| Author |
Maternity (answered by EBG) |
yessir
Joined: Apr 01, 2002
Posts: 2 |  Posted: 2002-04-01 09:28
Our marketing manager is going to be taking maternity leave, and she is a salaried employee. Does she continue receiving her salary as if she is working, while on leave?
|
clapierre
Joined: Sep 13, 2001
Posts: 254 | Posted: 2002-04-01 10:34
What is your policy on maternity and/or other types of leave? We require our employees to use thier accrued sick time and then they can collect STD up to 6 weeks for natural and 8 weeks for c section. We also give them the option of using their vacation time.
|
yessir
Joined: Apr 01, 2002
Posts: 2 | Posted: 2002-04-01 12:47
We've never had a salaried person pregnant. Hourly employees can use sick time, but since she is on salary she doesn't use "sick" or "vacation" time, she just gets paid when she is gone as if she was there. That is why I am not sure how this is supposed to work.
|
Hatchetman
Joined: Sep 13, 2001
Posts: 1609 | Posted: 2002-04-01 13:31
Maternity leave -- the time after the baby is born, now called "baby-bonding," generally. That's what you mean by maternity leave.
That falls under FMLA -- so does pregnancy disability leave.
In this case, since maternity leave would be considered a personal time off, you could deduct the full day's absence or if she falls under FMLA, then partial day's absence without affecting her exempt status.
The FLSA regulations do provide that if an exempt employee is absent for personal reasons in full day increments -- meaning taking time off to handle personal affairs (and baby-bonding certainly is one) the exempt status is not affected if deductions are made from the employee's salary in full day increments. FMLA allows the partial day's absence for baby-bonding leave if the employer okays such reduced leave(partial days instead of full days) under FMLA.
|
Forum Hosts
Legal Forum Host
Joined: Dec 20, 2001
Posts: 521 | Posted: 2002-04-02 05:20
Quote:
|
On 2002-04-01 12:47, yessir wrote:
Hourly employees can use sick time, but since she is on salary she doesn't use "sick" or "vacation" time, she just gets paid when she is gone as if she was there.
|
|
I think your questions and the policy you describe raises a whole bunch of issues you should carefully consider. Let us start with a few basics.
(a) Maternity Leave. We really do not talk about maternity leave anymore because there is some question as to whether it is lawful. Maternity leave implies that women are entitled to some leave benefit as a result of giving birth to which men are not entitled. "Parental" leave is governed by state and federal leave laws (like the FMLA, which provides for up to 12 weeks of unpaid leave) and the 1972 Pregnancy Discrimination Act mandates that an employer treat pregnancy-related disability the same as any other kind of disability. Thus, an employer should NOT provide mothers with "baby-bonding" leave that it does not also provide to men.
(b) If an employer provides for paid leave (sick or otherwise) to a mother for the birth of a baby and that leave exceeds the period of actual disability, then the employer might have to provide the same period of paid leave to a father.
(c) Salary Status. The Federal Fair Labor Standards Act permits an employer to withhold salary in full day increments. Some state wage and hours laws, however, DO NOT. An employee gets to take advantage of the most beneficial of the two. Thus, just because it is permissible under the FLSA does not mean an employer can do it under state law.
(d) Unlimited leave is permissible for any employee and is not uncommon for exempts. In truth, however, such leave is not really unlimited and that makes administration in a consistent and non-discriminatory manner a problem. An employer must make sure that it treats men and women the same when it comes to administering an unlimited leave policy and that can be very hard in the real world.
(d) The FLSA and (I believe) almost all state wage and hour laws permit an employer to withhold salary for an employee using unpaid FMLA leave.
How does this work? Well, let me suggest the following. About to be mother takes off the last week of work prior to expected birth of baby and then is out for 2 months. Assume that the mother's doctor will certify that mom is "disabled" for the one week period prior to the expected due date and for three weeks after the expected due date. If the employee has paid leave (whether your policy is for limited sick leave used from a "bank" or unlimited sick leave for an exempt employee), then it would seem that this time is paid sick leave. After the period of disability is concluded (assuming no complications as a result of the baby's birth or the post-birthday party party), the remaining time out of work should either be paid vacation leave, paid parental leave (available to men and women alike) or unpaid FMLA leave (also available to men and women alike). If mom wants to take off the month prior to the baby's birth and the doctor only certifies her as disabled for the week prior to the birth, then three weeks pre-birth are vacation or paid parental leave or leave without pay (the employee likely is not eligible for FMLA prior to the birth of the baby).
Hope this helps.
|
jlumbard
Joined: Mar 31, 2004
Posts: 2 | Posted: 2004-03-31 03:01
My wife is pregnant and I am currently employed by aUniversity which is registered in the United States but located in another country. Am I eligible to take paternity leave under the FMLA? My employer has told me that the FMLA does not apply because we are overseas.
|
aljh
Joined: Sep 13, 2001
Posts: 447 | Posted: 2004-03-31 09:54
Another way to think about the time period the employee is 'disabled' by their doctor (as outlined above by the forum host) is to consider how you would handle paying a salaried employee who was disabled due to a heart attack, surgery or any other medical malady. A disability due to pregnancy should be handled the same way.
|
kvillota
Joined: Jun 17, 2004
Posts: 2 | Posted: 2004-06-17 16:50
I have just had a baby on May 23, 2004 and applied and was granted short term disability through my company. Apparently this falls under FMLA. When I recevied my check, I noticed that it was the same pay rate as usual; then when I received my pay stub, I found all of my sick time has been used up and apparently I am on vacation; not short term disability (normally payable upto 60% of normal salary). Is this legal that they can take my vacation before short term disability? If that is the case I must return to work as I will need my vacation later in the year. What happens if something happens to me while I am back in the office as I am having a serious health issue related to the pregnancy? Should I have to take more time off, my sick time is all used up and I don't think you can take short term disability twice in one year. Please advise.
|
cynbrandt
Joined: Nov 11, 2003
Posts: 1782 | Posted: 2004-06-18 05:49
You would have to refer to your short-term disability policy. Some policies require that accrued paid-time-off be used up before paying benefits and/or reduce benefits by the amount of income from other sources.
There is nothing to preclude an employer from requiring an employee to use up their paid leave before going on unpaid leave. Eligibility for short-term disability benefits isn't relevant to whether an employee has to use his/her leave.
|
hrgenPitt
Joined: Jun 01, 2004
Posts: 12 | Posted: 2004-06-18 07:36
Yes,
For instance, we require employees to take 7 sick days (out of 10) and 3 vacation (out of 10) days before STD kicks in at 80% (in-house). We provide for this in our employee manual and make sure to communicate this to employees when they approach us about take STD leave. We feel it is a fair but the key is to communicate this policy to avoid confusion. Some employers may require all paid leave to be taken.
|
kvillota
Joined: Jun 17, 2004
Posts: 2 | Posted: 2004-06-18 09:39
Thank you for your responses. According the the company policy guide, our company does use your sick time for the first 7 - 10 days of short term disability before actually paying out a percentage of your salary under short term disability.
Unfortunately for me, our company has outsourced some of it's H/R responsibilities and since Short term disabilities is handle by Prudential and the FMLA is handled by "TOPS"; apparently one provider did not talk to the other and even though Short Term disability is "covered" under FMLA, our FMLA provider TOPS erroneously started taking all of my vacation time before short term disability even started. I had to go back and re-submit a claim for short term disability and stop FMLA. One catch to all who are out there. I had to show up to work today while FMLA was stopped since short term disability had not yet started (due to their error; not mine) in order to ensure my job. H/R is working on correcting the situation, but it has caused a lot of grief. I may be out there bugging you guys again for more answers as time progresses...
|
shinyallard
Joined: Sep 17, 2008
Posts: 2 | Posted: 2008-09-17 16:58
Of course she should be given the salaryfor those leave days, since that is part and parcel of life.
========================================
shinyallard
[url=http://www.superbabyguide.com]SuperBabyGuide[/url]
|
shinyallard
Joined: Sep 17, 2008
Posts: 2 | Posted: 2008-09-17 16:59
Of course she should be given the salaryfor those leave days, since that is part and parcel of life.
========================================
shinyallard
[url="http://www.superbabyguide.com"]SuperBabyGuide[/url]
|
= Member Only
