Pregnancy Leave

System

I have an ee that went out on pregnancy leave several weeks before her due date due to complications. She's since had her baby by c-section and tells us she has a doctor's appointment for her 8 weeks check-up. This employee did not qualify for FMLA, only employed for eight months.

I have two questions:

1 - do we have to give her a job once she is released at her 8 week check-up?

2 - If the doctor allows her a couple more weeks due to some type of complication, do we still need to hold a job for her?

Thanks!

juju

[font size="1" color="#FF0000"]LAST EDITED ON 08-07-03 AT 11:26AM (CST)[/font][p]Since the employee doesn't qualify for FMLA, I think the answer to both questions would lie in the policies your company has in place governing medical leaves (the fact that it is a pregnancy shouldn't make a difference in this case). What kind of time limit do you allow employees to be off work if they don't qualify for FMLA? I assume there must be some amount of time since she was allowed to take the leave in the first place. What was discussed with her when she first went out? If we had an employee who needed to be out for medical reasons but did not qualify for any of our leaves, we would ask that they resign and re-apply once they are again able to work.

You might also want to check your state's laws regarding medical leaves - sometimes they do separate out pregnancy from other types of leaves.

Whatever

Why is the ee contacting you about her medical appointments? Did you make any arrangement with her prior to her going out? If so, what is it? Finally, does Georgia have any kind of medical leave act? If the answer to all the above is no, you have no obligation. If the answer to any are yes, obviously I need more information.

cthr

How would you treat someone who was out for some other type of disability? If you would allow them the time then under the PDA you would have to treat her the same way.

mbeam

Was the individual aware that she may not be covered under FMLA prior to taking leave? We have found that sending a letter upon notice of pregnancy (either verifying eligibilty or notifying that they aren't eligible)has helped make it clear for our employees.

HRQ

I thought maternity leave was to be designated FML, regardless of whether or not the employee meets the length of service/hours worked requirements.

Is this not the case because the early leave (before delivery) and extension of leave are due to complications of her pregnancy/c-section, as opposed to simply taking leave because of the delivery of the child and bonding time with the child?

Sorry to add on another question, but this confused me!

System

The employee would only qualify if she had been employed for 12 months. This employee had only worked for the employer for six months so she was not covered under the FMLA.

juju

Nothing should be designated FMLA if the length of service and hours worked criteria aren't met. Pregnancy should be treated the same as any other health condition. Now if the employee WAS eligible for FMLA and went out early due to pregnancy complications, the FMLA clock would start ticking at that time. Therefore, the mother may not have the full 12 weeks after the birth to recover and bond because some of that time was used before the birth.

HRQ

Where in the wild world of sports (to quote Parabeagle) did I come up with THAT one? (That 1250 hrs/12 months are not required for eligibility for maternity leave) I've set quite a precedent for my company.

If I remember correctly, I was told this by another HR person who, at the time, I thought knew all there was to know. This was many years ago.

Boy is my face red.

Fellow forumites, how do I move forward from this one? Can I? Do I grandfather existing pregnant/non-eligible employees and state the requirements correctly, moving forward? Or was I actually correct on some level? Or am I stuck?

I appreciate any help you can give me!

CAL

I'm reaching here, but maybe your former colleague was citing California Pregnacy Disability Leave, which does not have any minimum length of service attached to it.

HRQ

She'd never worked nor lived in CA, so maybe she kind of came up with it on her own, as people sometimes do. Or maybe I just plain old misunderstood her when I was in training as a new HR person. THAT could never happen! x:-8 I'm just still in shock that I've operated under this misconception for eight years now. It's to the employee's benefit, so I can see why nobody called me on it.

Anyway, my question still stands: how do I move forward from this and handle new maternity leave requests from employees who are ineligible for FML?

By year-end, I will finish revising the employe handbook. Does it make sense to add a maternity blurb to our FML policy and start enforcing correctly once the revised handbook is out there?? Or do I just start enforcing it correctly immediately?

NaeNae55

If I understand you correctly, you have set a precedent and want to correct it (right?) You will catch *@&;$ from anyone who is already pregnant if you suddenly change, and might even end up having to defend your actions in court. If this was my problem, I would set a future date for the change (like 1/1). I would make sure everyone understands the new policy well ahead of time, but I would also allow those who are already pregnant to be grandfathered in under the old policy. That seems to me to be the best way to avoid an expensive and time consuming lawsuit (not to mention employee moral).

I guess having said that I should also mention that I get on here to learn, not to share my knowledge (have very little of that) so with me you really take your chances.

Good luck!

Balloonman

[font size="1" color="#FF0000"]LAST EDITED ON 08-22-03 AT 04:25PM (CST)[/font][p]Well well HRQ is human, he made a mistake! Just kidding. Hey if you knew it all you would scare me. If you are revising your handbook I would correct it then and leave it go. I guess the big question is do you currently have many pregnant employees that this would affect? That is the only group in question. Otherwise correct it and go on. x:D
NaeNae is right though, announce it now, grandfather in those who have currently notified you prior to posting the change that they are pregnant.
My $0.02 worth.
DJ The Balloonman

ps. DO NOT I repeat do not beat yourself up over it.......life is to short.

HRQ

Thanks, NaeNae55 and Balloonman!

I don't know how many pregnant/ineligible employees I have right now. I am aware of one, but with about 95% of our employees being female, there are probably more that I don't know about.

It makes sense to grandfather pregnant/ineligible employees hired prior to the distribution of the revised policy, then handle correctly moving forward.

By the way, HRQ is female! HRQ stands for HR Queen, although I guess that could be either gender depending on one's lifestyle. x:7

Don D

I agree with the guy who has all those balloons! It's very timely that you're redoing your handbook now. Correct the policy and move on by not calling attention to your earlier interpretation in the new handbook. An attorney would love to see you point that out. You might consider not only grandfathering in those who are pregnant who you have provided the current policy to; but also state an effective date beginning nine months from the day the new policy hits the presses. If you think your publishing date will be way out there, say January or March of '04, I would put out a policy statement NOW regarding this one item only and making it effective nine months from the date your memo goes out. Regarding your discomfort over doing it this way for the past eight years, I suggest you look at that like I did the other day when I slipped in liquid and busted my butt on the concrete production floor.....I first looked in all directions to see who saw me! You may realize that for the past eight years, nobody even noticed. x:-) But, just to clear this new policy, I would go sit down with the top executive and explain the long standing policy and its implications and tell him that the current law does not require this, and see if he/she wants the old one continued. Having support from that level for whichever direction you go will be comforting. HE IS GOING TO FIND OUT ANYWAY; so it might as well be from you with your own spin on it.

HRQ

Don D, you were right. Nobody noticed, but not because of their ignorance, rather because this apparently was our practice even before I arrived. Talk about coincidence.

I talked to our VP and she wishes to continue the practice because it is such a huge benefit to our largely female team. I agree. I took six weeks off for maternity leave, just two months after I was hired. I'll also run it by my boss, after I've considered my "spin". (How 'bout - this was in effect for years, not sure he already knew about it, need to make sure it's OK to contine?)

Will I cause a precedent problem by allowing employees to take maternity leave without first meeting the length of service requirements, and NOT allowing medically related leave for others who don't meet the LOS requirements, as long as it is in our policy and consistently enforced? I don't think so, but I don't want to assume anything at this point.

By the way, I hope your butt is feeling better. I once tripped down some shallow stairs while walking toward our GM and new Sales Director. Landed on my hands and knees. This was at the sun deck of the swimming pool at the hotel where I worked, in front of plenty of guests. I looked up to see who noticed, and most did. x:D

njjel

It is my understanding that all disability leaves are to be treated the same regardless of the illness/disability. I think you can definitely have a problem if you treat pregnancy different (even tho it is for their benefit).

HRQ

So either we stop allowing non-eligibles to take maternity leave or we allow all non-eligibles to take medically related leave.

Thanks everyone for your input. This has been a huge help - all for the bargain price of whatever it is I pay for my subscription.

Don D

[font size="1" color="#FF0000"]LAST EDITED ON 08-27-03 AT 09:40AM (CST)[/font][p]I agree that you must apply this same practice to males who are absent due to temporary medical reasons. Having a 'largely female workforce' and having a practice that provides a safety net for only that population is going to cause you problems. And, for that matter, the practice must also embrace those females who are either not in the childbirthing business or who have chronologically passed that opportunity.