Favoritism or Discrimination?

[ironore]

Within the company I work, there are two distinct set of 'rules' - those for the employees married, with children and those without.

Employees (female) who are married with children, are given flexibility in staying home if there is no school; being with their child if sick; if childcare costs can not be met, again, staying home with their child; attending school functions; etc., all without having to take vacation days.

These employees are also extended the priviledge of working from home.

I (female) am not married, with no children, am not offered the same flexibility or benefits.

The employee handbook does not cover this issue.

Is this a common and accepted practice for companies, or is does this border on discrimination?

 

[cbg]

In what state is this? It makes a difference to the answer.

 

[Duranie]

I would not say it is discrimination as an employer is not required to allow you work at home priveledges. Some companies also feel that if they allow a parent to work from home who has a sick child, they avoid paying a sick day. If you have a family friendly employer then I do not see that it is wrong that they allow some flexibility. Do you have a valid reason for wanting to leave early, work from home etc?? My employer allows people to work from home on a case by case basis and you mostly have to have a medical reason or a dr's note.

Most discrimination is actually legal. I do not believe any fo the above are actually covered under the EEOC. Favoritism is also not against the law.

 

[cbg]

Parental status is a protected group in a few states, so it could be illegal discrimination IF the poster is in one of those states. Thus my question.

 

[ironore]

The state is Michigan.

 

[cbg]

Michigan is not one of the few states that protects parental status. I do have one question, though. Are SINGLE women with children allowed this flexibility? What about men with children, married or single?

 

[ironore]

I am the only single woman/no child(ren) in the office. These flexbilities are not offered since I do not have the family and/or child responsibilities.

Only one male employee, on rare occasions, does attend his child's events, however he has not taken advantage of the working from home option.

 

[cbg]

Since the benefit appears to be offered without regard to gender or marital status, it does not appear to be illegal under Federal or Michigan discrimination laws. The fact that the male employee does not take advantage of the full benefit does not make it illegal to offer it.

If, at some time in future, there should be an employee who is single but who has children and who is not offered the benefit, then you can explore the possibility of marital status discrimination.

 

[ironore]

Thank you for the information.