Assorted and distorted thoughts on sitting in a room in the Lubbock Inn on Wednesday night (there isn't much in Lubbock in the summer on Wednesday)

Watching ABC news last night, there was a story about a spate of lawsuits from people alleging discrimination based on "family responsibility". Among the lawyers beating the drums, and claiming that courts are more responsive to suits from "family responsible" people than from people claiming age or gender discrimination, they featured two people who had "won" their claims of discrimination because they were treated unfairly based on (1) missing a lot of work to stay home with small children; and (2) missing work to stay home to take care of elderly parents. (If they mentioned the jurisdiction, I didn't catch it.)

Being an elderly parent myself (let's not consider my need to be cared for by MY children), and also having elderly parents, I realize that FMLA coverage may be available for serious medical conditions, and that's a comfort. However, it would never occur to me that I could force an employer to pay large sums of money if they terminated me because I exceeded the amount of time available under the law. If I did not have FMLA coverage, it would not seem reasonable that I could require an employer to let me have an indefinite amount of time (years?) away from work to care for "family responsibilities". Yet, it seems to be happening.

cbg, I know this isn't a chat site, but I would really be interested in the take of some of our contributors who are far more conversant in EEO practices and laws than I am, as well as some feeling of how this jibes with FMLA, or the (heretofore) ability of employers to rely on the law to determine protected classes of employees.

Any thought welcome :confused: :eek: :confused:

Since there are a couple of venues which do consider "family responsibilities" to be a protected characteristic, as long as we keep the discussion based firmly in the law and not become free-form (it's the free-form chats I object to; they tend to get out of hand mighty quick) I think we can permit it just this once.

The District of Columbia prohibits discrimination on the basis of family duties. Florida protects family status, as does Pennsylvania. Alaska and DC include parenthood under their pregnancy, childbirth and related conditions protections.

So it's not entirely unheard of. I'm curious, though, if the cases you heard fall under these jurisdictions. I also wonder how much time was involved, and if FMLA applied.

Here is the story. It also has a video, but I did not view it.

The article is quite vague offering very little substantive information. In fact, one of the cases referenced is still pending while the other settled, albeit after a jury verdict for the plaintiff.

It would certainly offer more insight to see the jursidiction and the cause of action(s).

Nevertheless, it is interesting and worthy of informed opinions.

http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/story?id=2157490&page=1

Both of these were for violating already established laws it appears. The purpose of the article as I read it, wasn't to claim that this is a "new" type of discrimination, but that if you bring a claim for already existing types for a sympathetic cause, you are more likely to win. That courts have more sympathy for those who are new parents or have a sick parent to care for than those discriinated on the basis of say religion or national origin. Which isn't exactly anything new to those who deal in litigation.