Male Employee who may be stay-at-home dad

Jayhawk

We have a male employee that we hired a few months ago to head a department in our company. We have sent him to extensive training and he will be taking a major certification exam that the company paid for next month.

Apparently, last week, at an out of town seminar, he mentioned in dinner conversation to one of his managers that he and his wife were planning on trying to start a family in a few months. He told the manager that, when the child is born, he would quit his job and stay home.

Our company has spent a significant amount of money to invest him, can we approach him and ask what his plans are since he openly volunteered this information? What liability would we face? We would make it clear that his job is still secure, as his performance is satisfactory at the moment. Help!

Balloonman

I really don't think there is much you can do. You could have a repayment agreement signed when you send him to training. So if he leaves you can recoup part of the costs.
Besides, could be years before they have kids, or if you are lucky she will get pregnant first time they try! x:D
My $0.02 worth!
DJ The Balloonman

TN HR

Not a whole lot you can do. I would not discuss this with the employee any more than I would discuss the same topic with a female employee of child bearing age.

Best advice I can offer is to completely take time and $$ spent in training, certifications, etc out of the equation. Without a receoupment agreement in place it is all irrelevant.

Take this opportunity to develop a recoupment policy for future hires in whom you will invest considerable time and expenses so that you're not stuck with little or no ROI when they split.

Good luck and please keep us posted.

Gene

deniseE

I suspect that if it is illegal to ask a woman these questions (and it is) that it is also illegal to ask of a man.

ritaanz

I see that the worm has turned and now you have both sexes competing to stay home with the baby.

There is little you can do and much can happen between then and now. Continue investing in him, time has a strange way of changing one's point of view.

Shadowfax

U see the first few responses are uniformly agreed you cannot ask. I agree I probably would not pursue this, but, I cannot appreciate why it wojld be illegal. The prohibiton against asking a woman the same questions, does it really prohibit asking a man? What is the prohibition and why? I'm curious. Or is it simply prohibited by analogy?

marc

That is exactly what I was thinking Shadowfax. I don't think the PDA currently applies to men the way the FMLA does. I am not sure the man is in a protected class in this case.

I think I would talk to him about his plans. I would hesitate spending these dollars twice if I could avoid doing so.

LisaMN

For months you've been investing heavily in this great new recruit. Training, seminars, certification exams.

aha! you find out he's planning to leave after his child is born (even though at this point it is a theoretical child). Hmmmm, suddenly things change in the way he's treated, there was never a mention of repayment before, and other changes would occur that would be more subtle b/c you would know this person is not a permanent addition to your management team.

Sounds pretty much like a cause and effect scenario to me. I bet he could find a lawyer willing to test the court. So while he may lose in the end, you'd still spend the time fighting it.

I agree with ritaanz, leave it alone. If he is really talented you won't want to lose him.

Dr_Steve

Hmmmm ... based on the case study you've given us, you have what an attorney would refer to as "hearsay." IMHO, you do have sufficient information from a presumably credible source (one of your managers) to go ahead and inquire about the employee's plans ...

"Gosh, one of our managers tells me that you may be taking some parenting leave in the future. As you know, we are a family friendly company, and we want to support your needs since you are a valued employee ... etc. etc. etc. Let me give you some information about the FMLA so that when the time comes, you can fill out the paperwork and get the leave time you're entitled to."

... assuming you want to keep him. NOW ... as soon as you've read this post, get a policy and agreement together post haste with a repayment schedule and such ...

Don D

The issue as to 'the question being illegal' is a bogus notion in most states, excepting Mexifornia of course. It is NOT illegal to ask such questions. It IS, however, illegal to make negative employment decisions based on the answer to such questions. Such questions have the dreaded admonition of "DISCOURAGED". Ask away, carefully, thoughtfully, perhaps disguised as Dr. S. suggests. But be especially careful what you do following his responses.

Shadowfax

Well, if the question isn't illegal but the emp/er can't act on the response, why ask? I guess from the perspective that he may be discharged because he may make use of FMLA in the future, I can see that. As I understood the original post, the concern was that the ee was going away for good, and the issue was whether emp/er could talk to the ee about that possibility.

Don D

No, no, Shadow. It's not that you cannot act on the answer. You cannot get CAUGHT acting on the answer.

deniseE

DON!!!! xflash

I understand why these questions could be valuable to the company...but once you have the knowledge...any action taken will appear suspect.

Besides, any 1/2witted employee would tell you..."gee I'd really love to stay home, but reality calls"....

The guy was talking about a "what-if" senario....if he's doing his job well....continue on....make your FMLA policies available to the entire workforce....

Don D

Kidding Denise. Actually the original question had nothing at all to do with FMLA. All of sort of went in that direction. The initial question only dealt with whether the company should continue to invest training dollars in an employee who had said he will quit his job when he has a child. The implication is that he will be a stay at home dad, in fact that is the threads title. As I understand the question it simply is 'Is there a problem with me discussing this with the employee to determine if he is serious in order for us to evaluate continuing with him in training situations?'

And my answer agrees with those who said, let it slide. He'll change his mind twice in the meantime and even he does not know what his choice might be. And if you stop sending him to training and he stays another 40 years with the company, what have you done to yourselves?

Shadowfax

Thanks Don. No one ever 'splained it to me so eloquently before. Now, I unnerstand!

deniseE

I should have placed a x:D after the xflash !!!

I knew you were kidding!

NM _Tom

There is also the possibility of a constructive discharge claim if his employment goes south after you have asked him. I wouldnt ask.

Dr_Steve

Hi, Tom ... I don't know that the possibility of a constructive discharge claim doesn't exist regardless of whether or not you ask the EE about his alleged statement. IF in fact he has said to the manager what has been reported (and I put "IF" in caps on purpose), any plaintiff's attorney worth her/his salt will find out about the conversation and trace it back to you and the company anyway. I guess my point is that I'd rather have clarity on the issue, and then manage it appropriately. If we assume that this is a good employee that the company would like to keep, then why not work toward that goal, rather than be paralyzed into inaction because of what you've HEARD he said to someone at a conference, and because you're afraid of what might happen if he's disciplined? Acting in good faith goes a loooooonnnnng way in any legal proceeding, and I guess that's how I'd approache it ... then if the dude DOES quit, I'd chalk it up to a learning experience and get that training & repayment agreement in writing immediately before I get burned again. Another cost of doing business, I suppose ... just my two cents, FWIW.

marc

Nice summary Dr. Good thoughts and for only two cents.x;-)

Don D

What good is a constructive discharge claim unless you are either in an unemployment hearing, a lawsuit claiming mental anguish or the only state in the nation without the At-Will relationship?

Dr_Steve

Don - FWIW, I would NEVER presume to hang my hat on the "at-will doctrine," regardless of the state I'm working in ... too much erosion of the doctrine, particularly in some states including New Mexico ... just one man's opinion.

Don D

For the intelligent person, At Will is an 'Oh, by the way', not a first line of defense.

marc

Well perhaps it is the first line of defense, but it is definitely not meaningful. An almost ho-hum attempt to derail the plaintiff's which no one takes seriously. Much line the French defense of the Maginot Line in WW2. It only took the German's 6 weeks to roll over them.

Don D

It is meaningful in the following context Marc, which occurs thousands of times a year. If the ex-employee alleges no illegal discrimination or violation of his protected status in any manner, simply asserts that he wants to sue someone for firing him, you will not find an attorney to take the case in but one state. In that regard it is an excellent protection for employers. And if you do find an attorney ignorant enough to take the case you will have a judge toss it in summary judgement.

homegrown

Is there a reason why people seem to be assuming that if he quits, he'll have no desire to return in a year or three, when the child is in a preschool program or the wife wants a turn at home? I can understand the worry about recouping training expenses, since presumably he'd need to be retrained to get current. But it seems to me that a good hire today will probably be a good hire a few years down the line. I've also seen more than one professionally-adept employee become a better manager after acquiring the patience and flexibility young kids demand. Not to say that you'd want to hold a job open for him, but that he might be interested in something suitable if it came open. I don't see that it'd cost anything to hold a "no promises, but let's keep the lines open" policy.

millie

Jayhawk

Wow! I had no idea that this topic would create so much dialog amongst everyone. We decided to take the advice of a few who suggested not saying anything to the male employee. Our company does have a tuition reimbursement policy that we could fall back on to try and recoup some of the cost, however, it needs to be rewritten more specifically for any future training of this sort. Thanks to everyone for their suggestions!

Gillian3

Well, now that this has morphed into "at will" I guess I will weigh in. "At will" does protect employers, but is only the first line of defense, subject to how each individual state views "at will". California is not the only state, by far, where "at will" doesn't carry much weight. Knowledgeable employers in such states know not to rely on "at will" and know what due process means. At the other extreme are states where "at will" is not restricted very much, and populated with HR people who think that it is wonderful (tee-hee!!)

jake48

I'd fire him immediately since his comment has resulted in so much nonproductive time across this nation

Don D

[font size="1" color="#FF0000"]LAST EDITED ON 06-16-04 AT 06:05AM (CST)[/font][br][br][font size="1" color="#FF0000"]LAST EDITED ON 06-15-04 AT 08:46 PM (CST)[/font]

[font size="1" color="#FF0000"]LAST EDITED ON 06-15-04 AT 05:58 PM (CST)[/font]

Thought I'd delete this before the police did. x:-)