Lessons From Estée Lauder's Parental Leave Settlement With EEOC
“I don't think lawyers or government lawyers are thinking about parental leave in different legal framework. I think what's changed is American workers are interested in parental leave as a benefit,” says Peter Romer-Friedman, an Outten & Golden plaintiffs lawyer in Washington.
July 31, 2018 at 12:24 PM
8 minute read
Estée Lauder settled a dispute with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission over the agency's first lawsuit targeting a parental leave policy that gave new mothers more time off than new fathers, in an agreement that signals a shift in how corporations and regulators respond to such policies.
The settlement, in which the company admitted no fault, included a $1 million payment to more than 200 male workers and policy changes at the company. What the New York-based cosmetics giant agreed to this month—and where the agency came down against the company—could be instructive to employers.
Parental leave and paid time off have increasingly grabbed more attention in the political and corporate landscape. The United States lags behind almost all developed nations for its lack of a national paid leave policy and employment attorneys say issues surrounding leave could play a central role in the imbalance of power between men and women in the workplace.
The case against Estée Lauder highlighted broader questions about whether men should be equally considered for parental leave at a time when more companies are offering flexible packages to all employees, including men, adoptive parents and same-sex couples.
At the center of the dispute was a 2013 change to the company's policy that attempted to offer a broader policy for employees who take leave as new parents. The EEOC sued the company for giving a male employee two weeks of parental leave for child bonding time, rather than the six for women.
The more than 200 men were represented in the EEOC's lawsuit and will share in a $1.1 million award. In May, the company adopted a revised parental leave policy. A team from Jackson Lewis, including John Nolan, Philip Rosen and Francis Alvarez, represented Estée Lauder in the case in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.
Nolan, who co-leads the firm's general employment litigation team, declined to comment. A statement from an Estée Lauder spokesperson said the company expanded benefits “to ensure that we foster an inclusive, progressive, and supportive environment for all our employees.”
“These are significant steps to ensure our benefits policies are consistent with our company values and are among the most supportive offered by any major company to its employees in support of working families,” Estée Lauder's statement said.
Under the terms of the settlement, Estée Lauder will now provide all eligible full-time employees, regardless of gender or caregiver status, the same rights to 20 weeks of paid leave for the purposes of child bonding and the same rights to a six-week flexibility period to return to work from the parental leave. The new policies are retroactively available to employees who experienced a qualifying event, including birth, adoption or foster parenting, on or after Jan. 1, 2018. The deal included disability management training.
Companies tout paid leave programs to attract and retain workers. The Society for Human Resource Management found that more than one in three U.S. employers offers paid parental leave beyond the amount required, up from one in six earlier this decade. This includes policies that specifically offer paternity leave for new fathers, new adoptive parents and same-sex couples.
A claim filed last year by the American Civil Liberties Union and Outten & Golden targeted a parental leave policy at JPMorgan Chase & Co. that gave “secondary caregivers” less paid leave than primary caregivers, and considered “birth mothers” rather than fathers. That claim is still pending before the EEOC.
Several large banks, including Goldman Sachs Group Inc. and Morgan Stanley, have policies that give between 12 and 16 weeks for primary caregivers and two to four weeks for secondary caregivers.
“I don't think lawyers or government lawyers are thinking about parental leave in different legal framework. I think what's changed is American workers are interested in parental leave as a benefit,” said Peter Romer-Friedman, an Outten & Golden lawyer in Washington who represents the worker in the charge against JPMorgan. “Large and small companies recruit workers based on important benefits like parental leave. Work issues become more prominent, it's natural that employees and workers will ask why there is discrimination in providing this kind of important benefit.”
➤➤ Get employment law news and commentary straight to your in-box with Labor of Law, a new Law.com briefing. Learn more and sign up here.
States are passing more programs that create paid leave programs, including Massachusetts, New York, Washington and California. Ivanka Trump has pushed for a national program, but attempts have fallen short.
Only seven economies in the world do not have a paid leave policy, and the U.S. is the only high-income economy in that group, according to a report released this year by the World Bank Group's Indicator Development Unit. The other economies include the Marshall Islands, the Federated States of Micronesia, Palau, Papua New Guinea, Suriname and Tonga.
Countries that give too much time for maternity leave or early retirement for women can exacerbate the divide, according to the report. Meanwhile, some countries, such as France, incentivize both parents to take leave, which helps push the idea of equal child care.
The report said women tend to use leave more than men. Although longer and higher paid leave for mothers has significant benefits, too much time out of the labor force may negatively affect a woman's career progression and earnings. “The key to designing leave policies that do not exacerbate gender inequality may be in promoting fathers' uptake of leave,” the report said.
A recent U.S. Census Bureau study found that if a woman has a baby between the age of 25 and 35, her pay will never recover relative to her husband. That gap for men and women, according to the study, is a key time to bulk up on experience and skills and connections. Women who have babies during that time miss out on that.
Courtney Blanchard, an attorney at Nilan Johnson Lewis who works with companies to develop leave programs, said the 40 sick leave programs across the country create a compliance patchwork for companies.
The consent decree involving Estée Lauder should serve as a reminder to companies to review their own policies and how they define parental leave, she said.
“The key takeaway is any leave for the purpose of bonding must be available to all employees in the same amount,” Blanchard said. “Companies need to take a long look at the leave they provide. The EEOC has shown it is willing to take on these cases. Companies will need to craft a policy that will avoid the risk of enforcement and also become a way to attract employees.”
St. Louis-based employment and labor attorney Katherine Fechte said employers offering such benefits should be cautious as they draft and administer paid leave policies to avoid discrimination claims for offering new fathers less paid parental leave than new moms.
“Employers that offer paid parental leave or are considering offering it should evaluate their rationale for providing the leave,” said Fechte of Greensfelder, Hemker & Gale. “If it is to give new parents time to care for a new baby, male and female employees should receive the same amount of leave. Being more generous with paid leave to new mothers could mean discrimination claims by new fathers are looming.”
Court cases addressing paid parental leave are limited. In 2005, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit gave some direction in the case Johnson v. University of Iowa. The appeals court ruled against a father who challenged a University of Iowa policy that allowed biological mothers and adoptive parents to use accumulated sick leave upon arrival of a new child without extending the same benefit to biological fathers.
“The court's finding that the policy was not discriminatory can be indicative of how other courts would decide the issue,” Fechte said.
Read more:
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 AllTrump's Solicitor General Expected to 'Flip' Prelogar's Positions at Supreme Court
Auditor Finds 'Significant Deficiency' in FTC Accounting to Tune of $7M
4 minute readTrump's SEC Overhaul: What It Means for Big Law Capital Markets, Crypto Work
Trending Stories
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