Lakhasly

Chapter Summary
The Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) is the principal federal law affecting the provision of leave for parental
and medical reasons. The FMLA entitles employees to up
to a total of twelve weeks of leave over a twelve-month
period, maintenance of health insurance benefits during
leave, and restoration from leave to the same position
held prior to leave or an equivalent position. Employees
are entitled to leave if they work at a site where the employer has at least fifty employees within a seventy-fivemile radius, have worked at least twelve months for that
employer, have worked at least 1250 hours within the
past twelve months, and have experienced a “qualifying
event.” Qualifying events for FMLA leave include the
birth, foster care placement, or adoption of a child; the
serious health condition of the employee; and the serious
health condition of a spouse, child, or parent. Serious
health conditions involve either inpatient care in a medical facility or continuing treatment by a health-care provider that meets certain other criteria.
Leave policies also must meet the requirements of the
Pregnancy Discrimination Act (PDA). The PDA prohibits discrimination based on pregnancy, childbirth,
and related medical conditions. Although the PDA does
not require that employers offer parental leave, it does
mandate that pregnant women be treated the same under
employer leave programs as others employees who are
similar in their ability or nonability to work.
Employees sometimes need time off to attend to
civic duties, and there is some legal protection for employees who perform these services. The rights of persons who serve in the military are protected by the
Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment
Act (USERRA). The USERRA protects employees
from discrimination based on military service and provides for extensive reinstatement rights upon return
from military service.
Language is an important aspect of diversity. Employer
requirements related to language can result in national origin discrimination and violations of Title VII. Accents can
lawfully be considered in making employment decisions to
the extent that communication is an important aspect of
the job in question and the accent interferes with comprehension of the person’s words. English-only rules, particularly when broadly applied, are potentially discriminatory,
either for their adverse impact or as evidence of harassment or other disparate treatment.
Neither Title VII nor any other federal statute prohibits discrimination based on sexual orientation. Public employees have some protection under the equal
protection provisions of the Constitution, but only tothe extent that the public employer’s discrimination
based on sexual orientation or behavior bears no rational relationship to a legitimate government purpose.
The treatment of gays and lesbians by the military
has been the focus of controversy and legal challenges.
The military’s current “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy has
thus far withstood constitutional challenges, but legal
questions remain. Any protection for private sector
employees from discrimination based on sexual orientation comes under state and city laws. The creation of
such laws is a politically charged issue and has spawned
campaigns aimed at preventing their passage. The
Supreme Court has ruled against one such effort, but
the limits are not yet clearly defined. Transsexuals
might now receive protection under Title VII by arguing that, under the theory of sex-stereotyping, discrimination against them is due to their nonconformance
with established gender definitions.
Employers are confronted with many questions of
how best to deal with differences. Some of these are
matters of employment law. However, the law does
not and cannot mandate inclusive organizations that
genuinely respect and value diverse people. It’s up to
employers and employees to do this.