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
© 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 AllFor Lawyers, the 'Work' of Making an Impact Does Not Have to Happen in a Courtroom. Laura E. Sedlak Says
Doing the Right Thing in the Pursuit of Justice Requires Guts, Says Lyndsay Ruotolo
One Can be Most Impactful When Their Pursuits Are Driven by Their Concerns and Passions, Says Sherilyn Pastor
As a Lawyer, You Have a Powerful Way to Make an Impact, Says Mary Frances Palisano
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