Mine is protected for two years. One year, and the position I left is guaranteed; two years, and I am just guaranteed to have a job waiting in my area of certification.
Mine is exactly this. I could be laid off, in theory.
Mine is protected for two years. One year, and the position I left is guaranteed; two years, and I am just guaranteed to have a job waiting in my area of certification.
Mine is exactly this. I could be laid off, in theory.
Same here(I was a teacher). I was actually half time at the time, and then laid off the next year(2011-2012).
The thing about going back after 12 weeks had to do with insurance--I would lose it if I didn't pay for it.
Post by cookiemdough on May 29, 2012 18:55:54 GMT -5
I am not sure what you are asking. There are no regulations past the 12 weeks that would hold your job. My job was protected because that was the company's policy to allow women to take 6 months maternity leave. I suppose they could have fired me if it hadn't been their company policy to allow for more leave.
Post by karinothing on May 29, 2012 19:07:51 GMT -5
There is no regulation protecting my job but I asked for time off and it was approved. I supposed I could have been laid off but federal gov layoffs are pretty rare. I think it would be kind of sucky for someone to approve your leave and then fire you....
I am not sure what you are asking. There are no regulations past the 12 weeks that would hold your job. My job was protected because that was the company's policy to allow women to take 6 months maternity leave. I suppose they could have fired me if it hadn't been their company policy to allow for more leave.
Well I guess the questions are:
1) If your company has a policy to allow more leave, can they be held accountable to it? Are those policies legally binding?
2) If you just had an agreement with your boss, let's say an e-mail where you agreed that 16 weeks was allowable, would that be binding?
Or for both of the above, are you just trusting?
(Mainly curious, my current plan is to do 12 weeks FMLA then a week vacation)
I guess you could argue that you had a contract to take this amount of time off and that they were in violation of the contract if they fire you for being gone.
We have a really firm leave policy though. I put in an official request and it was signed and approved. It would never occur to me that they would let me go for being on leave. BUT I work for the federal government so things are different.
Our company allows 16 weeks leave with return to your position per child, so twins is double and higher multiples are handled on a case by case basis. Longer unpaid leaves can be requested and technically they don't guarantee the same position but if it is under 6 months people return to the same. I haven't known anyone that took longer. MA is an at will state so I presume they could fire us while on leave. You have to really really screw up to get fired so it isn't a concern.
Post by Wines Not Whines on May 29, 2012 20:15:44 GMT -5
I had 6 months maternity leave under my employer's policy. I felt fairly safe, because many other people had taken 6 months and went back to work with no problems. It wasn't binding under federal law though.
Post by tardyfortheparty on May 29, 2012 20:23:19 GMT -5
I'm a teacher and am on 1 yr leave now. I could have requested a 2nd yr but it has to be approved. 1yr is guaranteed. Itook 5 mos when my first child was born (born in March, went back to work at end of August).
I am not sure what you are asking. There are no regulations past the 12 weeks that would hold your job. My job was protected because that was the company's policy to allow women to take 6 months maternity leave. I suppose they could have fired me if it hadn't been their company policy to allow for more leave.
Well I guess the questions are:
1) If your company has a policy to allow more leave, can they be held accountable to it? Are those policies legally binding?
2) If you just had an agreement with your boss, let's say an e-mail where you agreed that 16 weeks was allowable, would that be binding?
Or for both of the above, are you just trusting?
(Mainly curious, my current plan is to do 12 weeks FMLA then a week vacation)
I think it would be hard for them to fire me for taking more than 12 weeks because several woman have taken advantage of that policy. It would be sticky for them to then turn around a fire me for essentially doing the same thing, even though it is not written.
Since you are not comfortable and don't want to further confirm, I would definitely keep a copy of the documentation indicating their consent to you taking additional leave. But yes presumably if they had a riff, I don't think you would be protected after 12 weeks. I work for the gov so I wasn't worried about layoffs.
Post by Wordtothewise on May 29, 2012 21:50:34 GMT -5
We get 3 months paid leave, but I ended up taking 6 months. They could have fired me but they aren't the type of place to do that over an extended mat leave. We have one woman who has been out for 13 months. They are still hoping she comes back...
Post by dcrunnergirl on May 30, 2012 6:39:14 GMT -5
I took 4 months/16 weeks off. My job at the time was in DC, and the District's FMLA law allows for up to 16w protected. However, I'd been at my company for over 10 years, so even if it wasn't the law, I'm fairly certain they would have held my job up to a year for me.
I am pretty sure I would have been fired if o tried to take off more, I have a very specialized position that others would kill for.
But I don't get this. Like, if you asked for 16 weeks they would have jsut said "I am sorry you are fired" Why wouldn't they just say no you need to come back?
I mean I guess before FMLA peopel did use to be approved for leave and then be let go for taking that leave. But it just seems weird to me. I don't get why the company just didn't say "no"
CA extends job protection to I think 20 weeks. I was out 17 total. I knew I was fine, they waited until I returned to take my portion of health insurance, and I was granted stock options while I was out.
My job is protected for 4mos under state law. That meant 17 wks when I had DD. My employer is great and I could have extended it without worrying about losing my job. But I did not want to pay 100% of the health insurance premium which is about $2000/mo. I decided to go back part time instead.
Mine was sort of protected. My company offers up to 6 months of ML and they will hold your job for that time (assuming you would have had a job otherwise, if your team is all let go you will be too). Obviously it wasn't federally protected so I think they could have changed their minds if they really wanted to. I took 4 months the first time, 4.5 months the second time, and nearly 5 months the third time.
I didn't need the health insurance since my DH is military and I use TriCare, but if I didn't have that I would have had to pay COBRA after 12 weeks, which is some absolutely ridiculous sum and that would have made it hard to take over 12 weeks otherwise.
I took 6 months off and wasn't worried about job protection.
1. My supervisor had to sign off on my extended leave. I had told her my intentions about length of leave and my planned return date when I was about 8 weeks pg, so it was not a surprise to her.
2. Based on our union's contract, any layoffs have to be done according to seniority and I have a lot of it.
3. My position also has civil service protection, so I can't be terminated at will.
My firm's leave policy offers 12 weeks paid. I took that, then got formal approval for an additional 6 weeks unpaid, for 18 weeks total. I don't think they would have been legally prohibited from firing me for taking additional leave, but I was not worried about it. They would not approve the leave then firm someone for taking it.
FWIW, I found out later on a big role in my firm deciding to lay me off over another attorney was my extended maternity leave/bed rest. I was back for almost 3 months when I was laid off.
Just because you are protected while you are out doesn't mean you are safe when you get back. (unless you are a government employee and/or have union protection like starlily)
Mine was protected. After your ML runs out they offered up to 12 more weeks of unpaid "family bonding time". I took the rest of my vacation I had left and then an additional 8 weeks unpaid. I was gone for 5 months between going on STD about a month before they were born, 8 weeks ml and then my 2 months unpaid.
FWIW, I found out later on a big role in my firm deciding to lay me off over another attorney was my extended maternity leave/bed rest. I was back for almost 3 months when I was laid off.
Just because you are protected while you are out doesn't mean you are safe when you get back. (unless you are a government employee and/or have union protection like starlily)
Ugh, that sucks. I definitely think extended leaves, flexible work arrangements, etc. make people more susceptible to lay offs. The last two people we laid off/fired in my office were moms with felxible work arrangements who had taken leave relatively recently (though neither took extended leave). This fact has not escaped me.
CA extends job protection to I think 20 weeks. I was out 17 total. I knew I was fine, they waited until I returned to take my portion of health insurance, and I was granted stock options while I was out.
Nope ... Like FMLA, its entirely dependent on # of em'ees. My firm was too small to be covered by FMLA. CA is a rarity b/c the offer paid family leave to both parents.
Mine was protected because California offers additional job protection after FMLA. I ended up coming back after 16 weeks because of work demands, but I also felt ready.
Love of my life baby boy born 11/11. One and done not by choice; 3 years of TTC yielded 4 MMC and 2 CPs, through 4 IUIs and 2 IVFs. Focusing on making the world a better place instead...and running.
I am taking 10 weeks of leave and then I have off all summer (teacher). My position is protected, though i am not sure if I could be transferred (the school system I work for is large). Unless something changes, I will be staying in the same position, though I am moving classrooms. Boo to that.