If you are out on maternity leave and being paid by company provided short term disability are you obligated to refund any money if you decide not to go back to work? FMLA allows you to take 12 weeks off without loosing your job, but any problems in deciding not to return while on leave?

What're they going to do, fire you?

My wife told her company she wasn't coming back. They "termed" her after she came back from disability. They did that to thank her for giving so much notice.

I don't think you'll have to pay it back. That's the company's risk to take.

This is the ? I have been really wanting to know. I do not plan to come back afterwards, but need the insurance during maternity leave. So is it safe to tell them your not coming back?

Company's can't term you officially. Depending on your relationship with your boss, have you thought about hinting at the possibility of not coming back. I have been in the situation of thinking a key member of the the team was coming back. She worked one day after maternity leave and then quit. I would rather she told me ahead of time to allow me to hire and train a suitable replacement.

Company can't fire you just because you got pregnant...talk about a huge lawsuit.

I wasnt worried about being pregnant and fired. Im just wondering how you go about still having your benefits if your not coming back.

Most companies will do what my wife's company did based on what EOE just said.

You're going to have to pose a hypothetical to HR.

We have no "HR" and its a small private company and I will be the first person to ever have to take maternity leave. I cant mention anything right now or my raise will be toast. Its a wonderful place

I'd do what EOE suggests...that's the best thing to do. Most people aren't stupid.

From what I remember from two years ago, I was responsible only for paying back insurance premiums that the company paid on my behalf.

As a word of advice, especially with a small company, I would say to avoid telling them as long as you need the insurance.

It may not feel honorable or honest, but they have every right to term your benefits as soon as you let them know, and smaller companies are notorious for interpreting these kinds of issues as they see fit.

Be aware they also have the right to ask you to refund them for premiums if you don't return.



[This message has been edited by Andyzipp (edited 1/18/2008 11:17a).]

I think they can go after the money if you don't come back at all. If you come back for 1 day, they cannot do anything from what I have seen, heard, etc.

quote:

---

Depending on your relationship with your boss, have you thought about hinting at the possibility of not coming back.

---

My wife got her CPA license while she was pregnant. Her boss, a good friend to this day knew she was going to quit. They did not give her the raise that traditionally came with the license since they new she would only be there for another 6 months. It would have been a big raise. Her boss did what was best for the company. We did not hold it against her and they treated us well outside of that, but we wish she had not discussed it with her (female boss).




[This message has been edited by BBDP (edited 1/18/2008 12:22p).]

Andy and BBDP-
Thanks for your response it is exactley what I was looking for. BBDP, I feel your wife's pain. I get asked constantly when Im gonna start having kids just because I got married a year ago. And at least she had a female boss, try being a female in a business that is 99% male. Consensus I got- Wait as long as possible to tell.

How about returning from leave and giving the proper 2 weeks notice, or working long enough to help them through any jam that might arise ? Considering they are providing benefits to you when you really need them, they deserve proper notice.

RP...that is what I did. I didn't feel it was dishonest at all. I seriously gave it a try. I was pretty sure I wanted to stay at home with my son full-time but also wanted to see if working with a child would prove to be too hard on me. I came back from maternity and gave it by best for 4 months. After that, I knew I was miserable and longed to be home with my son. When I told my boss, he said he understood and wished me all the best.

I guess it just depends on your employer. When I was on maternity leave part of the paperwork I had to sign was agreeing to come back for at least the length of time I took off. So I took of for 10 weeks and I have to "pay back" 10 weeks before I can quit without having to pay anything. If I were to quit before my 10 weeks then I would owe the company what it paid for my insurance.

At my old job it was kind of a running joke - women would get pregnant - take their maternity leave and then magically have a change of heart day 1 of their return. I would say this happened 80% of the time.

It is part of the cost of doing business and I don't have a problem with it. Gotta do what is best for your family.

And no - their was no requirement to return pay - I would think that would be unethical at the least and probably illegal.



[This message has been edited by Brian2003 (edited 1/19/2008 6:13a).]

STRONGLY suggest you ask "what if" scenario questions regarding variety of situations:
"decide I don't want to come back"
"complications (mine or child's) preclude my coming back within proscribed leave allowance"
"etc..."

The legal obligation of the employer is to treat a maternity disability as any other disability, such as cancer, back problem....

These need to be posed to line management as well as HR/ER types so everyone is on the same "page". If at all possible get reference to written policies, if that does not happen write a letter or email back stating your understanding, asking for clarifications if your understanding is not consistent with policies and practices.

On the potential positive side, you may learn that they would really appreciate advance notice and would not hold you responsible for paid time off, insurance co-premium, etc.

Another thought is to manage your vacation or paid time off for the end of your leave to activate "returned to active status."

Good luck.... being a mom is the most significant job you will ever have...

[This message has been edited by momlaw (edited 1/20/2008 7:49p).]

quote:

---

Good luck.... being a mom is the most significant job you will ever have

---

quote:

---

This is the ? I have been really wanting to know. I do not plan to come back afterwards, but need the insurance during maternity leave. So is it safe to tell them your not coming back?

---

I hope that you NEVER EVER complain about making less money than a man in the same position. This is not something that a company EVER has to deal with when hiring a man for that job and therefore, should be able to pay more for that convenience.

torbush wow

Yeah, I guess I will remember that next time I think about whether its going to be me or my husband that carries the kid.

Yeah, let me tell my boss I am going to take 10-12 weeks off, he needs to cover my medical expenses during that time, and keep my job for me. I have already planned on quitting after the time off but I am not going to tell my company this.

Quitting after immidiately after maternity leave is morally and ethically wrong. There is absolutely no question about it. For the lady that works for a small company you are costing the owner of that company tremendous amounts of money in insurance premiums and they are getting ZERO work out of you during this time. Consequently EVERY other person in the office will have to pay more for their insurance next time around. Additionally you will probably close the door on that company ever hiring a female of child bearing age again because of the liability that they will pay to train them and pay their benefits and not get the expected amount of work out of them. In my opinion taking the benefits during maternity leave with the intention of quitting immidiately afterwards is nothing short of theft.

quote:

---

Quitting after immidiately after maternity leave is morally and ethically wrong. There is absolutely no question about it.

---

Lying or misrepresenting the truth is morally and ethically wrong. Taking full advantage of a system while staying within that system is not.

When you are hired, you are hired with specific benefits (salary, vacation, insurance, etc). If you do not take advantage of them than that is your fault. Would you take vacation right before you give your two weeks notice, etc. Benefits are part of compensation and are yours to use. It is not wrong to use them.

quote:

---

ying or misrepresenting the truth is morally and ethically wrong. Taking full advantage of a system while staying within that system is not.

---

You can stay within the "system" and be morally and/or ethically wrong. My main point is that these situations will lead small buisnesses to hire fewer women of child bearing age and/or pay them less than a man in the equivalent position.

I agree that it encourages discrimination by small businesses. Is the cost of a pregnancy higher than cancer or heart disease, etc. Obese and old people are high risk/cost as well. Nobody is cheap by the way.

You do not have to tell your employer your intentions for family or life planning. You provide a service to your company and they pay you for it. If you do not take advantage of their pay, than shame on you, if they do not take advantage of your service/work, than shame on them. Either way, your pay includes all the benefits.

What is the difference between a person who works 5 years, has a baby and comes back for 5 years and quits vs. a person who works for 10 years and quits after maternity leave. Both worked the same time and received the same benefits. Why is the second person immoral?

I agree that a young woman, fat person, old person has more potential for cost to a company and discrimination based on the numbers should be allowed.

quote:

---

Quitting after immidiately after maternity leave is morally and ethically wrong. There is absolutely no question about it. For the lady that works for a small company you are costing the owner of that company tremendous amounts of money in insurance premiums and they are getting ZERO work out of you during this time.

---

Short Term Disability insurance premiums are typically less than $10 per month per employee.

Health Insurance is what costs the big bucks, but in a small business situation, if the company's stop loss is set correctly, a pregnancy or 2 in a given year isn't going to raise the rates for the employee population. It may contribute to the overall experience rating being high, but that's going to happen whether or not she was on leave.

Andy,

The expense is in the premium. The company is probably paying $200 - $300 in premiums for a woman who doesn't work there any more, but wants the company to continue to pay.

For a small employer, the claim will be held against the employer at renewal - even with Texas being Modified Pool State. It means they will probably have to change insurance companies at renewal.

All of this for someone who isn't going to remain loyal to the employer.

I agree with one of the above posters who said that your employer provided for you when you and your child needed it most so you should at least give them the customary 2 weeks to find a replacement.

Hi,

My employer provides great benefits for us and will provide them while I am on maternity leave.

Despite that, I don't like my job and want to **** them over as soon as I can for as much medical insurance and other benefits as I can. How can I go about doing this while still covering my own ass?

Sincerely,


Original Poster

[This message has been edited by The Dog (edited 1/27/2008 7:40p).]

This is an interesting thread.

On the one hand, women of child bearing age should be protected from undue discrimination for having children. Family is important. Therefore there is legislation that protects moms.

On the other hand, productive women employees having children is a cost to an employer that is not present in men. Employers don't like this extra cost, and many of them try not to hire women of a certain age because of this. Of course there are laws against that, so they don't officially not hire child-bearing age women, they just don't seem to hire them.

So, here is my question:

One person "games the system," by using the legal protection framework protecting mothers to milk as much out of her employer as possible.

Another person "games the system" by not hiring mothers of a certain age in order to avoid costs of maternaty leave.

Which person is acting ethically? Both are responding to incentives created by the legal framework, and protecting their own interests.

quote:

---

One person "games the system," by using the legal protection framework protecting mothers to milk as much out of her employer as possible.

Another person "games the system" by not hiring mothers of a certain age in order to avoid costs of maternaty leave.

Which person is acting ethically? Both are responding to incentives created by the legal framework, and protecting their own interests.

---

In my opinion, the person that is taking advantage of the system that results in an increase in expenses for MULTIPLE people that currently work for a company is unethical. I will say it again, if an employer has a choice between 2 people that have the exact same qualifications but 1 tells you in the interview:

"I may require 6 weeks off at some point in the next 3 years, you can't fire me, and you have to pay all my benefits during this time, you also have to keep my job open for when I come back. Additionally, I may take that time off and then at the end tell you I am not coming back."

The other person has ALL the exact same qualifications as person 1 but says that they will only use their allotted vacation time.

I ask, which would you hire and do ethics fall into the equation?

If you were forced to hire person 1, but you were allowed some freedom in their pay would you pay them less, due to the risk to which you were being exposed?

The law DOES NOT DEFINE WHAT IS and IS NOT ETHICAL!!!!!!!!!!!