Pawternity Leave: Are Employers Barking Up the Wrong Tree With Pet-Based Leave?
While pawternity leave might have some wondering if employee benefits have gone too far, many employers are embracing the newest trend in employee leave. And this trend may have more legs than initially thought: four to be exact.
October 15, 2018 at 01:47 PM
6 minute read
The original version of this story was published on The Recorder
We've all heard of pregnancy leave, sick leave, bereavement leave, and adoption leave. But what about leave for the care of our four-legged friends? Cheekily referred to as “pawternity” leave, this refers to paid time off that some employers provide employees to transition to pet-owning responsibilities, to care for a sick pet, to grieve over a deceased animal, or even to participate in a pet adoption.
While pawternity leave might have some wondering if employee benefits have gone too far, many employers are embracing the newest trend in employee leave. And this trend may have more legs than initially thought: four to be exact.
Who Let The Dogs Out? Employees Love Their Pets
Over 80 million families in the United States have some type of pet, and 54 million U.S. households are home to a dog. Who, exactly are bringing home these furry companions? You guessed it. 35 percent of pet owners in the United States are millennials. Coincidentally, millennials alone make up 35 percent of the labor force and also happen to be the principal pet-owning generation. And many of these first-time or longtime pet owners either view their pets as children, part of the family, or a test-run for raising children.
One of the most compelling reasons employers have found in implementing pet-based leave is employee retention. 83 percent of employees claimed they felt more loyalty to companies that had pet-friendly policies; meanwhile, 88 percent of employees and 91 percent of HR decision-makers deemed allowing pets at work as a strong way to boost morale. But just how strong is the trade-off for potentially happier employees?
With an increasing number of pet-owning employees in the workforce, and rising numbers of employees acquiring one at some point in their career, you must become increasingly savvy to the particular needs and schedules of your employees. You should consider whether pet-friendly policies, including some form of pawternity leave, might be a beneficial perk.
Teaching an Old Dog New Tricks: Different Types of Pawternity Leave
Small advances were made towards pawternity leave as early as June 2015 in Emeryville, Calif. when the city passed a paid sick-leave ordinance that allotted paid sick leave for an employee to provide care for a guide or service dog. But the trend has grown significantly beyond service animals: companies such as Mars Petcare, Mparticle, and Brew Dog now allow for anywhere from 10 hours' paid leave for a new pet to one to two weeks' paid leave for rescuing a dog or for getting a pet in general.
The specific types of leave associated with a pet run the entire spectrum. Some employers allow for initial leave when one adopts or buys a pet, a la baby bonding leave. The rationale is that, like a newborn, the puppy or other creature requires TLC and training that one can't provide while working a desk job. Another type is bereavement leave for when one's pet dies, which Kimpton Hotel & Restaurants and several California software companies have embraced, reasoning that employees may feel as though this is a loss in the family.
The possibilities for pawternity leave are endless; some companies may even decide to provide leave for an owner whose pet is expecting (for the maternity care), while others have provided additional perks like pet insurance and time off for veterinary appointments.
When the Bite Is Worse Than the Bark: More Trouble Than It's Worth?
While giving employees time to spend with their pets may lead to a happier workforce, pawternity leave—and an increased tolerance for pets in the workplace—could lead to liability issues, particularly if one person's dog or pet bites or harms another employee. For instance, a 1999 Connecticut case considered whether an employer was strictly liable for an employee's injury after she sustained a dog bite at work from the company president's own dog (Lavoy v. Rosenthal).
And of course, even if no one is bit, other issues may arise when implementing pawternity leave. How, exactly, does one implement such leave, and can it go too far? Is there a pecking order as to which pets merit leave and which don't? In other words, is Fido the dog more of a handful to train and get used to than Feathers the cockatiel?
Even if some may view pawternity leave as a trend reserved for startup office environments and other casual workspaces, the reality is that many employees may attempt to carve out leave for any milestone in the pet's life. You should be prepared to handle these types of requests or roll out policies implementing pawternity leave, particularly where retention, office morale, and recruiting new talent can surprisingly hinge on perks like this.
Every Dog Has Its Day: Implementing the Best Policy for Your Needs
The best starting point is to consider your company's needs. It may be beneficial to take a survey of your employees to determine if pet-based leave is something they would appreciate. The next key step is to prepare a clear and coherent written policy that sets forth ground rules, whether for pawternity leave or for policies that allow employees to bring their pets to work. Smaller companies may be able to accommodate “bring-your-pet-to-work-everyday” policies depending on the size of the dog, documentation of a relevant insurance policy, proof that the pets are vaccinated and will not cause allergies, and a requisite signed waiver.
If you choose to implement some type of leave, consider how many paid days you would like to offer employees and for what—new pet ownership, bereavement, your pet's medical issues, or otherwise. After, it may be helpful to check in with employees and take a survey to measure how truly happy employees are.
Alternatively, if you are not comfortable implementing a full-blown pawternity leave, it may be beneficial to remind employees that their existing leave benefits are in place for the care and keeping of their pets, and that they can use vacation time or paid time off for any reason.
Dog-gone Conclusion
While some might dismiss pawternity leave as frivolous, many employers are embracing the benefits of a workforce where employees' pets are a high priority. But you should not proceed blindly without considering all of the workplace law implications. The decision to implement pawternity leave should be made on a case-by-case basis.
Danielle Krauthamer is an associate in the Los Angeles office of Fisher Phillips. She may be reached at [email protected].
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 AllRevisiting the Boundaries Between Proper and Improper Argument: 10 Years Later
8 minute readTrending Stories
- 1OCR Issues 'Dear Colleagues' Letter Regarding AI in Medicine
- 2Corporate Litigator Joins BakerHostetler From Fish & Richardson
- 3E-Discovery Provider Casepoint Merges With Government Software Company OPEXUS
- 4How I Made Partner: 'Focus on Being the Best Advocate for Clients,' Says Lauren Reichardt of Cooley
- 5People in the News—Jan. 27, 2025—Barley Snyder
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