3 ms·

I've discussed this in the past. My company started offering 5 month paternity leave at the end of 2016. For a credit card company, this was huge. There had

I've discussed this in the past. My company started offering 5 month paternity leave at the end of 2016. For a credit card company, this was huge. There had to have been a catch. I took the chance anyway, and got laid off. This isn't uncommon at the company either. I've heard of 3 females so far who also shared the same fate. All of thought it was illegal, but our individual lawyers pretty much summed it up in one sentence: "Sure, it may be... but you have to prove it was solely due to taking leave, and it's not worth it." I think it wasn't worth it because of an arbitration clause or whatever, but I wasn't going to risk my time, money, and energy required when I just had a baby.

adammunich 8y ago
Calling out the company by name is the first step to effecting change. Nothing scares a brand like bad PR.
- treyfitty 8y ago
  And nothing scares me more than them sending their goons (lawyers). I'm still looking for a job 8 months later, so I don't want to deal with that.
  - magnetic 8y ago
    What's your skill set?
    - treyfitty 8y ago
      Analytics + Data Science.
mc32 8y ago
That's awful. Why bother with a program if it's only there as a trap? Ok, so a few people take it in good faith; then the company lays those people off so as teach others not to take the leave... So they're back to square one where no one takes parental leave. It's not mandated (yet) by law, so why bother to set-up bad goodwill? Just to bait people into joining? It seems a very poisonous scheme with little benefit for anyone.
- chillydawg 8y ago
  It's left hand not talking to the right. The HR people put the system in place as a way of promoting equality, hiring more easily and generally doing a decent thing. Individual managers of teams, with fixed budgets, high workloads and bonus targets around completing those workloads are probably not internally compensated for the cost of HR's policy, thus they look for ways to get rid of such people.
klipt 8y ago
> our individual lawyers pretty much summed it up in one sentence: "Sure, it may be... but you have to prove it was solely due to taking leave, and it's not worth it." Sounds like you need a group lawsuit. Firing one person - could be coincidence. Firing three? Starting to look like a pattern of punishment. The more people you can get on the lawsuit, the stronger your case.
- LorenPechtel 8y ago
  Arbitration agreements normally preclude class action lawsuits.
nugget 8y ago
A wrongful termination lawsuit in a case like this should cost no money (contingency) and take very little time and energy, if you have the right lawyers. Arbitration would be even less commitment, with potentially less upside.

adammunich 8y ago

Calling out the company by name is the first step to effecting change. Nothing scares a brand like bad PR.

treyfitty 8y ago
And nothing scares me more than them sending their goons (lawyers). I'm still looking for a job 8 months later, so I don't want to deal with that.
- magnetic 8y ago
  What's your skill set?
  - treyfitty 8y ago
    Analytics + Data Science.

mc32 8y ago

That's awful. Why bother with a program if it's only there as a trap? Ok, so a few people take it in good faith; then the company lays those people off so as teach others not to take the leave... So they're back to square one where no one takes parental leave. It's not mandated (yet) by law, so why bother to set-up bad goodwill? Just to bait people into joining? It seems a very poisonous scheme with little benefit for anyone.

chillydawg 8y ago
It's left hand not talking to the right. The HR people put the system in place as a way of promoting equality, hiring more easily and generally doing a decent thing. Individual managers of teams, with fixed budgets, high workloads and bonus targets around completing those workloads are probably not internally compensated for the cost of HR's policy, thus they look for ways to get rid of such people.

klipt 8y ago

> our individual lawyers pretty much summed it up in one sentence: "Sure, it may be... but you have to prove it was solely due to taking leave, and it's not worth it." Sounds like you need a group lawsuit. Firing one person - could be coincidence. Firing three? Starting to look like a pattern of punishment. The more people you can get on the lawsuit, the stronger your case.

LorenPechtel 8y ago
Arbitration agreements normally preclude class action lawsuits.

nugget 8y ago

A wrongful termination lawsuit in a case like this should cost no money (contingency) and take very little time and energy, if you have the right lawyers. Arbitration would be even less commitment, with potentially less upside.