Reality Show for Stay-at-Home Moms

[DSTCHAOS]

Originally Posted by skylark

^^ Most employers are required to comply. (ETA: My last post wasn't clear on that point, but I was coming at it from the point of an employer who is providing maternity leave already under the act... pointing out that gender is irrelevant under the FMLA)

There are exclusions, mostly for smaller employers that cannot afford to hold a job for someone regardless of gender or circumstances.

If you're giving leave to women, then you have to give it to men, regardless. At that point, even if the FMLA doesn't require it, it becomes a Title VII issue.

Right. Smaller employers aren't required and many people work for smaller employers.

More than that, gender will always matter for many companies and taking a leave for some companies can negatively impact the employee. As I said, there are formal and informal ways that some employers can get around this act. Just as every law can be buffered by the adjustments that companies make in response to them. This is the distinction between tehnical and practical. And a lot of employees won't challenge their employers under the law or contact HR, etc. They know there may be backlash somewhere.

[skylark]

Originally Posted by DSTCHAOS

Right. Smaller employers aren't required and many people work for smaller employers.

More than that, gender will always matter for many companies and taking a leave for some companies can negatively impact the employee. As I said, there are formal and informal ways that some employers can get around this act. Just as every law can be buffered by the adjustments that companies make in response to them.

Most small employers (over 15 employees) still have to comply with Title VII, which is the issue of paternity leave (which I thought was the subject we were discussing).

FMLA regards the issue of giving leave at all... which is the reason why MOST employers do allow for post-pregnancy leave. FMLA is gender neutral, so if FMLA applies to your employer, you HAVE to allow leave, regardless of gender. Yeah, okay, there are always examples of employers getting around laws... but that is an equivalent criticism of any law.

ETA: I think we should redirect this whole discussion back to the point before we get too off track. In order to not seem like a big douche I purposely simplify my posts in order to not write like I'm giving some kind of legal treatise. If you thought you were trying to "catch me" in an error or something, you're wrong. Most laws have exclusions for this or that (small employers, public employers, etc.) but it seems a little ridiculous if you think I should be citing to them every time I post. I am pretty well-educated on employment law and I doubt you're going to find yourself running circles around me on the subject. Post away, if you want. I don't think it is a great idea to turn this into a hedging match over the FMLA. I liked the original focus of your thread and I think we should get back to it.

[DSTCHAOS]

Originally Posted by skylark

Yeah, okay, there are always examples of employers getting around laws... but that is an equivalent criticism of any law.

Yes, that's what I said.