The Congressional Record is a unique source of public documentation. It started in 1873, documenting nearly all the major and minor policies being discussed and debated.
“THE FAMILY AND MEDICAL LEAVE ACT” mentioning the U.S. Dept of Labor was published in the Extensions of Remarks section on pages E609 on April 24, 1996.
The publication is reproduced in full below:
THE FAMILY AND MEDICAL LEAVE ACT
______
HON. GEORGE R. NETHERCUTT, JR.
of washington
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, April 23, 1996
Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing a bill to correct a provision in the Family and Medical Leave Act that imposes an inequity on married couples working for the same employer.
I first learned about the need to change section 102(f) of the Family and Medical Leave Act from a constituent who directs human services for a small business in the fifth district of Washington. My constituent was approached by two couples, one married and the other unmarried, who worked at her firm. Both couples were expecting a child and wanted to know how much family leave they were entitled to under the Family and Medical Leave Act.
The answer? Because of section 102(f), the unmarried couple was entitled to twice as much family and medical leave--24 weeks--as the married couple, which was limited to a total of 12 weeks to care for their newborn child. The only reason for this difference was that the Family and Medical Leave Act limits benefits for spouses--and only spouses--working for the same employer.
This section was included in the bill so that the Family and Medical Leave Act does not create a double burden on businesses that hire married couples or have employees who marry. However, the law does not similarly limit the leave entitlement of siblings or unmarried couples working for the same employer even though they may also require simultaneous leave periods. This discrepancy creates an inadvertent
``marriage penalty'' in the Family and Medical Leave Act.
When the Department of Labor asked for comments on this provision, several respondents reacted unfavorably. According to the introduction to the final family and medical leave regulations,
Several commenters took issue with the reasoning for limiting leave entitlements for spouses employed by the same employer. Two individuals opposed the limitations as being discriminatory against spouses . . . [T]he regulations provide no guidance in connection with siblings employed by the same employer. The Society for Human Resource Management noted that two employees living together but not legally married can each take 12 weeks for the birth or placement of a child, and recommended revising the regulations to provide that the 12-week-total limitation would also apply where both parents of a child work for the same employer. (emphasis added).
The legislation I have introduced addresses the concerns of my constituent and the experts who reviewed the regulations issued by the Department of Labor. My bill corrects this marriage penalty by applying the same 12-week limitation to siblings and to both married and unmarried parents. As in the current law, this limitation applies when leave is available for the birth or adoption of a child or to care for a parent. This legislation is a positive step toward improving our Federal workplace laws and I urge my colleagues to support it.
____________________
