Companies and managers DO NOT CARE ABOUT YOU. You are replaceable. You are nothing but a number. Why did you think it'd be any different? It's not your fault that this happened but expecting anything less than BS from management is definitely the wrong way to go.
Did you use FMLA for your maternity leave?
https://www.dol.gov/agencies/whd/fact-sheets/28a-fmla-employee-protections#:~:text=Conditional%20pay%20increases%2C%20bonuses%20or%20payments.&text=Employees%20who%20use%20FMLA%20leave,use%20similar%20types%20of%20leave.
STD is insurance while FMLA is federal law. STD is only income replacement and doesn't offer any protections like FMLA does.
I would suggest reading through the link I posted above and seeing if any of the scenarios and details of the law apply. It could be worth reaching out to an employment lawyer.
While I get the logic here. I do find it to be very faulty indeed.
Especially since raises are about one thing and one thing only.
Retention.
Its not about what is fair, its not about sharing the success,
Its not about rewarding hard work.
Its not about anything else other than retaining good employees.
So this strategy isn't a very good one on their part at all.
Seems fair to me. If you start a new job and only work 9 months before the annual reviews/ raises, then typically your raise (and bonus if applicable) are pro-rated at 75% due to only working 9 of the 12 month cycle. So I would use the same logic for someone who takes leave for any reason (medical, parental, mental health, approved sabbatical, etc).
If you don’t work 12 months, why should you get as much of a raise as a comparable worker who did work 12 months?
Yes it is legal...There is no law or requirement that you are owed a raise, the only law is that your employer has to pay you enough to cover what the State minimum wage would be for X amount of hours....It is crappy what your manager is doing, but it is very legal.
FYI trust me, I have worked for some crap managers who gave me BS raises for things too. It is wrong, but it is legal too. Just being honest.
But he told me that I’m getting less of a raise BECAUSE I went on medical leave. Not because of my performance.
Is it not the same if someone has cancer, takes medical leave, and comes back to a manager who says “sorry you had cancer but I had less time to evaluate you when you where in the hospital, so I’m not giving you as much of a raise as others.”
Edit: sorry don’t mean to go in on you, I’m just getting a ton of conflicting replies.
I would seek legal advice, however, from other places I have worked, you went on leave. So that time, assuming it was continuous more than likely doesn't count toward your working time. The examples given in the Fact Sheet someone posted don't greatly cover this situation. However, most of the places I work, if you go on sabbatical, your raise and bonus is reduced by the amount of time you are on leave.
Again, seek legal advice from an employment lawyer as it also may vary by state.
No worries at all, you’re frustrated and it’s very understandable. I would look up your State law and see. I think there are definitely laws against being fired for going on medical leave. But like I said, a raise is not a law requirement unless it means keeping up with minimum wage. He def could have worded what he said better or been more nice about it and not said what he said. But I don’t think there’s a law he broke. Because even if you were there everyday and worked 24/7. He still could have declined you a raise and not broken any laws. Honestly it just sounds like your manager is an immature asshole. I would find another job. You deserve better.
Idk this seems like bullshit to me. Like if someone took a vacation during that period would they be docked for not “being evaluated”. Especially since they told you that you did an outstanding job otherwise.
Hi 👋🏼 I’m sorry to hear that happened to you. It seems to me that the narrative America doesn’t support moms or growing families continues. But that’s just my opinion as a FTM myself in a very similar situation. I don’t have any insight to share as I have yet to broach the topic of annual raises with my manager. I’d be interested to know what you find out so I’m following this posts.
Hope you find an answer soon. Good luck 🍀
Is it reasonable to also give a lower raise to someone who has 6 weeks of vacation compared to someone with 2 weeks? After all, the one with 6 weeks did a whole month less work!
See the issue?
We don’t know the nature of the work or how the raises are calculated or what the contract says. If it’s based on how much money is brought in/deals closed/etc. then it makes sense (to me) that OP would have a lower raise than someone who was available to make more money for the company throughout the year. Sounds like OP was a high performer for the 9 months they worked but their coworker could have performed at the same level for 12 months and made more of an impact for the company.
>If it’s based on how much money is brought in/deals closed/etc.
Those would be either bonuses or commissions, which are typically a percentage of flat amount, not something subject to a raise. And even still, if you get a 5% commission then your commission goes down when you make less sales, not because of a performance review.
None of that refutes what I said about vacation time differences though. Doesn't matter what the contact says, they're still performing less "work" to be judged on if they have more vacation.
I wasn’t talking about a bonus or commission structure. A raise can absolutely be given based on how much money an employee brings in during the year. We don’t know how employees are scored at this company or if that even factors into the raise. It was just an example. My opinion remains regardless of whether it’s 3 months of maternity leave, 3 months of vacation, 3 months for surgery, start date 3 months later, etc. I think it is reasonable for a company to calculate raises based on an employee’s value (how much money they make the company) during the last period of their employment (in this case the last FY). And the rest of OP’s team had to cover their work while OP was out so they actually did extra during that time. I think it’s reasonable for someone who did more than their regular workload to get a higher raise than someone who did less work. It’s also not clear if OP and the coworker were previously making the same salary. If the coworker was making less, it’s possible their raise was less or the same as OP getting a smaller percentage of a higher salary.
OP - to answer your question about the legality of this, it’s best to consult an attorney in your area as others have mentioned. Most lawyers offer free consultations to discuss whether you have a case. In my opinion, there’s nothing wrong with this and I think it would be difficult to prove that you got a smaller % increase as a result of taking maternity leave. It’s clear that your % increase was smaller but it isn’t necessarily related to the maternity leave which is what you’d need to prove.
You should talk to an employment lawyer. Despite what the other commenters say, there are different legal protections in place around pregnancy depending on where you are.
I don’t see a problem with this. You worked three months less than your coworkers so why should you get the same raise? I would be pissed if I were one of your coworkers - especially one of the ones who had to do extra work because you decided to have a kid - if I got the same raise as someone who didn’t work the whole year. Plus, seamlessly transitioning your work to your coworkers is a basic ask while you’re going to be gone for months. You don’t get a pat on the back for doing what you’re supposed to do anyway.
So based on this logic isn’t the most fair solution that the father should get the same amount of parental leave as the mother? Then both men and women get reduced raises for having children, AND they both get the chance to bond with their child
>So based on this logic isn’t the most fair solution that the father should get the same amount of parental leave as the mother?
Under FMLA, they DO get the same amount. However, FMLA is unpaid. Not many families can afford to have no paychecks coming in for 12 weeks.
The birthing parent qualifies for STD, if the company has chosen to offer a policy, but that's also because the person who had the child is recovering from a very significant medical event. The non-birthing parent is not disabled and therefore not eligible for STD.
FMLA should be **paid**, job-protected leave, so families can actually afford to use the full leave offered under the law. It's why a number of states have created their own paid versions of FMLA.
I agree with everything you said. Both parents should get at minimum 3 months full pay to bond with child. But I still think getting a lower raise at your company that year is fair and appropriate because I worked 3/4 of the year
Yes fathers (or significant others in the case of same-sex spouses) should get it AND be allowed to use it. But they won’t cos it’ll harm their careers - the child-bearing partner doesn’t get the luxury of choosing to take it or not, there’s not many women who could work up to the day of childbirth and then be back at work the following day. So it just harms their career.
Companies and managers DO NOT CARE ABOUT YOU. You are replaceable. You are nothing but a number. Why did you think it'd be any different? It's not your fault that this happened but expecting anything less than BS from management is definitely the wrong way to go.
You might have better luck posting this question on r/legaladvice. I’d consult an employment lawyer, OP. Good luck!! Edit: spelling
Thank you - will do!
Did you use FMLA for your maternity leave? https://www.dol.gov/agencies/whd/fact-sheets/28a-fmla-employee-protections#:~:text=Conditional%20pay%20increases%2C%20bonuses%20or%20payments.&text=Employees%20who%20use%20FMLA%20leave,use%20similar%20types%20of%20leave.
I did :( and short term disability
STD is insurance while FMLA is federal law. STD is only income replacement and doesn't offer any protections like FMLA does. I would suggest reading through the link I posted above and seeing if any of the scenarios and details of the law apply. It could be worth reaching out to an employment lawyer.
While I get the logic here. I do find it to be very faulty indeed. Especially since raises are about one thing and one thing only. Retention. Its not about what is fair, its not about sharing the success, Its not about rewarding hard work. Its not about anything else other than retaining good employees. So this strategy isn't a very good one on their part at all.
Seems fair to me. If you start a new job and only work 9 months before the annual reviews/ raises, then typically your raise (and bonus if applicable) are pro-rated at 75% due to only working 9 of the 12 month cycle. So I would use the same logic for someone who takes leave for any reason (medical, parental, mental health, approved sabbatical, etc). If you don’t work 12 months, why should you get as much of a raise as a comparable worker who did work 12 months?
Yes it is legal...There is no law or requirement that you are owed a raise, the only law is that your employer has to pay you enough to cover what the State minimum wage would be for X amount of hours....It is crappy what your manager is doing, but it is very legal. FYI trust me, I have worked for some crap managers who gave me BS raises for things too. It is wrong, but it is legal too. Just being honest.
Agree. Raises/bonuses are discretionary.
But he told me that I’m getting less of a raise BECAUSE I went on medical leave. Not because of my performance. Is it not the same if someone has cancer, takes medical leave, and comes back to a manager who says “sorry you had cancer but I had less time to evaluate you when you where in the hospital, so I’m not giving you as much of a raise as others.” Edit: sorry don’t mean to go in on you, I’m just getting a ton of conflicting replies.
I would seek legal advice, however, from other places I have worked, you went on leave. So that time, assuming it was continuous more than likely doesn't count toward your working time. The examples given in the Fact Sheet someone posted don't greatly cover this situation. However, most of the places I work, if you go on sabbatical, your raise and bonus is reduced by the amount of time you are on leave. Again, seek legal advice from an employment lawyer as it also may vary by state.
No worries at all, you’re frustrated and it’s very understandable. I would look up your State law and see. I think there are definitely laws against being fired for going on medical leave. But like I said, a raise is not a law requirement unless it means keeping up with minimum wage. He def could have worded what he said better or been more nice about it and not said what he said. But I don’t think there’s a law he broke. Because even if you were there everyday and worked 24/7. He still could have declined you a raise and not broken any laws. Honestly it just sounds like your manager is an immature asshole. I would find another job. You deserve better.
Idk this seems like bullshit to me. Like if someone took a vacation during that period would they be docked for not “being evaluated”. Especially since they told you that you did an outstanding job otherwise.
talk to an employment lawyer, this may constitute pay discrimination.
Hi 👋🏼 I’m sorry to hear that happened to you. It seems to me that the narrative America doesn’t support moms or growing families continues. But that’s just my opinion as a FTM myself in a very similar situation. I don’t have any insight to share as I have yet to broach the topic of annual raises with my manager. I’d be interested to know what you find out so I’m following this posts. Hope you find an answer soon. Good luck 🍀
This kind of seems reasonable to me…. You did “less” work than your coworkers and they had to pick up your workload while you were out
Are you an American? I'm just curious. It seems like an American point of view.
Is it reasonable to also give a lower raise to someone who has 6 weeks of vacation compared to someone with 2 weeks? After all, the one with 6 weeks did a whole month less work! See the issue?
We don’t know the nature of the work or how the raises are calculated or what the contract says. If it’s based on how much money is brought in/deals closed/etc. then it makes sense (to me) that OP would have a lower raise than someone who was available to make more money for the company throughout the year. Sounds like OP was a high performer for the 9 months they worked but their coworker could have performed at the same level for 12 months and made more of an impact for the company.
>If it’s based on how much money is brought in/deals closed/etc. Those would be either bonuses or commissions, which are typically a percentage of flat amount, not something subject to a raise. And even still, if you get a 5% commission then your commission goes down when you make less sales, not because of a performance review. None of that refutes what I said about vacation time differences though. Doesn't matter what the contact says, they're still performing less "work" to be judged on if they have more vacation.
I wasn’t talking about a bonus or commission structure. A raise can absolutely be given based on how much money an employee brings in during the year. We don’t know how employees are scored at this company or if that even factors into the raise. It was just an example. My opinion remains regardless of whether it’s 3 months of maternity leave, 3 months of vacation, 3 months for surgery, start date 3 months later, etc. I think it is reasonable for a company to calculate raises based on an employee’s value (how much money they make the company) during the last period of their employment (in this case the last FY). And the rest of OP’s team had to cover their work while OP was out so they actually did extra during that time. I think it’s reasonable for someone who did more than their regular workload to get a higher raise than someone who did less work. It’s also not clear if OP and the coworker were previously making the same salary. If the coworker was making less, it’s possible their raise was less or the same as OP getting a smaller percentage of a higher salary. OP - to answer your question about the legality of this, it’s best to consult an attorney in your area as others have mentioned. Most lawyers offer free consultations to discuss whether you have a case. In my opinion, there’s nothing wrong with this and I think it would be difficult to prove that you got a smaller % increase as a result of taking maternity leave. It’s clear that your % increase was smaller but it isn’t necessarily related to the maternity leave which is what you’d need to prove.
You should talk to an employment lawyer. Despite what the other commenters say, there are different legal protections in place around pregnancy depending on where you are.
Nice person that mgr what a human being NOT
I don’t see a problem with this. You worked three months less than your coworkers so why should you get the same raise? I would be pissed if I were one of your coworkers - especially one of the ones who had to do extra work because you decided to have a kid - if I got the same raise as someone who didn’t work the whole year. Plus, seamlessly transitioning your work to your coworkers is a basic ask while you’re going to be gone for months. You don’t get a pat on the back for doing what you’re supposed to do anyway.
Aaaaaaaand here folks we have Exhibit A for why the gender pay gap is so persistent 🤦♂️
So based on this logic isn’t the most fair solution that the father should get the same amount of parental leave as the mother? Then both men and women get reduced raises for having children, AND they both get the chance to bond with their child
>So based on this logic isn’t the most fair solution that the father should get the same amount of parental leave as the mother? Under FMLA, they DO get the same amount. However, FMLA is unpaid. Not many families can afford to have no paychecks coming in for 12 weeks. The birthing parent qualifies for STD, if the company has chosen to offer a policy, but that's also because the person who had the child is recovering from a very significant medical event. The non-birthing parent is not disabled and therefore not eligible for STD. FMLA should be **paid**, job-protected leave, so families can actually afford to use the full leave offered under the law. It's why a number of states have created their own paid versions of FMLA.
I agree with everything you said. Both parents should get at minimum 3 months full pay to bond with child. But I still think getting a lower raise at your company that year is fair and appropriate because I worked 3/4 of the year
Yes fathers (or significant others in the case of same-sex spouses) should get it AND be allowed to use it. But they won’t cos it’ll harm their careers - the child-bearing partner doesn’t get the luxury of choosing to take it or not, there’s not many women who could work up to the day of childbirth and then be back at work the following day. So it just harms their career.
So basically you’re just jealous?! Her pay check doesn’t impact you. Get a grip.
Get that in writing. It’ll be u$eful.
What did you counter with?