The facts:
• I work for an employer with offices in NY and CT and more than 50 employees.
• To say that things are done in an unorthodox manner at this company would be an understatement.
• I called our one-woman HR dept to announce my pregnancy and ask what our leave policy is.
• HR said she didn't know and that as far as she knew we didn't have one (I am only the 2nd woman in 10 or so years to get pregnant here).
• HR said she would ask the other once-pregnant woman what she received because that would set a precedence, speak to the President of the company and get back to me.
• I happen to have done my research (unlike HR!) and know that buried deep in a company database, we have a policy that reads as follows:

Short-term disability insurance benefits are available if an employee is unable to perform all of the duties of his or her occupation or any other position reasonably offered to him or her by the company as a result of a non-occupational injury or sickness for up to 12 weeks. Short-term disability insurance pays weekly benefits of $ 170.00 after a seven-day waiting period. COMPANYNAME classifies pregnancy the same as any other medically disabling condition. (bolding mine)

• The other pregnant woman received over 3 months leave at full pay (this was 2-3 years ago and she added her vacation on top of this to make it longer).
• 2 other employees have received 4 weeks and 6 weeks at full pay for various medical/disability leaves (they were not required to use vacation time for this).
• Not sure if this makes a difference, but we have unlimited sick days.
• My direct supervisor told me that the President is now nervous, because he looked at the phone list and realized that there are 10 or so women of child bearing age in the office.
• I called HR today, a week after our original conversation, to ask if there was an update. I was told that she wasn’t sure yet, but that it looks like industry standard is 12 weeks unpaid, and that while she hoped the President might wind up being more generous, I should probably count on that.

My bottom line question is this: have they set a precedence by giving benefits above and beyond the written policy? Can they apply the written policy to me, when they have not applied it in other disability leave situations? And, can they suddenly create a new policy now that one employee has announced her pregnancy, out of fear of other employees getting pregnant? I am not trying to be greedy, I realize they have been extremely generous with the other employees, but I do want them to be fair.

Although employers are warned to be careful how they establish policies for fear of creating precedents, I don't think that ONE employee is enough to claim that a binding precedent has been set. It sounds as if they've realized the need for a binding policy; they have the right to change or amend existing policies as they please unless you have a bona fide contract that says otherwise.

Thank you so much for taking the time to read my post and for responding. Today I was informed of 4 additional cases of fully paid medical/disability leaves. And if the policy states that they treat pregnancy as any other medical disability, I would expect to get treated equally to these cases (that is, to be paid in full for the time that I am medically unable to work - 6 to 8 weeks). I have asked for advice from a Labor and Employment attorney (friend), who expects to get back to me in a week or so, but if anyone else has any ideas or thoughts, I'd love to hear them.

Only that an employer is entitled to change policies at any time unless there is a binding contract that says otherwise. If they decide to change their policy going forward AND APPLY IT CONSISTANTLY HEREAFTER that is entirely legal and their right.

SOMEONE always has to be the first one on any amended policy.

I see your point. I think it will be interesting to see how this pans out, as I don't see them wanting to apply such a strict policy consistently.

As an aside: apparently, a colleague of mine asked what our STD benefits are at a recent meeting, and was told by HR that it's on a case by case basis. Is that a legitimate policy? To decide these situations on a case by case basis, even among similarly situated employees?

Also, they can not treat pregnancy differently than other conditions. I would see what the President says. They may be as generous as they have in the past. Very few employers offer full pay without an employee having to use their leave time. Also, if these other cases were many years ago, or with different supervisors or President's they can not be compared to yours now for "fairness".

If the 50 employees are within a 75 miles radius of one another, and you have been there 12 months and worked 1250 hours in the past year, you would qualify for 12 weeks of unpaid leave under FMLA.

On the surface I agree it sounds -at least unusual -, but I can also see the reasoning behind it. NY has a mandated state disability policy; CT does not. It might be their way of trying to keep benefits consistant between the two.

An update, for those who are curious:

This morning, HR called and told me that she herself is also pregnant. Remarkable. I knew immediately that this would be a good thing, because she is the daughter of someone "who matters" to our company. She said that they had consulted with the company's lawyer, who advised that the company give both she and I three months off at full pay, and create a new, firm, less generous short term medical disability policy to put in place effective March 15th. Looks like I got VERY lucky and could not have timed this pregnancy any better.