[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 54 (Wednesday, April 24, 1996)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E609]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                    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.

                          ____________________