@ husband/wife sue Jones Day for discriminatory paid leave

[simpsongal]

I know we have a fair amount of lawyers on these boards....for some reason I can't c/p portions of the article for those w/o Wapo access.

Wapo link

Summary: Married, former SCOTUS law clerks are suing Jones Day for discriminatory parental leave policies.  Husband complained in an email and he was fired.

I'll admit, this gov't lawyer's initial reaction w/my lack of paid leave and substantially lower salary was GTFO. But seeing as this suit comes on the heels of another class action suit filed by women against Jones Day and the toxic big law culture....maybe it's a step in the right direction.

Major side-eye and WTF to the firm doctoring the woman's photo (per the article, lightning her skin and narrowing her nose).

ETA: Here's the link to the original complaint (thanks melmaria).  The Post article does NOT do this complaint justice.

[Velar Fricative]

I'm confused by the policy. To me, a mother who gave birth should get more time off due to medical recuperation. However, I'm guessing the issue is with providing 10 weeks of paid leave to the "primary caregiver." But either of them can be the primary caregiver, right? Or is the issue that they both work there so one person kinda has to be considered "secondary?" I'm definitely confused.

I also really want to read his e-mail.

[seeyalater52]

Aug 15, 2019 8:06:14 GMT -5 melmaria said:

It’s the fact that adoptive parents get 18 weeks of paid leave regardless of gender that makes this interesting. Their explanation there is that the “adoptive leave policy, which is gender neutral, reflects the fact that adoptive parents face unique demands on their time and finances that differ from those faced by biological parents—such as extended foreign travel and adoption-related legal and administrative hurdles.” I guess I do get that adoption has unique time/expense demands. But does giving adoptive fathers more paid time than biological fathers because of that additional time/expense constitute sex discrimination?

This makes an immense amount of sense to me. As someone who will almost certainly have to adopt from out of state, we are looking at needing to potentially travel and stay in another state for 2-3 weeks immediately prior to and after the birth of a child we are matched with. You may or may not take custody of the child during that time depending on the circumstances, so bonding may not even begin until you return home after that. That is extremely time consuming, and because you don't always know it is going to happen in advance (a not insignificant number of matches occur after a child has been born) there is not a lot of time to prepare for it (I mean you can prepare when you know you're a waiting family but since you can wait like 2-3 years for a match that isn't really the time you start actively planning to take home a newborn usually.) Then post-placement involves a number of visits and observed parenting time (how much and how involved it is depends on the state you live in as well as the state you adopted from) that both parents have to be present for, plus bonding, etc. And the whole thing costs between $30-60,000... And all that is not even counting the additional, lengthier, hurdles faced by parents adopting internationally. 

Adoptive parents (of any gender), like biological mothers, have unique circumstances that warrant the additional time, so I'm not sure that it would really constitute sex discrimination to design a policy that acknowledges that. 

Also simpsongal , would you mind putting an @ tag on this thread since the topic is parental leave and discussion includes time for birth, etc? 

[knx9211]

I'm surprised that such a large firm only gives 10 weeks paid. My small regional firm gives 12.*



*or at least I got 12 last time. now I'm part time and hourly so my leave wouldn't be paid at all

[biscoffcookies]

I will say that 10 weeks for the primary caregiver seems a bit stingy in the DC law firm world. Other firms my friends worked at gave 4 months paid leave, regardless of gender, to the primary caregiver. Both parents are eligible, and the leave doesn't have to be taken immediately after birth (so Mom can take her 4 months, then go back to work and dad can take his).

That being said, my understanding is 6-8 weeks is considered standard recuperative time from childbirth. The idea that this is discriminatory because I don't have to document that how I am disabled from childbirth seems to ignore the huge demands that pregnancy/childbirth place on your body -- even in an uncomplicated delivery -- and the fact that you need time to recover from that. If anything I think I am bristling at their implication that childbirth itself isn't sufficient evidence of needing time off to recuperate.

Also separate from the merits, they come across as very entitled (sending an email demanding what they want or a lawsuit? Was this their first communication on the matter??). Just something about the way they talk about the issue rubs me the wrong way. I can envision a different way that similarly situated people could present the case that would have me nodding along, but the way they talked about it was....unsympathetic.

[candreco]

I'm guessing at least part of their motivation is that it sounds like actually taking the allowed paternity leave isn't really encouraged- the WaPo article said "the lawsuit states that one of the firm’s most prominent male partners needled a male associate for taking parental leave, allegedly joking, 'What would a man do on parental leave — watch his wife unload the dishwasher?'"

That said, I'm shocked that they were shocked by the firm's reaction.

[Velar Fricative]

Aug 15, 2019 8:10:56 GMT -5 melmaria said:

Aug 15, 2019 7:59:27 GMT -5 Velar Fricative said:

I'm confused by the policy. To me, a mother who gave birth should get more time off due to medical recuperation. However, I'm guessing the issue is with providing 10 weeks of paid leave to the "primary caregiver." But either of them can be the primary caregiver, right? Or is the issue that they both work there so one person kinda has to be considered "secondary?" I'm definitely confused.

I also really want to read his e-mail.

I don’t know if this is an accurate characterization of the lawsuit since I haven’t read it, but this is how jones day described it in the statement linked in the article:

“Today, two former associates—Mark Savignac and Julia Sheketoff—sued Jones Day claiming that the ten weeks of paid leave and six weeks of unpaid leave Mr. Savignac was offered when he and Ms. Sheketoff had a child constituted gender discrimination because he was not eligible for the paid disability leave offered to birth mothers. Ignoring both the law and biology, Mr. Savignac and Ms. Sheketoff complain that this generous family leave policy, which is fully consistent with guidance of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, perpetuates gender stereotypes because the Firm does not require birth mothers to submit medical evidence proving that childbirth has had a physical impact on them sufficient to justify disability leave. Neither the law nor common sense requires such intrusive disclosures.”

They make it sound like the issue wasn’t primary caregiver or not, but that he couldn’t get as much paid leave as a biological mother.

ETA - from WaPo: “Savignac and Sheketoff argued that Jones Day awards mothers 18 weeks leave without regard to disability, a stance that provides “female associates more time to enable their husbands to prioritize their careers over child care.””

I think the reason I'm confused is because Jones Day's statement makes it seem so obvious that the father is in the wrong here but that can't be the full story either. And I don't quite know what the full story is from the father either. And the argument about the female associates enabling their husbands to prioritize their careers is just bizarre. Now that I read more posts I do think the argument is that a woman should show proof that she needs to recuperate form childbirth, which wtf no.

Basically, two lawyers making a million dollars in salary combined should do a better job of not confusing me lol. 

[leeba25]

I must not be awake yet, or that article is written poorly, because I can’t figure out what the man and woman got different from one another.

Anyway, there have been a number of successful lawsuits* in recent years about bonding leave, and treating women and men differently ... this primary caregiver stuff needs to end, when it comes to new babies, fostering, and adoptions. More time off can and should be granted for disability when a woman births a baby, but for bonding leave, it should either be called “bonding” or “parental” leave ... i.e. be gender- and biology- neutral.

* JP Morgan Chase and Estée Lauder are two I can think of off the top of my head. I know there are more though. Companies need to change their policies.

[ESF]

Aug 15, 2019 9:13:28 GMT -5 Velar Fricative said:

Aug 15, 2019 8:10:56 GMT -5 melmaria said:

I don’t know if this is an accurate characterization of the lawsuit since I haven’t read it, but this is how jones day described it in the statement linked in the article:

“Today, two former associates—Mark Savignac and Julia Sheketoff—sued Jones Day claiming that the ten weeks of paid leave and six weeks of unpaid leave Mr. Savignac was offered when he and Ms. Sheketoff had a child constituted gender discrimination because he was not eligible for the paid disability leave offered to birth mothers. Ignoring both the law and biology, Mr. Savignac and Ms. Sheketoff complain that this generous family leave policy, which is fully consistent with guidance of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, perpetuates gender stereotypes because the Firm does not require birth mothers to submit medical evidence proving that childbirth has had a physical impact on them sufficient to justify disability leave. Neither the law nor common sense requires such intrusive disclosures.”

They make it sound like the issue wasn’t primary caregiver or not, but that he couldn’t get as much paid leave as a biological mother.

ETA - from WaPo: “Savignac and Sheketoff argued that Jones Day awards mothers 18 weeks leave without regard to disability, a stance that provides “female associates more time to enable their husbands to prioritize their careers over child care.””

I think the reason I'm confused is because Jones Day's statement makes it seem so obvious that the father is in the wrong here but that can't be the full story either. And I don't quite know what the full story is from the father either. And the argument about the female associates enabling their husbands to prioritize their careers is just bizarre. Now that I read more posts I do think the argument is that a woman should show proof that she needs to recuperate form childbirth, which wtf no.

Basically, two lawyers making a million dollars in salary combined should do a better job of not confusing me lol. 

I think it’s the reporting. Legal Twitter is saying the complaint is exceptionally well done.

I have not read it yet or even had coffee so I could be wrong, but my understanding from Twitter is that the gist of their complaint is that equal policies and equal rights to use them are necessary to protect mothers — ie if biological mothers get better benefits and it’s not expected that men will actually use all of their lesser benefits, then women will be discriminated against, because they will be seen as the more expensive, less committed employees.


I think it’s good that these people are using their position of enormous privilege to do this. Lawyers who sue their firms don’t usually fare well. But these people both were SCOTUS clerks, so they will always be able to find great work. And are in the rare position of being married and subject to the same work policy.

[leeba25]

And reading the rest of the thread, ITA with the comments about adoption requiring additional considerations, just like infertility requires additional considerations prior to the baby getting there. In a perfect world (and progressive company - we know how many of these are out there) there are additional policies and benefits protecting and helping employees building their families in ways other than the usual.

[WOT?*]

Aug 15, 2019 9:13:28 GMT -5 Velar Fricative said:

Aug 15, 2019 8:10:56 GMT -5 melmaria said:

I don’t know if this is an accurate characterization of the lawsuit since I haven’t read it, but this is how jones day described it in the statement linked in the article:

“Today, two former associates—Mark Savignac and Julia Sheketoff—sued Jones Day claiming that the ten weeks of paid leave and six weeks of unpaid leave Mr. Savignac was offered when he and Ms. Sheketoff had a child constituted gender discrimination because he was not eligible for the paid disability leave offered to birth mothers. Ignoring both the law and biology, Mr. Savignac and Ms. Sheketoff complain that this generous family leave policy, which is fully consistent with guidance of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, perpetuates gender stereotypes because the Firm does not require birth mothers to submit medical evidence proving that childbirth has had a physical impact on them sufficient to justify disability leave. Neither the law nor common sense requires such intrusive disclosures.”

They make it sound like the issue wasn’t primary caregiver or not, but that he couldn’t get as much paid leave as a biological mother.

ETA - from WaPo: “Savignac and Sheketoff argued that Jones Day awards mothers 18 weeks leave without regard to disability, a stance that provides “female associates more time to enable their husbands to prioritize their careers over child care.””

I think the reason I'm confused is because Jones Day's statement makes it seem so obvious that the father is in the wrong here but that can't be the full story either. And I don't quite know what the full story is from the father either. And the argument about the female associates enabling their husbands to prioritize their careers is just bizarre. Now that I read more posts I do think the argument is that a woman should show proof that she needs to recuperate form childbirth, which wtf no.

Basically, two lawyers making a million dollars in salary combined should do a better job of not confusing me lol. 

At least when they're wanting to show a clear case of bias toward themselves, and not when they're supposed to be obfuscating on behalf of the client.  

[gerder3]

Aug 15, 2019 7:59:27 GMT -5 Velar Fricative said:

I'm confused by the policy. To me, a mother who gave birth should get more time off due to medical recuperation. However, I'm guessing the issue is with providing 10 weeks of paid leave to the "primary caregiver." But either of them can be the primary caregiver, right? Or is the issue that they both work there so one person kinda has to be considered "secondary?" I'm definitely confused.

I also really want to read his e-mail.

My organization recently adopted a similar policy. 42 days are granted to the caregiver that gave birth and is defined as medical leave. The remaining 42 days can be given to the "primary" provider and 21 days are allotted to the "secondary" without factoring in the gender.

It's become controversial because we are a super male-dominated org and people definitely frowned upon fathers taking leave even when it was only 10 days. More junior people have dealt with some pretty serious push-back from their supervisors when they try to take the primary caregiver leave. However if they want to deny you it needs to be escalated pretty high up, so the idea is you better have a damn good reason for denying the request. I personally love the policy.

[ECB]

My basic take away is "life isn't fair".

Women who just gave birth shouldn't have to prove they are "disabled". It goes with the territory that their bodies just had a massive event take place. Yes- I actually think women should get recuperative time along with general mat leave. It kind of pisses me off that this guy is complaining he isn't getting the same amount of time.

now, granted, leave policies in this country, and support of men taking leave, are pretty crappy for the most part.

BUT that doesn't mean that men should get exactly the same as women. If a company is super progressive and wants to do this- great. But I don't think it should be an expectation or that people should be suing over it.

And I also agree that adoption is a whole different ball of wax and should be considered separately.

[StrawberryBlondie]

I get it and support it.

DH and I both work for the same company. When I had DD, our company gave either parent 12 weeks of leave if you are the "primary caregiver" - a lot of dads took a week of vacation after their kids were born and then took the 12 weeks leave when their wives maternity leaves were over. Otherwise, non-primary caregiver leave was 2 weeks.

However, the loophole in the policy is when both parents work the same place, only one gets to take the 12 weeks. So DH had to take 2 weeks and I got the 12. TBF, FMLA has this same loophole.

There are a surprising amount of married couples at the company and I'm guessing this got to be a HR nightmare because from what I've heard it's different now and either parent gets 18 weeks to be taken any time in the first year of the kid's life.

[seeyalater52]

Aug 15, 2019 9:27:37 GMT -5 leeba25 said:

And reading the rest of the thread, ITA with the comments about adoption requiring additional considerations, just like infertility requires additional considerations prior to the baby getting there. In a perfect world (and progressive company - we know how many of these are out there) there are additional policies and benefits protecting and helping employees building their families in ways other than the usual.

TW: pregnancy loss


I agree with this too. My employer is SUPER "family friendly" but has been very accommodating of my treatment schedule nightmare (doing IVF for an entire year straight is a logistical nightmare) as well as time off after losses, while waiting to miscarry, etc. Even so, I have had to fight every step of the way for treatment that resembles the accommodations my pregnant and parenting coworkers get. Most recently I decided not to die on the hill of insisting that I should be able to miss our organizational conference because it conflicts with the most convenient time for me to do an egg retrieval, even though it is medical leave and despite the fact that employees who have children under 6 months old are automatically exempt from having to travel for this conference (or anything else) - but since I don't have a kid and this is "voluntary" I got a ton of pushback. Their argument is that other people here who have done IVF have not had to have such lengthy accommodations, but that is a bit disingenuous since it isn't my fucking fault that IVF apparently works for everyone in the world except me and other people are out there with successful, lasting pregnancies after one embryo transfer (I've had 5...) 

[ESF]

Aug 15, 2019 9:26:30 GMT -5 melmaria said:

Here is the full complaint. The comparison of the two photos is definitely problematic: www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.210211/gov.uscourts.dcd.210211.1.0.pdf

Also, I know they are former SCOTUS clerks, but filing their complaint pro se against a behemoth like Jones Day seems REALLY risky.

Thanks. On the last point -- I agree, except I can also see how the optics of this work in there favor. Jones Day DC partners are the kinds of people who think all plaintiffs' lawyers are jokes. I don't think there's a lawyer these people could have retained that would have scared them. So now Jones Day is looking at being humiliated and out maneuvered by their former associates. Literally every filing they make is evidence that Jones Day could not have filed them for work product.  So it becomes much harder for Jones Day to argue that these are just incompetent former associates using a manipulative ambulance chaser to embarrass them in a fitful act of revenge.

I also imagine they've got counsel that hasn't appeared to do behind the scenes negotiations.

As for the complaint, it's really good. The disparity in the leave policies is only a tiny part of it. It's very obvious Jones Day partner retaliated against the woman for being a woman, and they fired the man for complaining about the leave policy. Even if the leave policy isn't discriminatory, it's illegal to fire someone for good faith complaints about activity they perceive is discriminatory.

Also I think the policy, while perhaps not discriminatory on its face, has the effect of discriminating against women, who are seen as more expensive employees, as well as hurting everyone because it furthers the perception that men aren't primary caregivers, and they are right to challenge it.

[Deleted]

I admit that I don’t fully understand the complaint because honestly I’m too lazy to dig in. But one is Slate’s legal reporters, Mark Joseph Stern, said on Twitter that basically Jones Day is a rotten cesspool of discrimination. So good. Eat the rich. Destroy the patriarchy.

[cville]

The complaint is excellent. And I know that these people make literal millions and are privileged as hell, but fighting helps everyone down the line.

[cville]

Btw, they both clerked for Breyer. Which I admit makes me like them more.

[simpsongal]

Aug 15, 2019 9:26:30 GMT -5 melmaria said:

Here is the full complaint. The comparison of the two photos is definitely problematic: www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.210211/gov.uscourts.dcd.210211.1.0.pdf

Also, I know they are former SCOTUS clerks, but filing their complaint pro se against a behemoth like Jones Day seems REALLY risky.

Thank you for linking! I'll c/p the original at the top too.

I'm barely halfway through and I sort of love how they're putting it all.out.there. It's so much more than what the Post writer summarizing. Like, I get that journalists need to find an angle, but I don't think the Post writer framed this well.

Burn.it.down! Agree w/OP thanking these two for using their positions/privilege to bring this to light. Also love Jury trial demanded!

[BlondeSpiders]

Aug 15, 2019 9:00:11 GMT -5 candreco said:

I'm guessing at least part of their motivation is that it sounds like actually taking the allowed paternity leave isn't really encouraged- the WaPo article said "the lawsuit states that one of the firm’s most prominent male partners needled a male associate for taking parental leave, allegedly joking, 'What would a man do on parental leave — watch his wife unload the dishwasher?'"

That said, I'm shocked that they were shocked by the firm's reaction.

[Poppy]

I don't understand the point of having to specify who is the primary caregiver. What does that even mean? Both parents should be caregivers of equal status.

(Obviously there is historical context where women tend to be the caregiver, both in stereotype and in practice, but I don't see how that translates to the modern working world.)

Leave specifically for medical recuperation after giving birth does make sense to me.

[cville]

Aug 15, 2019 12:23:23 GMT -5 Poppy said:

I don't understand the point of having to specify who is the primary caregiver. What does that even mean? Both parents should be caregivers of equal status.

(Obviously there is historical context where women tend to be the caregiver, both in stereotype and in practice, but I don't see how that translates to the modern working world.)

Leave specifically for medical recuperation after giving birth does make sense to me.

"Primary caregiver" was a shift in terminology I saw at firms about 10+ years ago intended to reflect that there are same sex households and male/female marriages where the male does the majority of childcare/wishes to take the most leave. They all used to say "mother." I'm not saying it's enough or right in this day and age, but back then it was hella progressive for law firms.

[ESF]

Aug 15, 2019 11:34:00 GMT -5 cville said:

Btw, they both clerked for Breyer. Which I admit makes me like them more.

In the complaint, the guy also alleges that Jones Day retaliated against him for complaining, by both firing him, and by preventing two partners, both of whom were former Obama administration officials from providing him employment references.  So basically, he's a great lawyer who has the full support of the smart democrats in the office.

[Poppy]

Aug 15, 2019 12:49:34 GMT -5 cville said:

Aug 15, 2019 12:23:23 GMT -5 Poppy said:

I don't understand the point of having to specify who is the primary caregiver. What does that even mean? Both parents should be caregivers of equal status.

(Obviously there is historical context where women tend to be the caregiver, both in stereotype and in practice, but I don't see how that translates to the modern working world.)

Leave specifically for medical recuperation after giving birth does make sense to me.

"Primary caregiver" was a shift in terminology I saw at firms about 10+ years ago intended to reflect that there are same sex households and male/female marriages where the male does the majority of childcare/wishes to take the most leave. They all used to say "mother." I'm not saying it's enough or right in this day and age, but back then it was hella progressive for law firms.

I mean, I'll take progress where I can get it. But it just doesn't even make sense to me. Like do they need to somehow justify why they are the primary?

It seems like it just is another way to implicitly discourage people from taking leave. Because realistically, who at a big law firm can also be the 'primary' caregiver?

[cville]

Aug 15, 2019 13:37:15 GMT -5 Poppy said:

Aug 15, 2019 12:49:34 GMT -5 cville said:

"Primary caregiver" was a shift in terminology I saw at firms about 10+ years ago intended to reflect that there are same sex households and male/female marriages where the male does the majority of childcare/wishes to take the most leave. They all used to say "mother." I'm not saying it's enough or right in this day and age, but back then it was hella progressive for law firms.

I mean, I'll take progress where I can get it. But it just doesn't even make sense to me. Like do they need to somehow justify why they are the primary?

It seems like it just is another way to implicitly discourage people from taking leave. Because realistically, who at a big law firm can also be the 'primary' caregiver?

No, no justification. The only restriction I recall is that both parents cannot be "primary." And I did plenty of parenting while in big law.

Big law has a shitton of problems and many out of date concepts, but the term "primary caregiver" when used in the context of paid leave doesn't get my hackles up the way firing people for asking for leave or making people of color look whiter on firm photos does.

[Poppy]

Aug 15, 2019 13:47:40 GMT -5 cville said:

Aug 15, 2019 13:37:15 GMT -5 Poppy said:

I mean, I'll take progress where I can get it. But it just doesn't even make sense to me. Like do they need to somehow justify why they are the primary?

It seems like it just is another way to implicitly discourage people from taking leave. Because realistically, who at a big law firm can also be the 'primary' caregiver?

No, no justification. The only restriction I recall is that both parents cannot be "primary." And I did plenty of parenting while in big law.

Big law has a shitton of problems and many out of date concepts, but the term "primary caregiver" when used in the context of paid leave doesn't get my hackles up the way firing people for asking for leave or making people of color look whiter on firm photos does.

Great points. Those things are absolutely worse! This is just a tangent.

Just want to clarify that I don't in any way doubt that lawyers can also parent, and parent well. But presumably they need a lot of support, from a co-parent or otherwise, at least based on what I've read here about what the job entails. The policy just seems to be daring people to claim that they are 'primary' so they can be discriminated against unofficially.

[ellipses84]

Aug 15, 2019 12:58:19 GMT -5 ESF said:

Aug 15, 2019 11:34:00 GMT -5 cville said:

Btw, they both clerked for Breyer. Which I admit makes me like them more.

In the complaint, the guy also alleges that Jones Day retaliated against him for complaining, by both firing him, and by preventing two partners, both of whom were former Obama administration officials from providing him employment references.  So basically, he's a great lawyer who has the full support of the smart democrats in the office.

I can see their argument about the leave, but I think firing him will definitely be viewed as retaliation and they’ll have to pay him for lost wages+.

[goldengirlz]

Aug 15, 2019 10:40:05 GMT -5 ESF said:

Aug 15, 2019 9:26:30 GMT -5 melmaria said:

Here is the full complaint. The comparison of the two photos is definitely problematic: www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.210211/gov.uscourts.dcd.210211.1.0.pdf

Also, I know they are former SCOTUS clerks, but filing their complaint pro se against a behemoth like Jones Day seems REALLY risky.

Thanks. On the last point -- I agree, except I can also see how the optics of this work in there favor. Jones Day DC partners are the kinds of people who think all plaintiffs' lawyers are jokes. I don't think there's a lawyer these people could have retained that would have scared them. So now Jones Day is looking at being humiliated and out maneuvered by their former associates. Literally every filing they make is evidence that Jones Day could not have filed them for work product.  So it becomes much harder for Jones Day to argue that these are just incompetent former associates using a manipulative ambulance chaser to embarrass them in a fitful act of revenge.

I also imagine they've got counsel that hasn't appeared to do behind the scenes negotiations.

As for the complaint, it's really good. The disparity in the leave policies is only a tiny part of it. It's very obvious Jones Day partner retaliated against the woman for being a woman, and they fired the man for complaining about the leave policy. Even if the leave policy isn't discriminatory, it's illegal to fire someone for good faith complaints about activity they perceive is discriminatory.

Also I think the policy, while perhaps not discriminatory on its face, has the effect of discriminating against women, who are seen as more expensive employees, as well as hurting everyone because it furthers the perception that men aren't primary caregivers, and they are right to challenge it.

This is why I don’t like the argument that it’s not discriminatory because women need more time to recover. Recovery certainly CAN be hard and I’m not trying to take that away from anyone who had a difficult delivery. But the physical part was not even close to the worst of it (and is already protected under FMLA). Parental leave is about giving parents the time and space to bond with their new family member, and that’s crucial to women AND men. Also, let’s remember that it takes a village. My H got a measly 36 hours of leave (basically a sick day and a half) and my physical recovery was fine but my mental health suffered terribly because I had a colicky baby and no relief. (Back then, we certainly weren’t making anywhere close to $1.25m like this couple and we didn’t have ample — or any — funds for help.) Not to mention that many parents choose to stagger their leave so someone can be home with the baby for longer. I have absolutely nothing against daycare — DD went starting at 11 weeks — but there are also benefits to men being home on their own with the baby for a while.

One of the things I love about my company is that men actually take leave and (as far as I know) no one cares. It comes from the leadership down because even senior people will take leave. So I say burn it down. As unsympathetic as these people may seem due to their wealth and extreme privilege, I’ll side with them 100 times over when the other option is being Team Big Law.

[aliciabella]

Aug 15, 2019 8:22:31 GMT -5 seeyalater52 said:

Aug 15, 2019 8:06:14 GMT -5 melmaria said:

It’s the fact that adoptive parents get 18 weeks of paid leave regardless of gender that makes this interesting. Their explanation there is that the “adoptive leave policy, which is gender neutral, reflects the fact that adoptive parents face unique demands on their time and finances that differ from those faced by biological parents—such as extended foreign travel and adoption-related legal and administrative hurdles.” I guess I do get that adoption has unique time/expense demands. But does giving adoptive fathers more paid time than biological fathers because of that additional time/expense constitute sex discrimination?

This makes an immense amount of sense to me. As someone who will almost certainly have to adopt from out of state, we are looking at needing to potentially travel and stay in another state for 2-3 weeks immediately prior to and after the birth of a child we are matched with. You may or may not take custody of the child during that time depending on the circumstances, so bonding may not even begin until you return home after that. That is extremely time consuming, and because you don't always know it is going to happen in advance (a not insignificant number of matches occur after a child has been born) there is not a lot of time to prepare for it (I mean you can prepare when you know you're a waiting family but since you can wait like 2-3 years for a match that isn't really the time you start actively planning to take home a newborn usually.) Then post-placement involves a number of visits and observed parenting time (how much and how involved it is depends on the state you live in as well as the state you adopted from) that both parents have to be present for, plus bonding, etc. And the whole thing costs between $30-60,000... And all that is not even counting the additional, lengthier, hurdles faced by parents adopting internationally. 

Adoptive parents (of any gender), like biological mothers, have unique circumstances that warrant the additional time, so I'm not sure that it would really constitute sex discrimination to design a policy that acknowledges that. 

Also simpsongal , would you mind putting an @ tag on this thread since the topic is parental leave and discussion includes time for birth, etc? 

It would only be sex discrimination if the adoptive father was not offered the same amount of time as the adoptive mother.



ETA: I deleted. I was completely wrong! Sorry. I didn't see the primary caregiver clause and assumed the 10 weeks applied to both parents and thought he was complaining about not getting the extra disability time off. I also assume with them both working there they can't just say they are the primary caregiver even if they aren't.. Also, fuck that company for firing him after this complaint