5 ms·
Is anyone aware of how the courts have interpreted things like this (if at all)? > "Under the new policy, mothers can take 16 weeks of paid leave with benefits
by john_b 13y ago
Is anyone aware of how the courts have interpreted things like this (if at all)?
> "Under the new policy, mothers can take 16 weeks of paid leave with benefits, and fathers can take up to eight weeks"
Would that not be considered discriminatory?
- kenjackson 13y agoThey should be different forms of leave. It would only be discriminatory, IMO, if this also applied for adoptions.
- refurb 13y agoHow it works is that the leave is the same, but the person who gives birth can get 8 weeks of disability (I think).
- danielki 13y agoI wouldn't think so, as there's more than likely enough medical/biological basis for women to require more time. For example, 99.9999% of men are unable to breastfeed a baby, even if they do stay home.
- gertef 13y agoBreastfeeding doesn't interfere with work. Mothers can pump and store. Or they can choose to not work for a while, just as anyone else can.
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- bluthru 13y agoThe problem is that different paternity/maternity times makes employers view women as more hazardous. This also reinforces the sexist notion that fathers aren't as integral to early childhood development. I'm sure a new mother would love the extra help for another 8 weeks! Also, lets say that you're a child adopted by a homosexual married couple and you only get 8 weeks. How is that fair to the adopted child versus 16 weeks for a birthed child? Equality means treating people equally--including men and children.
- astrodust 13y agoIf there was a separate allowance for recovering from childbirth, that would make sense. For example, 16 weeks for a woman who adopts vs. 8 for a man who does exactly the same thing is just discriminatory.
- jacalata 13y agoIt would be. That probably explains why yahoo has a policy that both parents get 8 weeks after adoption. Its in the article.
- macspoofing 13y ago>Equality means treating people equally--including men and children All things aren't equal in this case. Child birth can be incredibly taxing on a woman's body. Some women would need more time to recover.
- jerf 13y ago
- radicalbyte 13y agoHaving a pregnant wife, and having been subjected to videos of the "joy of childbirth".. I'm more than happy with half the time off in exchange for that not happening to my body.
- pc86 13y agoNo, because what the policy is essentially doing is saying "anyone with a new kid gets 8 weeks off. If you happened to have actually given birth to the kid, we'll give you an extra 8 weeks." As others have stated, it would only be discriminatory if it was based on gender, but it's not - it's based on whether or not you had the physical toll of childbirth, as evident in the adoption v. birth difference for women. It would be interesting to hear what the leave would be for a lesbian couple with one of the women giving birth. I would think 16/8 like a heterosexual couple, but that could get dicey depending on how the rule is worded.
- just2n 13y agoWithout trying to get involved, I just want to point out that it is (currently) physically impossible for males to give birth. So it would appear that such a claim is implicitly identifying a gender by excluding all of the other gender.
- itafroma 13y agoThat would be true if the policy gave women 16 weeks and men 8 weeks, regardless of whether or not the woman gave birth. But, as reported, if you did not give birth, for example if you adopted a child, you only get 8 weeks: even if you are a woman. A larger point could be made that it's somewhat pointless to speculate about whether a policy is sexist when we're hearing a brief summary from a secondary source. A large aspect of this is how the policy is actually worded and carried out in practice.
- gertef 13y agoThis is "disparate impact" and is fiercely debated where it appears.
- newnewnew 13y agoMen are not a protected group. Do you know of any government program aimed at compensating for male underperformance or that is biased in favor of males?
- sp332 13y agoWhat does this have to do with government programs? Gender is a protected category, and many policies (not sure about laws specifically) prohibit discrimination according to gender just as they do about race, age, etc.
- newnewnew 13y agoDo you know of any cases where protected category rules were used to favor males, whites, straight people, or the abled? Men could probably sue for employment discrimination in some jobs such as child care providers. But would anyone care?
- sp332 13y agoI can't think of a bias in favor of males. But there are laws requiring certain equality. I do know of a case where a guy protested the dress code at his work (he wasn't allowed to wear shorts) by wearing a short skirt. The company's dress code allowed employees to wear short skirts, and they were not allowed to enforce the dress code differently for men. Pay and benefits are enforced to be the same. In some states, car insurance companies are not even allowed to give different rates for men vs. women even though statistically women are less risky to insure.
- ben1040 13y agoIf it was anything like when my child was born, my wife's company gives a base 8 weeks of parental leave to both men and women. The extra 8 was paid for by the company's short term disability insurance policy, for a total of 16 weeks. Childbirth was deemed sufficient to trigger short term disability. I imagine that's what happened here.
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]