Cosmetics
giant Estee Lauder Companies, Inc. is known for its perfumes, but in a lawsuit just filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, the Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) alleges something stinks about the
company’s parental leave policy as it applies to its male employees.
In announcing the lawsuit,
the EEOC says Estee Lauder violated federal law when it
implemented and administered a paid parental leave program that automatically
provides male employees who are new fathers lesser parental leave benefits than
are provided to female employees who are new mothers.
As alleged in the suit, Estee Lauder adopted a new parental
leave program in 2013 to provide employees with paid leave for purposes of
bonding with a new child, as well as flexible return-to-work benefits when the
child bonding leave expired. Under its parental leave program, in addition to
paid leave already provided to new mothers to recover from childbirth, Estee
Lauder also provides eligible new mothers an additional six weeks of paid
parental leave for child bonding. However,
under the program, Estee Lauder only offers new fathers whose partners have
given birth two weeks of paid leave for child bonding. The suit also alleges that new mothers are
provided with flexible return-to-work benefits upon expiration of child bonding
leave that are not similarly provided to new fathers.
The
case began when a male employee working as a stock person in an Estee Lauder
store in Maryland sought parental leave benefits after his child was born. He requested, and was denied, the six weeks
of child-bonding leave that biological mothers automatically receive, and was
allowed only the two weeks under the company policy. leave to bond with his
newborn child. The EEOC alleges the
company’s conduct violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title
VII”) and the Equal Pay Act of 1963, which prohibit discrimination in pay or benefits
based on sex. The suit seeks relief for
the affected employee, and other male employees who were denied equal parental
leave benefits because of their sex.
Specifically, the EEOC is seeking back pay and compensatory and punitive
damages on behalf of the male class members, as well as injunctive relief.
Under
the EEOC’s Strategic Enforcement Plan, addressing sex-based pay discrimination,
including in benefits such as paid leave, is a key priority of the Commission.
In bringing such a high-profile lawsuit against such a well-known
female-centric company, the EEOC is clearly trying to make a point. According
to EEOC Washington Field Office Acting Director Mindy Weinstein, “It is
wonderful when employers provide paid parental leave and flexible work
arrangements, but federal law requires equal pay, including benefits, for equal
work, and that applies to men as well as women.”
While
the merits of the EEOC’s lawsuit against Estee Lauder remain to be litigated,
the lawsuit is a good reminder for employers, even those in far less glamorous industries, to review their handbooks to see
if even the most well-intentioned employment policy needs a makeover.
