University Maternity Leave Policy for Mothers But Not Fathers Is Not Discriminatory
February 15, 2006
David Johnson, an employee of the University of Iowa, brought suit against the University alleging that the University’s parental leave policy violated his civil and equal protection rights. The district court granted summary judgment to the University on all claims and the Eighth Circuit affirmed.
Johnson worked full-time in the University’s registrar’s office; his wife worked part-time in the University’s college of nursing. In 2002, upon learning of his wife’s pregnancy, Johnson began inquiring into the University’s parental leave policy. He was informed by human resources and the school president that his wife could use accrued sick leave to be paid for absences after their daughter was born, however, he could not.
The University’s policy includes the following provision:
“(a) Biological mothers are entitled to leave for any period of pregnancy-related temporary disability, to be charged against accrued sick leave. Based on current medical practice, a leave of six weeks or less would not require the employee to provide disability documentation. If an employee’s accumulated sick leave is insufficient to cover the period of disability the employee will … be granted a leave of absence to be charged to vacation time, compensatory time, or a leave of absence without pay. Any request for absence beyond the period of disability is considered as a leave of absence without pay or as vacation.”
“(b) A newly adoptive parent, including a domestic partner, is entitled to one week (5 days) of paid adoption leave to be charged against accrued sick leave. Departments are encouraged to arrange for additional leave as necessary. Departments should work with prospective adoptive parents seeking to adopt through an adoption agency with specific requirements for parental leave, to the extent the adoption leave is not sufficient to undertake an adoption. Time not charged to accrued sick leave may be charged to accrued vacation or taken as leave without pay.”
Johnson argued that the policy contained a biological father exclusion. The Court rejected that argument finding instead that the policy provides two different sets of benefits to two different groups and that Johnson was not provided benefits because he is not a member of either group. It did not exclude him because he is the biological father.
Alternatively, Johnson argued that the policy interfered with his fundamental rights of child-rearing. The Court found that there is no fundamental right that provides for a parent to take time off from work to bond with a child. Further, Johnson was given the option of taking unpaid leave.
With respect to adoptive parents, the Court found that they arguably face greater constraints than biological parents and therefore the University had a rational basis for providing them with special benefits. The Court found that the benefits classification process inevitably requires that some persons with nearly equal claims will be placed on different sides of the line and an employer is not liable just because a better line might have been drawn.
This decision gives universities as employers a foundation to stand on
when making rational policy decisions about benefits for its workforce.
For more information, e-mail Ann M. Hensler at
ann.hensler@hklaw.com or call toll free, 1-888-688-8500.
Related Practices