligible to take if YOUR parent falls ill and you need to take care of him/her. 5 Link to post Share on other sites
GorillaTheater Posted May 8, 2013 Share Posted May 8, 2013 For what it's worth, the most dangerous discrimination lawsuit an employer can face is one alleging pregnancy discrimination. You'll have more pissed off jurors than just about any other case. 4 Link to post Share on other sites
Star Gazer Posted May 8, 2013 Share Posted May 8, 2013 (edited) Maternity leave and Paternity leave are not government mandated rights, i.e. paid leave. What the US says is if you are pregnant you fall into the rights of FMLA and ADA. So your position is protected while you are out for a multiple array of medical reasons and or accommodation. Correct. You are protected as though you have a temporary disability. Some companies agree to put in maternity and/or paternity leave which will give time off for an individual that is having or adopting a child and will consider it paid leave. Very few companies these days actually offer paid maternity and/or paternity leave. They allow unpaid leave, or allow you to use sick, vacation, PTO, personal holidays, etc., to obtain compensation for the period of time you're out. A company is not required to offer equal benefits for all employees, they are expected to not discriminate negatively against one on a protected class. They can discriminate positively towards those in a protected class. The bolded is INCORRECT. A protected class means a protected class: white/black, male/female, disabled/NOT-disabled, Christian/Atheist. You cannot discriminate against or in favor of an employee based on their protected classification. Period. Some states do recognize sexual orientation so in those states it is illegal to discriminate if one is gay. But at this time it is not recognized on a Federal level. This is ALSO INCORRECT and has been since 2011: http://www.eeoc.gov/federal/otherprotections.cfm Edited May 9, 2013 by a LoveShack.org Moderator 3 Link to post Share on other sites
LovelyLife Posted May 8, 2013 Share Posted May 8, 2013 If it's discrimination it's justified, acceptable and traditional. In this day an age where people are screwed out of pensions, take cuts in pay, have to pay way more on health insurance premiums and so forth, the continuation of paid maternity leave is a precious thing. I worked in a firm for almost 20 years and saw many women go on maternity leave and get showered with gifts. I admit a little envy because no one fussed over me like that but I never took it as discrimination. I hope no one tries to challenge this because there are already too many heartless businesses who would be gleeful about taking away this time-honored privilege. You are the best. Very well said. That's the post of a person who is not selfish. Link to post Share on other sites
GorillaTheater Posted May 8, 2013 Share Posted May 8, 2013 This is ALSO INCORRECT and has been since 2011: Discrimination Based on Sexual Orientation, Status as a Parent, Marital Status and Political Affiliation I think the EEOC stratched waaaaaay too far in it's reasoning on this one. And I think Got It is a lawyer, though I may be mistaken. Link to post Share on other sites
Star Gazer Posted May 8, 2013 Share Posted May 8, 2013 I think the EEOC stratched waaaaaay too far in it's reasoning on this one. And I think Got It is a lawyer, though I may be mistaken. Even so, it's the current state of the law. And if GI is a lawyer, they need a refresher in employment law. You can't discriminate IN FAVOR of someone based on a protected class. You just can't. Link to post Share on other sites
LurkerXX Posted May 8, 2013 Share Posted May 8, 2013 (edited) I would take your company's voluntarily offered maternity leave as a sign that your company invests in its workers. It is more likely that if you are diagnosed with cancer or a chronic illness, that they will stick with you through treatment, as long as possible, rather than the federally mandated minimum. It can happen...it happened to one of the healthiest people I know (competitive in pro-am tennis, active, smart as a whip). Congratulations; you work for a good employer. Ok so maybe not as great as a big pile of money, but still: Edited May 8, 2013 by LurkerXX Link to post Share on other sites
pink_sugar Posted May 8, 2013 Share Posted May 8, 2013 I do not think maternity leave is a form of discrimination. Discrimination is allowing employees (or people with kids) to leave early from work or take all kinds of days off and get paid the same as someone who was at work all day with the extra load. Most women who receive maternity leave only receive a fraction of their pay. You can also look at it being similar to a medical leave. You obviously do not want to go into labor and delivery at work and many pregnant woman also have complications during those last months. My MIL's husband took medical leave to care for her while she is sick and dying with cancer. As long as everyone is entitled to these rights, I don't see maternity leave as discrimination. Link to post Share on other sites
LovelyLife Posted May 8, 2013 Share Posted May 8, 2013 I know it's very old fashioned - but my husband - guy I married - would be involved in the process too. :)A child is an 'our' - not a 'my'. I guess because I'm seasoned in my career and I paid my dues for 18 years . . . If I go on maternity leave - suck it up. I did my time of 14 hour days, working on Christmas eve, covering for other people when their spouse has cancer or in one case -they did. . . . Should we just get rid of some 44 year old who has lung cancer because it was his choice to smoke those cigarettes? I mean - :laugh:the nerve to think we should be inconvenienced by that guy's personal choice to smoke. I mean the nerve - having to cover for him while he got chemo and whatnot. A personal choice for a couple to bring a child into the world or a personal choice to smoke cigarettes and give yourself cancer. I don't see the difference. Link to post Share on other sites
Lauriebell82 Posted May 8, 2013 Share Posted May 8, 2013 As someone who was on maternity leave I will say that wasn't much "preferential" about it. My company made it difficult, they didn't pay me, and it was pretty hard to get back in the "swing of things" when I did come back. Plus I was taking care of a newborn baby all by myself while my husband was at work. I ended up quitting my full time position because of the hassle they gave me. Maternity leave isn't just some elective fun vacation that you get while everyone else in the company is hard at work. Link to post Share on other sites
Star Gazer Posted May 8, 2013 Share Posted May 8, 2013 As someone who was on maternity leave I will say that wasn't much "preferential" about it. My company made it difficult, they didn't pay me, and it was pretty hard to get back in the "swing of things" when I did come back. Plus I was taking care of a newborn baby all by myself while my husband was at work. I ended up quitting my full time position because of the hassle they gave me. Maternity leave isn't just some elective fun vacation that you get while everyone else in the company is hard at work. It's hard for every mother to get back into the swing of things upon returning to work from maternity leave. That's not the company's fault. Taking care of the baby at home while other people are working... That IS what maternity leave is all about. 1 Link to post Share on other sites
Lauriebell82 Posted May 8, 2013 Share Posted May 8, 2013 It's hard for every mother to get back into the swing of things upon returning to work from maternity leave. That's not the company's fault. Taking care of the baby at home while other people are working... That IS what maternity leave is all about. I was making a point SG... Link to post Share on other sites
Negative Nancy Posted May 8, 2013 Share Posted May 8, 2013 And why would people cry discrimination if an employer chooses not to hire a woman of child-bearing age so that he wouldn't have to deal with paying for an employee that contributes nothing while she's on maternity leave? Typical individualistic perspective. They DO contribute to society by supporting social security of old people - and to the businesses by popping out the future consumers and customers. causing an undue burden upon myself due to handling part or all of their workload That's the only bad thing about maternity leave, paid leave etc. Mothers with children call in sick more often, it's a FACT, and so all her co-workers have to do their jobs. In my opinion, mothers shouldn't work at all until the children are 10 or so. Why the **** do you even have children in the first place if you don't want to take care of them and would rather be slaving away for your boss instead of caring for them and nurturing them? Link to post Share on other sites
Lauriebell82 Posted May 8, 2013 Share Posted May 8, 2013 Typical individualistic perspective. They DO contribute to society by supporting social security of old people - and to the businesses by popping out the future consumers and customers. That's the only bad thing about maternity leave, paid leave etc. Mothers with children call in sick more often, it's a FACT, and so all her co-workers have to do their jobs. In my opinion, mothers shouldn't work at all until the children are 10 or so. Why the **** do you even have children in the first place if you don't want to take care of them and would rather be slaving away for your boss instead of caring for them and nurturing them? I don't enjoy calling off if my son is sick. In fact I HATE it. I have to reschedule my clients and it puts me behind. It's not some free "day off." Not everyone has the financial luxery to stay home long term... Have some kids and your opinion will change, I assure you. 1 Link to post Share on other sites
Negative Nancy Posted May 8, 2013 Share Posted May 8, 2013 Have some kids and your opinion will change, I assure you. No, because I only will have kids if I can stay at home. Link to post Share on other sites
Lauriebell82 Posted May 8, 2013 Share Posted May 8, 2013 No, because I only will have kids if I can stay at home. You'll need to find a rich husband then... 2 Link to post Share on other sites
xxoo Posted May 8, 2013 Share Posted May 8, 2013 In my opinion, mothers shouldn't work at all until the children are 10 or so. Why the **** do you even have children in the first place if you don't want to take care of them and would rather be slaving away for your boss instead of caring for them and nurturing them? 10? I went back to work when my youngest went to kindergarten. Since my husband had been working all those years, he has more sick time than I do. When the kid is sick, he stays home. Fathers are parents, too. As for benefits to maternity leave, the gov't wants parents working, so they build in leave so that parents can get back to work. Without leave, fewer parents would work. So it is essentially about keeping parents in the work force, not keeping them out. Link to post Share on other sites
Negative Nancy Posted May 8, 2013 Share Posted May 8, 2013 the gov't wants parents working Ever asked yourself why? Link to post Share on other sites
xxoo Posted May 8, 2013 Share Posted May 8, 2013 Ever asked yourself why? Sure. The almighty economy. I bucked the system for years. But I still understand it. Link to post Share on other sites
SincereOnlineGuy Posted May 9, 2013 Share Posted May 9, 2013 Is Maternity Leave a Form of Employee Discrimination...? Of course - but you just don't have the understanding to know what "discrimination" really is. All you needed to do was look-up "discrimination" in the dictionary instead of writing that whole rant. Link to post Share on other sites
SincereOnlineGuy Posted May 9, 2013 Share Posted May 9, 2013 It just seems ironic that someone would cry discrimination because an employer did not want to give them preferential treatment (i.e., discriminate against those who don't bear chlidren). Seems you don't know what irony is either. An employer is discriminating when merely having a women's restroom and a separate men's restroom, and there is nothing illegal about "discrimination". Anyone of third grade education or higher could look up the word and discern as much. Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts