PDA

View Full Version : Family and Medical Leave Act!!!



farsk
06-19-2003, 09:33 PM
Hi everyone!

Prepare for a major rant! I am lucky enough to have an employer that has allowed me 12 weeks of paid leave, using my sick time for every bit of it. Yay for me. My husband wants to take off four weeks after his daughter is born....he has over 30 days of accrued sick leave...has not taken one..not one sick day in the three years he has worked for his employer. We worked on his request for leave working straight out of his employee's handbook section on the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993. He meets every criteria to be able to use his sick leave for this purpose. But the personnel manager "isn't too sure about this." I should also mention that he has a female co-worker who is expecting who had no trouble using her sick time after her baby is born. SEXIST DOUBLE STANDARD!!!!!

I'm at my wit's end! He has "vacation" time to cover this...but he shouldn't have to use it! Has anyone had experience with a situation like this. Oh, I forgot to mention, my husband works in the wellness department of a hospital. How's that?!?

Thanks! I look forward to your comments!

-Shannon
Mom to Ellen (edd 7/28/2003)

LD92599
06-19-2003, 09:49 PM
As far as I know, it's a federal law that your DH is allowed to take up to 12 weeks off. My DH is currently at home til mid-August caring for DS under FMLA. I think by law the hospital can force your DH to use all of his sick and vacation time. My DH is taking his 12 weeks unpaid...also a good way for us to "test the waters" for him to become a SAHD. Your DH should go right to the HR department, which is what my DH did.

Laura
mom to William 3.5.2003

Momof3Labs
06-19-2003, 10:06 PM
I got 16 weeks unpaid under my company's version of the FMLA. In order to get paid for some of that time, I got six weeks of short term disability (for a vaginal birth) and then used vacation time. Several weeks were still unpaid. I wanted to take my vacation time at the end of my leave (thus extending the leave) and they would not allow that.

I think the reason that they won't allow your husband to take the sick leave is because the reason for his absence doesn't fall under a sickness/disability (while the female co-worker giving birth will fall under a disability definition). But they do allow him to take time (unpaid or paid using vacation time) under FMLA, right?

Honestly, it doesn't sound unreasonable or like a double standard to me. It just reflects physical ability to return to work following the birth of a baby - which is naturally different for a man and a woman.

Marisa6826
06-19-2003, 10:30 PM
As much as I completely agree that he should be able to use his sick time, I think the FMLA is only unpaid time. I would take it to the head of the hospital and make as much noise about it as you can!

I was able to get 26w disability total due to complications during my pregnancy.

-m

lvp49
06-20-2003, 07:42 AM
They are not allowed to refuse FMLA. The employer can require you to use all accrued time, or it can be totally unpaid, but it can not be refused.

However, if he must fight for it, I would say that you both should consider the potential for career repercussions upon his return. Unethical and sleazy, yes, but it does happen.

egoldber
06-20-2003, 07:54 AM
If the company meets the criteria for FMLA, then they cannot refuse him FMLA. But FMLA is unpaid time. As Lori said, he probably does not meet the criteria for using his sick time for this purpose. Some companies are very strict about what you can use sick time for. And in the company I used to work for, if you had more than 5 days sick in a row, that automatically triggered a short term disability case, which is not something you want to do.

My DH took a week off work after DD was born and his boss just "gave" him that time, nudge wink style, under the table. Maybe he can work something out with his direct boss without involving HR, who often have their hands tied about what options they can offer.

The fact is that leave for new parents just sucks in this country.

bethwl
06-20-2003, 11:09 AM
If your husband's company stipulates that sick time is only to be used for when the employee him/herself is sick, then he can't use that. However, every employer I've ever had has also allowed sick time to be used to care for a sick family member. If that is the case, then he should certainly be allowed to use sick time (you could say he's caring for you and you're "sick" in that you're recovering from pregnancy and birth). But otherwise, they should let him use his vacation, or he will have to take it unpaid. As others have said, they can't deny him the time, but it may have to be unpaid.

Beth

houseof3boys
06-20-2003, 03:51 PM
I can totally relate!!! DH was in the same situation with his sick time being maxed out since he hasn't taken a day in years. He was "allowed" to take a week of sick and had to use vacation time for the rest of the week he took off after Ryan was born. Unbelievable!!!!

I do find it unreal that in the wellness dept. of a hospital this is the kind of attitude he is dealing with. Sorry! I hope it works out and they are able to do something as a work around for you both.

Jenmv
06-21-2003, 01:32 PM
I took 12 weeks under FMLA, 6 weeks paid and the rest vacation time. The HR people where I work said I could not use sick time because I was not technically sick. I almost never call in sick, not even when I was pregnant and I have always felt that it was wrong to call in sick when you're not, but guess what I won't anymore ;).

farsk
07-09-2003, 04:22 PM
Hi everyone!

Thought you might like an update.

DH met with the HR person of the hospital who had papers of his own that were highlighted and had the nerve to call pregnancy an illness. Granted, I havn't felt the best since becoming pregnant, but I have certainly felt worse. DH rationalized that if it were an illness, all mammals would require medical treatment for it....look at the animal kingdom, they birth babies quite well, but can't treat cancer (don't misunderstand....I want a fully hospitalized and pain-medication available birth!haha!)

Anyway, so he set up a consultation meeting with an attorney that I had worked for while in college. He agreed that the language in the Employee Handbook was vague enough that DH should be allowed to use his sick time, by the time that this issue would be litigated, Ellen would be 3-years-old! Hardly worth it! In addition, he said that it could negatively impact DH's job.

So now it has become my mission in life (other than trying to be a good mom) to make employers and our legislators realize that not only do babies and new mommies need the daddies home after the birth, the daddies need it too!--and "pregnant men" should have all of the rights to accrued sick time as we women do!

I just want DH to be the one taking care of us, not my mom and definately not my MIL!

Thanks!
-Shannon
Mom to Ellen (edd 7/28/2003)

alkagift
07-11-2003, 12:09 PM
Shannon,
Your HR manager misspoke when he/she said that pregancy was an illness. It's more accurate to say that the recovery time from the birth is considered an "illness" or more typically referred to as a "temporary disability." Some women's pregnancies are also classified under this type of category and eligible for FMLA time away from work if the doctor demands it--bed rest, for example.

The FMLA is available to your husband, but it is completely unpaid, as Beth and other people mentioned. If the hospital's policy says that personal sick time can be used to take care of a sick family member, then I would make the argument that you are sick after the baby is born as long as your doctor says you're disabled (which most OB's say is between 6-8 weeks). He should be able to use his sick leave during that time. There's probably no successful argument that would allow the full 12 week time to sick leave since your own OB wouldn't say you were "disabled" or "ill" all that time.

You're right, it isn't worth fighting over in the court, but it would be worth a meeting with or a letter to the Director or VP of Human Resources, not just a manager level--not because the HR Manager isn't telling you the truth, but because he or she doesn't have the power to change the policy. If you're worried about retribution, your DH could wait until it was all over and he was back at work to request a meeting--that way he would be helping the next person. I have found, however, that most employees' fear of retribution (as one poster mentioned) is very much an exaggeration of what really goes on--the larger the company, the less likely that occurs--particularly if you're complaining to the HR department about the HR policy.

Allison
Mom to Matthew Clayton, 5/19/03