Paid Parental Leave: Boston Starts Another Party

06 July 2015 Labor & Employment Law Perspectives Blog

In a recent trail blazing move, Boston’s Mayor Martin J. Walsh signed an ordinance establishing paid parental leave for city employees. This ordinance distinguishes Boston — known for some other revolution-inducing tactics — from the United States, most individual states, and nearly every other city nationwide. In fact, in the preamble to the new ordinance, the city council of Boston highlights the fact that the United States is one of only three countries that lacks a law requiring employers to fund parental pay. Only a handful of cities, Seattle among them, have such leave laws and only three states — New Jersey, California, and Rhode Island — currently offer paid family leave. Boston’s new ordinance aligns the city, however, with approximately 178 countries worldwide that offer some form of paid parental leave.

The new ordinance is noteworthy for more than just its relative rarity in the United States. Its scope is also unusually broad. Unlike other family leave policies — which often are applied differentially based on gender — the Boston ordinance provides both female and male city employees with six weeks of paid parental leave to be taken by day or week anytime during the first year after the birth or adoption of a child. In addition, the leave is available to employees regardless of the means by which they have become parents — either through natural birth, adoption, surrogacy, or stillbirth. Eligible employees receive 100 percent of their pay for two weeks of the leave, 75 percent for another two weeks, and 50 percent for the remaining two weeks.

If the White House’s position on the matter of paid parental leave is any indication, other cities and states may not be far behind Boston’s lead. In January, the White House affirmed its commitment to paid family leave (among other types of paid leave) and announced that it “would award $1 million for a grant program to help states, municipalities, and federally recognized tribes conduct feasibility studies for paid leave programs.” President Obama’s proposed 2016 budget also included more than $2 billion in new funds to encourage states to develop paid family and medical leave programs and $35 million in competitive grants to assist states that are still building the administrative infrastructure needed to implement paid leave programs.

Businesses looking to stay ahead of the curve on this issue would be well advised to familiarize themselves with the current state and city statutes and ordinances mandating paid family leave, and to explore the potential administrative costs and benefits of such policies in the event that laws are passed that require private businesses to provide this leave benefit. While many critics of statutorily required paid parental leave policies claim that the cost of their implementation is high and is sometimes passed through to employees in the form of decreased wages or other discretionary benefits — thereby hurting rather than helping workers — as the Boston city council noted, proponents of such requirements believe “paid leave and workplace flexibility increase productivity, help recruit more talented workers, lower worker turnover and replacement costs, reduce absenteeism, and improve job satisfaction.” As momentum for paid parental leave laws potentially builds, employers would be wise to stay informed on this issue.

This blog is made available by Foley & Lardner LLP (“Foley” or “the Firm”) for informational purposes only. It is not meant to convey the Firm’s legal position on behalf of any client, nor is it intended to convey specific legal advice. Any opinions expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect the views of Foley & Lardner LLP, its partners, or its clients. Accordingly, do not act upon this information without seeking counsel from a licensed attorney. This blog is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship. Communicating with Foley through this website by email, blog post, or otherwise, does not create an attorney-client relationship for any legal matter. Therefore, any communication or material you transmit to Foley through this blog, whether by email, blog post or any other manner, will not be treated as confidential or proprietary. The information on this blog is published “AS IS” and is not guaranteed to be complete, accurate, and or up-to-date. Foley makes no representations or warranties of any kind, express or implied, as to the operation or content of the site. Foley expressly disclaims all other guarantees, warranties, conditions and representations of any kind, either express or implied, whether arising under any statute, law, commercial use or otherwise, including implied warranties of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Foley or any of its partners, officers, employees, agents or affiliates be liable, directly or indirectly, under any theory of law (contract, tort, negligence or otherwise), to you or anyone else, for any claims, losses or damages, direct, indirect special, incidental, punitive or consequential, resulting from or occasioned by the creation, use of or reliance on this site (including information and other content) or any third party websites or the information, resources or material accessed through any such websites. In some jurisdictions, the contents of this blog may be considered Attorney Advertising. If applicable, please note that prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Photographs are for dramatization purposes only and may include models. Likenesses do not necessarily imply current client, partnership or employee status.

Related Services

Insights