Adoption Leave- My rights

It depends on how your company views the maternity leave. If its medical leave, covered under their medical policy, then it isnt discimination. Medical leave is leave offered for an employee who has a medical need to be away from work. If its just simply leave afforded to an employee by the company simply because they gave birth, then youҒd have more of an argument. Find out if the leave offered for employees of your company is considered medical paid leave, covered under AFLAC or something like that. In all fifty states, you can take unpaid family leave, with the guarantee of employment upon your return.

I would DEFINITELY consult an attorney as it is discrimination against those of us who cannot bear children. n If you want to get technical, it is discrimination based upon a physical "disability." Sarah

Most companies for maternity leave as part of their short-term disability coverage. A requirement for eligibility is that there is a medical condition (i.e. surgery, postnatal recovery, illness) to be recovered from. This is the same coverage you're eligible for should you have, say, major surgery that requires you to be out for an extended period or have a chronic illness. Since in adoption there is no medical condition being recovered from, there is no eligibility and therefore no coverage. There is no discrimination. An attorney won't help. If you had been recovering from a medical condition that made you eligible for short-term disability, you also would be entitled to coverage. What I would do is to lobby your Fortune 500 company to provide paid leave for adoption-related travel and care beyond what is covered under FMLA and their regular vacation/sick/scheduled leave policies. HTH Regina, AMom to Ryan Joshua Thomas

Regina is right -- there's no benefit in contacting an attorney. It's the same logic that is applied to a man who's wife gives birth. He isn't required to be granted paternity leave. The details of FMLA if you aren't aware is that you are given up to 3 months unpaid leave with a guarantee that your job or comparable will be reinstated. (There are restrictions when it's a small company, but since yours is Fortune 500 then it's N/A). My company also provided full benefits while on leave -- I'm not sure if that's required under FMLA or whether that is their option. I tend to think the former since I can't imagine that would be done voluntarily.

But there's a difference between paid maternity leave, as the original post mentions, and medical leave. Sure, often a mother must take medical leave due to a difficult pregnancy and/or birth, but paid maternity leave for the sake of the mother having time with the new baby is another matter entirely. Sarah

If it is indeed parental leave (i.e. offered to men as well as women) that would be true. But as Regina cited, most "maternity" leave is actually short-term disability requiring a medical condition. This is done to avoid discrimination suits brought by men, desiring the same bonding time with their new baby. Don't get me wrong, I'd love it if I got paid leave instead of unpaid. But it's just not actionable through the courts when you don't get it.

First, i think you need to carefully review the written policies of the company. It's entirely possible that the HR rep whom you spoke with just didn't know better. Here, a lawyer, one who deals in labor issues, might be helpful since they would be able to comment on the language of the actual plans and policies of your company. Furthermore, sometimes a simple lawyer letter gets HR to rethink it's position and yuo can win without much hassle. I don't think the distinction between short-term disability for maternity, which is generally an insurance benefit really matters versus paid maternity time off. but, geez, most fortune 500 companies are up to date on this stuff, so i can't imagine you're still fighting this fight in 2004. Anyway, a short law lesson -- there are basically 3 major sets of laws at work here. First, is ERISA which says that funded benefits must be fair and nondiscrimintory (so your insurance companies now tend to pay for infertility treatments.) Second, the ADA which helps to define infertility as a medical condition, and thus, can't be discriminated against. And, third Title VII of the Civil Rights Act which says you can't discriminate based on sex, pregnancy, medical conditions etc. (which extends to infertility from the ADA.) Title VII of the CRA specifically says that an employer cannot treat an employee any differently than its other employees as far as providing insurance benefits, time off from work, etc. So, most companies have transformed maternity leaves (besides the actual ST disability leave) to include paternity or parental leave including adoption. (since arguably the people who tend to adopt are the ones who tend to have the medical condition of infertility.) Now, to fight this, it could get ugly. Fortune 500 companies have far more resources than the average person. And, going this route usually is messy. Strategically, you have two obvious routes -- you do what you need to do, take the leave afforded to other fathers and face the consequences... if they fire you or something, then you have a case with damages. Or, you could seek other employement first, and sue when youre re-employed. Damages are usually harder to define then, but that's what courts are for. good luck