Considering Fur-ternity Leave for Employees? Paws and Think It Through First
Providing employees with pet-related benefits can be a great boost to morale, but it can also pose some legal and HR issues.
August 22, 2018 at 09:10 AM
4 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Corporate Counsel
A growing number of employers—especially in the digital sector—are introducing special benefits such as “fur-ternity leave” for employees with pets. But before joining the trend, companies might want to check first with their in-house lawyers.
Employees at mParticle, a data analytics company in New York, are offered what it calls “paw-ternity leave”— two weeks of paid time off for those who adopt a rescue dog or other pet. The company also allows pets at work.
According to its website, “mParticle likes to keep things casual around the office by creating a comfortable environment where everyone feels energized. With this in mind, the company welcomes furry friends at work, and on any given day, three or four dogs might be found playing around in different areas, greeting visitors with a warm wag of the tail.”
Nina Hale Inc., a Minneapolis digital marketing firm with 85 employees, announced on Aug. 20 that it was expanding its benefits program to offer a week of work-from-home days to allow new pet parents to spend time with their new companions and help the pets adjust to their surroundings.
“Part of embracing employee satisfaction as a business priority means recognizing important life events that happen outside of the office,” said Nina Hale CEO Donna Robinson. “If we want to continue to set the example as a top workplace, it is crucial to offer innovative benefits that help to preserve the work-life happiness of our employee owners.”
Whatever one calls it, company pet leave and other pet-related benefits are an increasing trend, according to the Society for Human Resource Management.
But experts warn that before acting, employers should discuss any policy change carefully with their in-house or outside counsel.
“It's something a company can do to attract, retain and support its employees. But just think through all the issues,” suggested Eric Meyer, an employment attorney in the Philadelphia office of FisherBroyles. Meyer also is president of the Pennsylvania Bar Association Labor and Employment Law Section, and he publishes The Employer Handbook, an employment law blog for management.
For example, Meyer asked, should an employer grant paid or unpaid time off, and for which events—the adoption of a new pet, vet visits when it's sick, bereavement leave when it dies? And, he asked, should a company limit the type of pet covered to dogs and cats, or include other more unusual pets, such as snakes and alpacas?
“What I suggest for benefits such as bereavement leave is to go broad,” the lawyer said. “I could love an ant as much as a dog. Don't put a judgment on the grief over the loss of a pet.”
But he did suggest setting a limit on the length of the leave. A lot of companies, he said, have adopted a “bucket leave” policy, which includes all paid time off. The employee can then use the time for any purpose he or she chooses, including for a pet.
Or an employer may prefer allowing unpaid time off for pet care, similar to family leave, Meyer said.
As for bringing pets to work, he explained, there are two big issues: liability and pet allergies. For liability issues, he recommended the employer check with its insurance broker.
For medical issues, such as allergies or animal phobias, he advised the employer to encourage affected employees to talk with the human resources department.
“The employer may need to provide an accommodation, such as working remotely, or cancel the event altogether if there is a critical mass of sniffling workers,” Meyer said.
Meyer, though, is on the side of the pet owners. He said he often works from home with his dog, Yao Ming, a small schnauzer-poodle mix named for the former 7' 6” center for the Houston Rockets, by his feet.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllMore Big Law Firms Rush to Match Associate Bonuses, While Some Offer Potential for Even More
Dog Gone It, Target: Provider of Retailer's Mascot Dog Sues Over Contract Cancellation
4 minute readIn Talc Bankruptcy, Andy Birchfield Skipped His Deposition. Could He Face Sanctions?
6 minute readGC Conference Takeaways: Picking AI Vendors 'a Bit of a Crap Shoot,' Beware of Internal Investigation 'Scope Creep'
8 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Bonus Parade Continues, With Additional Firms Matching Milbank
- 2Contract Software Unicorn Ironclad Hires Former Pinterest Lawyer as GC
- 3European, US Litigation Funding Experts Look for Commonalities at NYU Event
- 4UPS Agrees to $45M Settlement With SEC Over Valuation Claim
- 5For Midsize Law Firms, Curbing Boys-Club Culture Starts with Diversity at the Top
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250