Pregnancy/childbirth not a serious health condition?

Ms_Shepard · June 2003

I just put in my request for FMLA leave due to the impending birth of my child. I stated that I would be taking off 12 weeks and mentioned that I would be using my sick leave, and providing a Dr's note, and when this was exhausted, I will be using my vacation leave. My boss took my request to the Senior VP and he is insisting that recovering from childbirth is not a serious health condition, and that I cannot use my sick leave. (other employees have used their sick leave, but apparently they did not know about it since they are not in his department)

Your thoughts?

NaeNae55 · June 2003

How is your FMLA policy written? What have you done in the past? If you are not consistant and fail to follow your own policy, you can get into trouble quickly.

By the way, how much sick leave do you have available? I would think you could feel safe using 6 weeks of sick leave towards the birth and recovery. More if there are complications. I would have to wonder about using more than 6 weeks sick leave for a 'normal' delivery, but again, it goes back to your policy. This is just one reason why we have just one leave bank, Paid Time Off.

Good luck!

Ms_Shepard · June 2003

Thanks for your response.

Our policy only mentions that you may use sick leave for a serious medical condition. In the past, we have let women use their sick leave after childbirth only if they have a note from the doctor stating this recommendation. The Sr. VP seems not to be aware of this, as most previous leaves granted were not in his department.

I currently have about three weeks of sick leave accrued.

NaeNae55 · June 2003

You said your boss took the request to the VP. I guess your boss is the one you need to talk to then. Your boss needs to understand that the VP is not a doctor and that if a doctor signs off on your leave, that legally the company doesn't really have a choice. Your boss also needs to understand the possible legal ramifications to him/her personally if they make a bad decision in this area (not specifically by you, of course, but just in general). Finally, your boss then has an obligation to make the VP aware of all of the facts he/she has just learned. If the boss took it your request to the VP, then he/she should be able to follow up with the law and facts.

That was the easy part. The hard part will be getting all this across without ruffling any feathers and ruining any future you have there.

Good luck!

Don D · June 2003

I don't see a relationship to this ruling and your company's policies and past practices. The fact is that pregnancy and related childbirth is/are by definition serious health conditions under the FML Act, period, notwithstanding the wrong commentary coming from the Vice President's office. I would guess his background is in Finance, but that's irrelevant. It IS relevant that he is wrong. I recall a similar post a few weeks ago commenting that a Vice President had 'decided' a normal, vaginal delivery is not a serious medical condition for FMLA purposes. Where do these unqualified people get such notions? Perhaps they had drinks with a medically trained person at a pub one evening and all this judgement and knowledge just rubbed off on them. Flip to the appropriate section in the FMLA regs, run your boss a copy and highlight it.

Ms_Shepard · June 2003

Thanks Don. I liked your comments about the VP having a background in Finance. He doesn't, but I can tell he is going on the advice of our Director of Finance, who used to be in charge of HR

Don D · June 2003

Finance people typically do not understand that the art of 'creative accounting' does not extend to the daily practices within the Human Resources arena. Certain things are 'grey'. FMLA and The Pregnancy Discrimination Act are not known to be among them.

I am going to create my own truism here: "The degree to which an HR decision may be ill-founded is directly proportionate to the degree of influence which came from the minds of financial staff when the decision was determined".

System · June 2003

Don, I am longing to give that to my soon to be ex finance manager (who was my direct supervisor) on his last day.
Thanks

psrcello · June 2003

DonD,

Boy, do you have that one right! In one of my past lives, our Sr VP of Finance used to ask one of our staff accountants if she planned to have another child soon during every annual performance evaluation, because if she did, he wouldn't be giving her a salary increase. When I told him that this was ill-advised (to say the least), his response was that it was clearly a job-related question, since if she had a baby, she'd be off the job for several months and therefore didn't deserve an salary increase!

dlail · June 2003

Guys, please! I'm responsible for accounting AND HR and I bust my ass to be fair & equitable. Where I run into problems is doing what I can to facilitate STD claims, and benefits thru S125 elections, and find many ee's don't have the wherewithall to hound their doctors to complete the forms!

bethann · June 2003

I feel your frustrations. I am getting ready to go on my leave in a few weeks! I like Don D's suggestion of highlighting the FMLA and discussing it with your boss/or the VP or both. (Don always has great advise). The Law is the Law. I am using my full 12 weeks. My boss (the pres) does not like that idea, and SHE did not need that much time for her babies. My argument is that we are all individuals. I used my full 12 for the birth of my son also. It was not the birth and physical recovery (I have a 16 month old at home) that was difficult for me on my 1st child. It was emotional. I had the "baby blues" and how could I leave my precious darling with a stranger all day... I enjoyed every moment of my 12 weeks home, you should too!

dlail · June 2003

[font size="1" color="#FF0000"]LAST EDITED ON 06-30-03 AT 03:24PM (CST)[/font][p]We are only newly implementing FML, but my understanding was that a new parent is entitled to 12 consecutive weeks for bonding. This would be reduced by any previously used FML time for that 12-month period. It might not qualify as the serious health condition but qualifies w/ the newborn. Help me, FML veterans, am I way off?

Margaret Morford · June 2003

Ask any doctor any where and he/she will tell you that women get medically discharged 6 weeks after a normal delivery and 8 weeks after a normal C-Section delivery barring any complications. I think based on that, minimally, you should be able to use sick leave for 6 or 8 weeks depending upon the mode of delivery, because your doctor wouldn't medically release you before that time. Your executive is a Neanderthal!

Margaret Morford
theHRedge
615-371-8200
[email]mmorford@mleesmith.com[/email]
[url]http://www.thehredge.net[/url]

Ms_Shepard · July 2003

Thanks Margaret. I needed to hear that someone feels the same way I do. My boss has given up on the VP and basically had me re-write my request with language that doesn't mention using sick leave, unless of course my physician advises me that I should not work (which he will).

Don D · July 2003

Neanderthall's....Curmudgeons; what's this world coming to?

moneyman · July 2003

You say that your "sick leave policy" can be used for "serious conditions" only? Then, when someone calls in with the flu, for one day, does this qualify or not qualify for using sick leave? It seems that most sick leave policies that I have seen just mention that it must be the employee's illness (as opposed to taking care of a sick child) in order to take sick leave. We used to make employees use the personal/vacation accrual in order to take care of sick children. However, we fixed that by making a PTO, paid time off, bank that was used for anytime away from the office. There were a lot less headaches about what qualified for leave or not, or which time off bank to use.

Pregnancy/childbirth not a serious health condition?

Comments