Raise withheld due to upcoming maternity leave

[Ninahagen]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? FL

I had my annual evaluation recently and received a raise as part of my evaluation. Under the effective date for the raise, it is listed as "Upon return of maternity leave". I have not yet taken leave and will not do so for at least a month if everything goes as expected. Other non-pregnant employees in my office did not receive this stipulation. Previously all pay increases have been retroactive to my hire date, which was over a month ago. I work for a small company (less than 15 employees), and they have previously told me, in regards to my request for longer leave under FMLA, that laws don't apply to them, and I should be happy with what I get, because it's more than they have to do. Because of this, and because of fear of other reprisals, I am wary of raising a stink without knowing what my standing is. So is this legal? It feels like discrimination because I'm pregnant.

Thank you for your input

 

[cbg]

It probably is. But unfortunately, because they have less than 15 employees, discrimination laws don't apply to them either.

FYI, FMLA does not apply if there are less than 50 employees. So they are correct about that.

 

[AJStarr]

Highly doubt anything can be done on your end.

You're going on maternity leave, what do you expect exactly? Pregnancy is not something that is impossible to avoid when it comes to employment. It's not a race, gender, religion, etc...

On top of that, employers can set your raise to start when ever they feel like it. No state even requires you ever receive one at all.

Sorry, but you're SOL on this one. If you can find a higher paying job while on leave, I'd tackle that. Other than that... all you can do is deal with it and go back to work when you're ready.

 

[sandyclaus]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? FL

I had my annual evaluation recently and received a raise as part of my evaluation. Under the effective date for the raise, it is listed as "Upon return of maternity leave". I have not yet taken leave and will not do so for at least a month if everything goes as expected. Other non-pregnant employees in my office did not receive this stipulation. Previously all pay increases have been retroactive to my hire date, which was over a month ago. I work for a small company (less than 15 employees), and they have previously told me, in regards to my request for longer leave under FMLA, that laws don't apply to them, and I should be happy with what I get, because it's more than they have to do. Because of this, and because of fear of other reprisals, I am wary of raising a stink without knowing what my standing is. So is this legal? It feels like discrimination because I'm pregnant.

Thank you for your input

Perhaps the reason that the stipulation was placed on your raise is BECAUSE you started just over a month ago. They want to make sure that your intention is to actually RETURN after your maternity leave.

Were you pregnant at the time of your hire, and was your employer made aware of that fact? Or did you learn of your pregnancy after your hire?

 

[stealth2]

Would OP even be eligible for FMLA (regardless of the company's qualification under the Act), due to her short length of service? Wouldn't she have had to have logged >1250 hours over the past 12 months with them?

Seriously, OP - you started with this company a month ago, now tell them you're pregnant and want an extended leave (that you are NOT eligible for), and NOW want a raise effective retroactively? Now THAT is chutzpah.

 

[anteater]

Perhaps the reason that the stipulation was placed on your raise is BECAUSE you started just over a month ago.

Seriously, OP - you started with this company a month ago...

While OP may not have written it in the most clear manner, context seems to indicate that the anniversary of the hire date was a month ago.

 

[Beth3]

So is this legal? Yes.

It feels like discrimination because I'm pregnant. It clearly is but the company you work with is so small that discrimination laws don't apply. If they're exending leave to you, they're being generous as they don't have to do that at all.

 

[cbg]

AJStarr needs to be aware that pregnancy IS covered under discrimination laws. If the employer had more than 15 employees, the poster would have recourse. But since the floor for discrimination claims is 15 employees and the employer has less than that, nothing can be done in this specific set of circumstances.

 

[Ninahagen]

To clarify, I have worked for this company full-time for more than 5 years. By hire date I was referring to the anniversary of my date of hire. Everywhere I've worked we just refer to it as your "hire date" in much the same way it is your "Birthday" and not the anniversary of your birth. Sorry for the confusion that has caused.

Thank you cbg and Beth3 for your responses, they square with the research I've been doing myself. It appears that some states have laws that go beyond the 15 employee limit, but, mine is not one of those.

I generally prefer small local companies to big ones, and support then as much as I can, but after what I've learned I don't think that I will be seeking them out for employment in the future. While most are great employers, you just surrender too much protection and recourse you would otherwise be afforded when you work for a small business.

 

[Beth3]

Working for a small company can be a wonderful experience but you do sacrifice some of the legal protections to which larger companies are subject. They ARE extending maternity leave to you, which is a very good thing.