Is Maternity Leave a Form of Employee Discrimination...?

[Got it]

Correct. You are protected as though you have a temporary disability.

 

 

 

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.

 

 

 

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.

 

 

 

This is ALSO INCORRECT and has been since 2011:

 

Discrimination Based on Sexual Orientation, Status as a Parent, Marital Status and Political Affiliation

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Gosh, lay people annoy me with this stuff.

 

 

Sorry, not a lay person and not incorrect. Based on your assessment affirmative action would be illegal.

 

And California is just one state that protects sexual orientation. They are not the only one.

 

And many companies offer maternity and/or paternity leave. Certain industries will vary, will see it more in white collar than blue collar, but many companies do recognize and offer maternity leave. Actually it is not uncommon even in transient industries like the food or hospitality industries.

 

I hate when people comment on things they apparently have no knowledge of.

Edited May 9, 2013 by Got it

[pink_sugar]

I think preferential treatment is an employer letting someone who claims they need to leave early because they have kids at home and not allowing anyone else to leave early for any reason is unfair. I worked retail at one point and we were working until 1am one time and all of us were forced to stay late. Someone with a 10 and 14 year old got to leave early...(despite the kids not being little and the fact she also lived with her mother) and even though I had school assignments and a test the next day, I was not allowed to leave. I think that is discrimination.

[Eggplant]

My company does not provide paid maternity leave. Leave yes, but unpaid.

[pink_sugar]

My company does not provide paid maternity leave. Leave yes, but unpaid.

 

My company also provides plenty of time off....unpaid.

[Star Gazer]

Sorry, not a lay person and not incorrect.

 

How many years of strictly employment counseling and litigation do you have under your belt, I'm sincerely curious. Oh, that's right. NONE! You're not an attorney!

 

Sorry, you ARE a lay person, and you remain absolutely incorrect.

 

You said: "They are expected to not discriminate negatively against one on a protected class. They can discriminate positively towards those in a protected class."

 

The underlined is flatly wrong. Logically speaking, you cannot discriminate positively towards those within a protected class without ALSO discriminating negatively towards those in the same protected class.

 

Example: Discriminating positively/in favor of women, by its very nature, is disparate treatment against men, or at the very least creates a disparate impact (that phrase would ring a bell for you if you were an employment or civil rights attorney) against men, and thus is discriminating negatively against men based on their sex/gender, and thus unlawful.

 

Being a woman is not the "protected class." Sex/gender is the protected class. That means a person cannot be discriminated against because of their sex/gender - whether male or female. This is precisely why you cannot discriminate against one, but in favor of the other. If you're doing it in favor of one, it's against the other, and vice versa.

 

The term "protected class" does not refer to a specific group of people, such as to mean that women are protected but not men, or blacks are protected but not whites, or Muslims are protected but not Christians, or paraplegics are protected but not the able-bodied. Rather, it means that gender/sex, race, religion, disability (all respectively) are protected classes, and those protected classes cannot legally factor into a decision made about employment (or housing or public accommodations or facilities).

 

And California is just one state that protects sexual orientation. They are not the only one.

 

Huh? I wasn't referring to California anywhere in my post. EEOC decisions are binding on all cases falling within federal subject matter jurisdiction, not just California. I would expect you to know that.

 

And many companies offer maternity and/or paternity leave. Certain industries will vary, will see it more in white collar than blue collar, but many companies do recognize and offer maternity leave.

 

I didn't say that wasn't the case. However, in my experience, very few employers actually offer paid maternity benefits.

 

I hate when people comment on things they apparently have no knowledge of.

 

I have plenty of knowledge and lawyerly certificates on my wall that say otherwise.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited May 9, 2013 by Star Gazer
Linky link included. :cool:

[Els]

You'll need to find a rich husband then...

 

Or... she could choose not to have children.

 

IMO it's perfectly valid for a woman to choose whether or not she has children based on financial circumstances, and her ability to take care of them in the manner that she deems fit.

 

There are plenty of women whose opinion on this DOESN'T change after having children. In fact, I have seen more of the opposite - women who think that they would want to work after having children but end up wanting to stay at home with the kids, at least for the first 5 years or so.

[Seachelle1]

USM,

 

ERA has never passed. Employers can (and do) discriminate based on gender.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal_Rights_Amendment

Edited May 9, 2013 by Seachelle1
Adding more information.

[Seachelle1]

GotIt and Sincere,

 

Equal Employment Opportunity Act means that the person has to be hired in the first place if they are best suited for the job out of the application pool. Very rarely does a civil suit win or can honest action be taken against employers who do not follow the law because it is so hard to prove. The qualifiers for best applicant are subjective and difficult to define.

 

ERA not passing dictates that a woman can be reasonably discriminated against in certain situations. It doesn't mean carte blanche for the employer but it does mean they can legally fire in some situations due to uncontrollable situations having to do with gender. 7 Ways You Can Be Fired For Your Appearance -- Legally - Careers Articles

[Sarabi]

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.

I have read this many times in various places and am not sure I agree...because there are many who disagree. So I asked someone who had retired if he believed that me, as a 20something year old, is contributing towards his upkeep in old age. He said no.

I can actually believe that...SORRY!!! Those people worked and paid their tax and national insurance for their state pension and contributed to their own savings...I am not paying for them to live in old age. THEY ARE.

 

The only ones who I might be contributing towards are those who never worked a day in their lives and live on benefits

 

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 think its a personal choice. If the time came, I personally wouldn't do that...because I don't believe its healthy. I would prefer to ease back into work-go back part time...and build it up to full time.

I think children need to interact with other children at nurseries/playgroups etc. and with other people so they can be healthy, well adjusted, well rounded and secure (just my opinion). I don't realy believe that staying at home all day for 4/5/10 years makes you a more caring or a better parent.

From the group of people I know who have done the stay at home thing...I don't think its really for me...but more power to those who do

[Sarabi]

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.

 

My company does not provide paid maternity leave. Leave yes, but unpaid.

 

These things make me very sad you know I have a friend in the US who has two children. Her first baby, she had a difficult caesarean...they threatened her with the loss of her job if she didn't return to work after 6 weeks ...she eventually went back after 8.

With her second baby, when she wrote to tell me of his birth she said she had 12 weeks unpaid maternity leave. I was so shocked, I showed my mum the letter. She told me it was normal and that in most other parts of the world, women are not afforded the same maternity benefits as those in this country

Can't believe it! It makes me so upset...because I think women in this country are so ungrateful for what they get :

 

• Your maternity care is free
  
• Your healthcare/dental care and prescriptions for a year after the birth of your baby is free
  
• You get paid maternity leave for a year (3 months at 90% I think and the rest at statutory maternity pay which isn't much...but its still money)
  
• You get tax relief/credits in some way or other if you have children (I am not sure how it works but you get a portion of your tax back). Note: you are also eligible for this if you don't work any don't pay any tax.
  
• You get vouchers from the government for using on milk/fruit/veg (this is abused frequently but thats another story)
  
• You used to get a one off payment of around £200 just for being pregnant(yes, I am not joking) it was abolished last year or so though.
  
• Your priority with social housing is pushed above other people on the waiting list because you have children or are pregnant (which is why you might always hear about the uproar of teenagers getting pregnant to get houses over here)
  

 

Back to the original point! I have never believed maternity leave is a form of discimination.

I do believe that being pregnant or having children can be used to someone's advantage at the expense of other people at the workplace

[anne1707]

You get paid maternity leave for a year (3 months at 90% I think and the rest at statutory maternity pay which isn't much...but its still money)

 

SMP is only paid for 39 weeks and the first 6 weeks of that are at 90% of your pay. Not everybody is entitled to this though.

 

You get tax relief/credits in some way or other if you have children (I am not sure how it works but you get a portion of your tax back). Note: you are also eligible for this if you don't work any don't pay any tax.

 

The welfare reform changes will impose a maximum level on benefits that can be claimed regardless of how many children a family may have.

 

You get vouchers from the government for using on milk/fruit/veg (this is abused frequently but thats another story)

 

The above is for families on benefits, not everybody

 

Your priority with social housing is pushed above other people on the waiting list because you have children or are pregnant (which is why you might always hear about the uproar of teenagers getting pregnant to get houses over here)

 

A very common misconception. Housing is allocated based on housing need. A single person can have greater need than a single parent family and will therefore be housed first. However properties are also allocated based on size and a single person will not be allocated a two+ bedroom property under the new bedroom tax rules. Single people may end up waiting longer not because there need is less but because suitable sized properties are not available.

[Fugu]

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?

 

For those individuals, there's no issue that would necessitate leaving. It's as simple as that. Is this another anti-feminism thread cloaked in some sort of faux concern over equal treatment under the law?

[USMCHokie]

For those individuals, there's no issue that would necessitate leaving. It's as simple as that. Is this another anti-feminism thread cloaked in some sort of faux concern over equal treatment under the law?

 

I assure you there is no cloak.

[Fugu]

I assure you there is no cloak.

 

Well fine, but the issue stands. It's a measure intended to assist people in special circumstances, just like workers compensation pays out only to people who've been injured on the job. It's discriminatory when it establishes that certain classes of people are going to be treated differently under the same circumstances. It's not a particularly difficult concept to grasp.

[Emilia]

My, I sense sarcasm is strong in this thread.

[USMCHokie]

Well fine, but the issue stands. It's a measure intended to assist people in special circumstances, just like workers compensation pays out only to people who've been injured on the job. It's discriminatory when it establishes that certain classes of people are going to be treated differently under the same circumstances. It's not a particularly difficult concept to grasp.

 

Preferential treatment such as workers comp, performance bonuses, hazard/combat pay, etc. are paid due to circumstances directly resulting or arising from the job. Maternity leave is preferential treatment paid for a woman making a personal choice, i.e., bearing a child.

 

Unless there's a job that puts babies inside women...?

[clia]

USM,

 

ERA has never passed. Employers can (and do) discriminate based on gender.

 

Equal Rights Amendment - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

Uh...try again. Maybe you need to read the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Gender is a protected class in the U.S. Employers can't legally discriminate based on gender.

[Seachelle1]

Clia,

 

Thanks for your link and information.

 

My understanding based on readings of judgments in civil/criminal state and federal court is that the language couched in the Civil Rights Act is not broad enough to cover all gender discrimination. So employers can (and do) discriminate based on pregnancy and thus based on gender. I believe the federal Supreme Court precedence says "reasonable discrimination" is permissible. Some states have their own version of Era and pumped up civil rights laws which are broader but federal law does not cover all gender situations.

 

I'm not claiming to be a lawyer here but law is complicated and twisty. Read one law and the facts are still not in front of you because there are quite a few laws. It is complicated and confusing.

 

Anyway, I'm gonna check out of this entire thread. While there are smart and kind people here the pretense in some words and surety that some know more than anyone else is not something I want to be around. Nobody learns anything when they figure they already know the answer.

 

i.e. There is not much listening and respect going on here.

[cozycottagelg]

I don't know many employers in my area that pay maternity benefits. Sure, you can take the time, but you are often using sick leave that you built up or earned, and then it's unpaid.

 

When I leave early to attend an event for my children, or if one is sick, I am using leave time that I earned.

 

Both of my maternity leaves were unpaid.

 

And just for arguments sake, I can't imagine complaining about picking up slack while a co-worker is on maternity leave. I've been there, it's certainly no vacation..

[Got it]

How many years of strictly employment counseling and litigation do you have under your belt, I'm sincerely curious. Oh, that's right. NONE! You're not an attorney!

 

Sorry, you ARE a lay person, and you remain absolutely incorrect.

 

You said: "They are expected to not discriminate negatively against one on a protected class. They can discriminate positively towards those in a protected class."

 

The underlined is flatly wrong. Logically speaking, you cannot discriminate positively towards those within a protected class without ALSO discriminating negatively towards those in the same protected class.

 

Example: Discriminating positively/in favor of women, by its very nature, is disparate treatment against men, or at the very least creates a disparate impact (that phrase would ring a bell for you if you were an employment or civil rights attorney) against men, and thus is discriminating negatively against men based on their sex/gender, and thus unlawful.

 

Being a woman is not the "protected class." Sex/gender is the protected class. That means a person cannot be discriminated against because of their sex/gender - whether male or female. This is precisely why you cannot discriminate against one, but in favor of the other. If you're doing it in favor of one, it's against the other, and vice versa.

 

The term "protected class" does not refer to a specific group of people, such as to mean that women are protected but not men, or blacks are protected but not whites, or Muslims are protected but not Christians, or paraplegics are protected but not the able-bodied. Rather, it means that gender/sex, race, religion, disability (all respectively) are protected classes, and those protected classes cannot legally factor into a decision made about employment (or housing or public accommodations or facilities).

 

 

 

Huh? I wasn't referring to California anywhere in my post. EEOC decisions are binding on all cases falling within federal subject matter jurisdiction, not just California. I would expect you to know that.

 

 

 

I didn't say that wasn't the case. However, in my experience, very few employers actually offer paid maternity benefits.

 

 

 

I have plenty of knowledge and lawyerly certificates on my wall that say otherwise.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

CA - my first post cited that while the federal government does not acknowledge sexual orientation as a protected class though some states at the state level. You came back and countered that saying it wasn't true and so I responded with CA as an example. But, as I am sure you are well aware, there are federal laws but there are state laws that exceed the limitations of the federal laws and are upheld in the courts, i.e. meal break violations which the federal government (DOL) has no requirements towards meal breaks but certain states do and will fine/penalize accordingly and has not been overturned in the higher courts. When a state law affords a person more rights than federal law, the state law is legally presumed to prevail, but only within that state.

 

This means state law will always supersede federal law when the person in question stands to gain more from the state law. Conversely, when state law imposes more responsibility on a citizen than federal law, the person could be subject to a higher penalty for violating the state law. Environmental conservation laws, employee minimum wage laws and banking regulations are examples of situations where some state laws are more restrictive than similar federal laws. As I am sure you know.

 

Again, I bring up affirmative action. What do you suppose that is? If, as you state, "that means a person cannot be discriminated against because of their sex/gender - whether male or female. This is precisely why you cannot discriminate against one, but in favor of the other. If you're doing it in favor of one, it's against the other, and vice versa." How do you explain affirmative action? Affirmative action, by its very essence is about preferential treatment towards those in minority groups including women, so by consequence, would have an adverse effect on males and others in non protected classes (white, under 40 years of age, etc.).

 

And finally your experience with employers and paid maternity leave. No offense but unless you cite your experience, and show a significant knowledge of and review of a large segment of the workforce how does your experience amount to the price of tea in China on this topic? Can you cite evidence that a large number of employers do not offer paid maternity leave? Do you have a specific industry you are focusing on? Is this cross sectional? Are you discussing solely the US or internationally?

Edited May 10, 2013 by a LoveShack.org Moderator

[Nyla]

This entire thread makes me very sad. I can't believe we are even debating this issue.

 

New mothers need to stay home with their children when they are babies. Crucial bonding occurs in the first few months of life and the mother needs time to get used to her new role. End of story.

 

Maternity leave pogey is precious little compared to full salary and mothers face discrimination in the workplace. I once worked in a company where pregnant women were getting written up for going to the bathroom too often. The sheer injustice of that sickened me and I am childfree. I may not have or want children, but I know that I was a baby once too.

 

When I was born, mat leave was only three months. La Mere stayed home with me for a year because I was a clingy and demanding tiny tyrant. She lost her job because of me but she never regretted staying home with her little screamer. Imagine a woman losing her job because she was trying to be a good mom!

[Got it]

This entire thread makes me very sad. I can't believe we are even debating this issue.

 

New mothers need to stay home with their children when they are babies. Crucial bonding occurs in the first few months of life and the mother needs time to get used to her new role. End of story.

 

Maternity leave pogey is precious little compared to full salary and mothers face discrimination in the workplace. I once worked in a company where pregnant women were getting written up for going to the bathroom too often. The sheer injustice of that sickened me and I am childfree. I may not have or want children, but I know that I was a baby once too.

 

When I was born, mat leave was only three months. La Mere stayed home with me for a year because I was a clingy and demanding tiny tyrant. She lost her job because of me but she never regretted staying home with her little screamer. Imagine a woman losing her job because she was trying to be a good mom!

 

FMLA covers this and many other medical reasons why someone needs to not work due to their own medical condition or an immediate family member. And this is really a more major issue in the US, other countries like Canada, United Kingdom, etc. are much more liberal with their leave, and even paid leave, and have paid maternity/paternity leave. The US is not an employee friendly country as a whole, it is much more geared to free enterprise/ every person for themselves mentality.

 

My company has Canadian employees as well as US, and it has been enlightening, when we were setting it up, the differences in employment law. As an employee, I would definitely rather be a Canadian. As an employer, I would much rather be an American.

[Fugu]

Preferential treatment such as workers comp, performance bonuses, hazard/combat pay, etc. are paid due to circumstances directly resulting or arising from the job. Maternity leave is preferential treatment paid for a woman making a personal choice, i.e., bearing a child.

 

Unless there's a job that puts babies inside women...?

 

That may be true, but in a lot of cases, there are other men who may have an economic interest in having the woman keep her job. The law is simply recognizing the fact that probably a majority of adults in this country end up having children, and there's a legitimate economic interest in not punishing people for making the choice to be parents. You could look at it as a personal decision, but this is also one of those 'for the greater good' rules.

[Lauriebell82]

This thread is crazy. If its not maternity leave I am sure there will be something else for employees to biatch about. Seriously, get over it.

[Negative Nancy]

Imagine a woman losing her job because she was trying to be a good mom!

 

If you are a mother, THAT should be your job.