Family Responsibility Discrimination Update

Federal Employees Paid Parental Leave Act (H.R. 5781) Passes the House

The FMLA mandates that employers of a certain size give parents 12 weeks’ leave, and allow them to return to the same or substantially similar position. But with the exception of a few states who have enacted states requiring that some amount of this leave be paid, employers have no obligation to pay for any parental leave. Continue reading

New Employer & Workplace Study on Flexible Schedules

flextimeFamily Responsibility discrimination (FRD) and gender discrimination are the targets of many advocacy groups who work to promote family-friendly workplaces.  WorkLife Law, 9to5, and Families and Work Institute are just some of them. Families & Work Institute released a study on May 21, the 2008 National Study of Employers, which followed ten-year trends in U.S. workplace policies and benefits. The results were mixed. Continue reading

Mommy Bias – Truth or Fiction?

sketch-of-woman-balancing-baby-and-briefcase-thumbThe so-called “anti-Mommy bias” has garnered a lot of attention recently. A type of workplace discrimination, “anti-Mommy bias” is also known as maternal profiling, or family responsibility discrimination. (See this recent article in the Cincinnati Enquirer and my earlier post on Family Responsibility Discrimination). Continue reading

Just In Time for Mother’s Day: Maternal Profiling Special

mom-with-two-kidsMaternal Profiling (a subset of Family Responsibilities Discrimination, “FRD”), is employment discrimination against a woman who has, or will have, children.  Firing a newly pregnant employee. Interview questions designed to elicit details about child-care arrangements.  Just in time for Mother’s Day, here are some key points for employers about this type of workplace discrimination. Continue reading

University of Hawaii Sued for Sexual-Orientation Discrimination

Earlier this month, USA Today reported that a University of Hawaii student had filed suit against the public university for housing dicrimination. He alleged that, although he and his partner had been granted permission previously to live in the university-subsidized family housing, that permission had been revoked because the state did not recognize same-sex marriage. The couple, therefore, did not meet the criteria necessary to qualify for family housing. Continue reading