To Leave, or Not to Leave: A Case for Normalized Parental Leave Policies
Law firms seem to be recognizing that parental leave is a necessity, but all too often the edges of the policy, and its application to reality, remain a little rough.
December 02, 2019 at 11:00 AM
4 minute read
While many articles address the topic of work-life balance for the "young" lawyer, these topics typically look at making time for self-wellness activities, vacation time or how to plan a wedding as a working associate. However, many young lawyers, male and female, find themselves trying to balance their own fast-paced law career with an oft-unmentioned 8lb 12oz gorilla in the room—a new baby. Specifically, how to excel at being that modern-renaissance man or woman we fantasize about—championing legal challenges by day, changing diapers by night, all while making time for yoga/running/cross-fit or whatever other projections of success we have put on ourselves.
A key ingredient to making it all work is taking time off to develop the connections with your new child, to adapt to the new family reality, and to recover and/or support your partner's recovery. Yet, in our uber-modern society, the topic of parental leave is still somewhat taboo. The tide seems to be turning, and firms seem to be recognizing that leave is a necessity, but all too often the edges of the policy, and its application to reality, remain a little rough.
The first issue is how much leave is actually allowed by an employer's policy and who is allowed to take it. Our anecdotal surveys find that this ranges from four weeks to six months for mothers, and zero to 12 weeks for fathers. Let's be clear, the disparity between the leave offered to men and women is a problem; there should be equal offerings. This is important for several reasons.
First, the notion that a father cannot be the primary caregiver is antiquated. In many modern families, patriarchal gender roles are no longer routine.
Second, the reality of today's economy is that both spouses need to work to support the family. New parents should not be forced to choose between supporting their family or allowing their new baby to develop with one-on-one attention in the relatively germ-free environment of the house. If each parent gets equal leave, they can spread the leave out ensuring that the child has a caretaker at home for the longest possible period.
Third—and this needs to be emphasized—having disparate leave policies merely reinforces the very gender barriers that leave policies are ostensibly aimed at eradicating. If parental leave policies are meant, in part, to ensure that a woman's career will not be hampered by having a child, then disparate policies for men and women makes no sense. By giving men a shorter time, the employer is merely reinforcing the idea that men are harder workers, which in turn will pressure women not to take advantage of the leave policies. It is important to normalize the leave so no caretaker is demoted—consciously or subconsciously—and that requires granting equal leave to men and women.
The second issue is actually enforcing the policy. It is all well and good to offer men and women the same amount of leave, but that offering is useless if the leave is discouraged. Discouragement can come overtly ("I think it is appropriate if fathers take 2-3 weeks and no more"), or more subtly ("I remember when my first child was born, I was back in the office the next day working on a major case"). The fact is that employers should encourage their employees to take the full leave. Presumably the employer decided that offering the leave is important to talent retention and will ultimately make the employee more efficient and well-rounded. Simply put, after investing in the policy, employers should have an interest in seeing that the policy is utilized. Moreover, if male lawyers do not take the full leave (or work while they are on "leave"), then the aforementioned gender barriers are just reinforced. A woman's extended leave remains marginalized, and the male workers continue to be viewed as the ambitious lawyers primed for leadership.
So "to leave or not leave" should not even be a question. In this instance, you can and should have your cake and eat it too—if you can get your baby to not grab it out of your hand.
The NJLJ Young Lawyers Advisory Board is a diverse group of young attorneys from around the state. Follow them on Twitter, @YoungLawyersNJL.
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
© 2025 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 AllNeighboring States Have Either Passed or Proposed Climate Superfund Laws—Is Pennsylvania Next?
7 minute readAn Overview of Proposed Changes to the Federal Rules of Procedure Relating to the Expansion of Remote Trial Testimony
15 minute readTrending Stories
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
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