Guide to Broad and Inclusive Family Definitions
In the Workplace Leave Context
Research studies clearly show that family structures are changing in a dramatic fashion, busting the
myth that two-parent, nuclear families are the norm. Young people are waiting longer to marry. The
percentage of adults cohabiting and raising children outside of marriage has increased significantly.
Nearly 1 in 5 Americans live in a multi-generational household.
Although the Supreme Court's June 2015 marriage equality decision represents a fantastic victory for
our families, it remains incredibly important to ensure that laws addressing families include the diversity
of family structures. In fact, many officials and policy makers will likely respond to the marriage
equality ruling by calling for more limited definitions of family in law and policy. Yet our families take
many forms, including blended families, single-parent families, LGBTQ families, chosen families,
multi-generational families, and multi-national families. As our families evolve, so too must our laws
protecting families—especially workplace leave laws, which recognize that we each need to be able to
care for our loved ones without jeopardizing our livelihoods.
Based on this recognition, A Better Balance and Family Values @ Work are leading an effort to expand
family recognition in workplace leave campaigns. A Better Balance convened a work group, including
many of the groups listed below, to develop a “family definitions guide” for workplace leave
campaigns. The document contains the following three sections:
1) Guiding principles for family definitions
2) “Gold standard” language for family definitions
3) Alternative options to the “gold standard,” with pros and cons
The following organizations support the principles and recommendations listed in this guide
(list in formation):
A Better Balance
Family Values @ Work
9to5
Equality Florida
Family Equality Council
Florida Institute for Reform and Empowerment (F.I.R.E.)
Forward Together
Main Street Alliance
Make it Work
Movement Advancement Project (MAP)
National Asian Pacific American Women's Forum (NAPAWF)
National Center for Transgender Equality
National Center for Lesbian Rights
National LGBTQ Task Force
National Partnership for Women & Families
Organize Now
Pride at Work
Services & Advocacy for GLBT Elders (SAGE)
If you have questions about this guide or would like assistance tailoring it to your campaign or
legislation, please contact A Better Balance at [email protected] or 212-430-5982.
Last Updated: July 2015
I. Guiding Principles for Family Definitions
1) Defining Spouses and Domestic/Civil Union Partners
• Define “spouse” as a person to whom the employee is legally married under the laws of any state.
• Many cities and some states maintain domestic partnership/civil union statuses, so these
relationships should be included in a family definition and treated as spouses wherever possible.
• Coverage of unmarried couples should apply equally to same-sex and different-sex couples.
Unmarried couples should be treated as family wherever possible.
2) Best Practices for Defining Close Family Relationships Beyond Immediate Family
• Workplace leave laws and policies should specifically list as many family relationships as
possible (e.g.: spouses, domestic partners [whether or not formally recognized by a state or city],
children, parents, parents of a spouse/partner, grandchildren, grandparents, siblings, etc.).
• Today’s families come in all shapes and sizes. In addition to the family members listed above,
close relationships that are the equivalent of family should be covered, even absent a blood
relationship. On the following page, we recommend covering “any individual related by blood or
affinity whose close association with the employee is the equivalent of a family relationship.”
• Even though the broad and inclusive family definition standards outlined in this guide could
cover many blood relatives, we still strongly recommend separately listing out as many specific
relationships as possible (grandparents, spouses, etc.). By separately listing these relationships,
they are automatically covered and the worker does not have to prove that they meet the relevant
standard (close association that is equivalent to family, joint residence, primary caregiver, etc.).
3) Alternative Models to Covering Close Family Relationships Beyond Immediate Family
• If “blood or affinity” receives too much opposition, there are alternative models to cover close
relationships. However, any alternative language used to cover close relationships should include
as many individuals as possible, given that workers may have caregiving responsibility for
multiple family members. Here are some alternative models and principles to guide you:
o Caregiving Relationships: Family definitions can include caregiving relationships (for
example, individuals for whom the worker is responsible to arrange or provide healthrelated care). Ideally, this definition should not be restricted to blood relatives.
o Listing of Factors: It can be difficult to define close relationships according to specific
factors. Ideally, broad family definitions can be defined according to a non-exclusive list
of factors that reflect a close relationship or a shared responsibility for each other’s
welfare, rather than requiring that a specific list of factors be met.
o Joint Residences: Definitions requiring a shared residence (past or present) should be as
broad as possible. Any such requirements should specify that joint legal ownership or
leases are not required and one or both persons can have additional separate residences.
o A “Plus One” or Designated Person Approach: If a family definition allows workers
to designate one additional person as a “family member” who is not already covered in
the definition of family members, this option should be available to all workers, rather
than only those without a spouse or domestic partner.
o Financial Dependence: Definitions requiring financial dependence should be avoided,
as they raise proof issues, and many close relationships don’t include unilateral financial
dependence. If necessary, such requirements should be broadened to require financial
interdependence or a shared responsibility for each other’s financial obligations.
4) Defining the Parent-Child Relationship
• Include biological, adopted, foster, and stepchildren, legal wards, and a child of a person who
stands in loco parentis (referring to one who acts in the place of a parent or assumes the role of
2
For specific drafting assistance, please contact A Better Balance at [email protected] or 212-430-5982.
Last Updated: July 2015
•
•
•
parent to a child with the intent to act as a parent). In many states, the ability of a same-sex
couple to legally adopt a child—either jointly or through a second-parent adoption—is prohibited
or legally uncertain. Therefore, many LGBT parents lack a legal relationship with their children
and would rely on an in loco parentis standard when they need time off to care for their children.
The federal Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) defines in loco parentis to include
individuals who have day-to-day responsibilities to care for and financially support a child,
although the Department of Labor has clarified that one does not have to provide both day-to-day
care and financial support to stand in loco parentis under the law. Because financial arrangements
and support vary among families, financial support should not be an absolute requirement.
Many laws and policies exclude adult children unless they are disabled or dependent. Adult
children need to be included in family definitions as much as other adult loved ones. Workers
often need to care for adult children who are sick, and those children should not be excluded.
The definition of “parent” should similarly include “a person who stood in loco parentis when the
employee was a minor child.”
II. “Gold Standard” or Ideal Language to Include in Workplace Leave Family Definitions
1) “Blood or Affinity” Standard
Family Definition Language
Pros/Cons
Source of Language
In addition to listing specific
family members, include: “Any
individual related by blood or
affinity whose close association
with the employee is the equivalent
of a family relationship.”
Pro: Includes close family relations, regardless
of biological tie. Can draw support from many
groups recognizing diversity of today’s families.
Con: Officials and opponents may argue it is too
broad, even though regulations can provide
specific guidance on how to apply this standard.
The federal government
uses this language in its
own regulations on
federal workers’ right to
annual and sick leave. 5
C.F.R § 630.201(b)(7)
Note: It is possible to achieve similar results with different language. For example, many hospital visitation
policies define family, based on LGBT-inclusive guidance, to include: “any person(s) who plays a significant
role in an individual’s life. This may include a person(s) not legally related to the individual. Members of
‘family’ include spouses, domestic partners, and both different-sex and same-sex significant others.”
2) Suggested “Domestic Partner” Language to Include in Workplace Leave Laws
Domestic Partner Definition Language
“Domestic partner means an adult in a
committed relationship with another adult,
including both same-sex and different-sex
relationships.”
Pros/Cons
Pros:
• Includes both legally registered
and unregistered relationships.
• Includes both same-sex and
different-sex couples.
“Committed relationship means one in which
the employee, and the domestic partner of the
• The requirement of a shared
employee, share responsibility for a
“responsibility for a significant
significant measure of each other's common
measure of each other’s common
welfare. This includes, but is not limited to,
welfare” can be a good measure of
any relationship between individuals of the
many chosen families and
same or different sex that is granted legal
committed relationships.
recognition by a State, Political Subdivision, or Cons:
by the District of Columbia as a marriage or
• This alone does not cover many
analogous relationship (including, but not
close relationships.
limited to, a civil union).”
Source of Language
This model definition
adapts language that the
federal government uses
in its own regulations
on federal workers’
right to annual/sick
leave. 5 C.F.R §
630.201(b). Notably, the
model definition in this
guide does not include a
requirement of shared
responsibility for
financial obligations,
which is not a reality in
many relationships.
3
For specific drafting assistance, please contact A Better Balance at [email protected] or 212-430-5982.
Last Updated: July 2015
III. Alternative Models to Cover Close Relationships Beyond Immediate Family Members
(Note: Advocates Should Consider Combining and Using Multiple Models Below to Broaden Coverage)
1) Close Associations Related by Blood/Marriage/Adoption (Not Affinity)
• Covers persons related by blood/marriage/adoption to the worker or worker’s spouse/partner
whose close association makes them the equivalent of a family member.
• Pros: Covers all extended relatives who have a close relationship.
• Cons: Unlike “blood or affinity” model, this approach removes “affinity,” excluding close
friends and other chosen family members without a blood/marriage/adoption connection.
• Where Used: Wisconsin’s Family and Medical Leave Law (Wis. Stat. Ann. § 103.10
(1m)(b)(4)). Also, Washington D.C.’s Family and Medical Leave Law goes broader by
simply covering “a person to whom the employee is related by blood, legal custody, or
marriage” whether there’s a close association or not (D.C. Code § 32-501(4)).
2) Caregiving Relationships
• Covers any person for whom the employee is responsible to arrange or provide healthrelated care (can be limited to “primarily responsible” if necessary).
• Pros: Especially in the context of laws that allow workers to take time off to care for family
members, this caregiving model is highly relevant and closely related to the law’s purpose.
Very helpful to workers who provide care to (or rely on) friends and “families of choice.”
• Cons: Regulations may be needed to explain how such caregiving responsibility should be
interpreted, although clear examples can be given.
• Where Used: Vermont’s paid sick time bill (H. 187, 2015) has a narrower version, covering
“a person for whom the employee is primarily responsible to arrange or provide care for
who is either a family member of the employee or resides with the employee, including
helping that individual obtain diagnostic, preventive, routine, or therapeutic health
treatment.”
3) Individuals Living with the Worker
• Covers people who share a mutual residence with the worker.
• Pros: Covers certain close relationships without requiring legal status. It doesn’t restrict
number of family members. Residency can be proven easier than some alternative models.
• Cons: Workers often have close family members and loved ones who don’t live with them.
• Where Used: D.C.’s Family and Medical Leave Law uses a narrower version of this model
by covering mutual residents who are in a committed relationship (D.C. Code § 32-501(4)).
o D.C.’s language allows either a current mutual residence or a mutual residence
shared within the last year, which is one way to expand the requirement.
• Recommendation: If used, also specify the following: joint ownership or leases aren’t
required; individuals can have one or more additional residences that aren’t shared; and one
of the individuals can be primarily living elsewhere if the individual has an intent to return.
4) “Plus One” or “Designated Person”
• Allows workers to designate one additional person for whom they can use their workplace
leave (beyond specific categories of family relationships mentioned in the law).
• Pros: No limit on who may be designated. No prior caregiving relationship or joint
residency necessary. Covers many types of close relationships. Very helpful to workers who
provide care to friends and “families of choice.”
4
For specific drafting assistance, please contact A Better Balance at [email protected] or 212-430-5982.
Last Updated: July 2015
•
•
Cons: Only one person can be designated and often only within prescribed time frames.
This is problematic, as workers often have caregiving responsibilities for multiple
individuals. When used, officials may want to make the option available only to workers
without a spouse or domestic partner. We recommend that all workers should be able to
designate an additional person under this model.
Where Used: San Francisco’s and Oakland’s Paid Sick Time Laws (San Francisco Code §
12W.4(a); Oakland Code § 5.92.030(B)(1)). Both laws specify the process for allowing
workers to select and change the designation (they must designate a person within a period
of 10 workdays and then may change it annually within another window of 10 workdays).
5) Broad Dependent Definition (Covering Certain Relationships Involving Financial
Dependency)
• Covers individuals who are dependent upon the worker’s support/finances.
• Pros: Many different areas of law cover dependent relationships, so officials may be
familiar with this relationship and understand its relevance to workplace leave needs. Blood
relationships don’t have to be required. It can be used to cover multiple family members.
• Cons: Financial dependence can be difficult to prove. In many close relationships, there is
no clear financial dependency, such as when both individuals earn some income.
• Where Used: West Virginia’s law regarding parental leave for certain government workers
(W. Va. Code § 21-5D-2(b)) broadly defines “dependent” to cover people who live with the
worker or who are dependent upon the worker’s income, regardless of a blood relationship.
This definition is relatively broad, by defining dependency to mean either financial
dependence or living together.
• Recommendation: If a dependency approach is used, it should be defined broadly to cover
interdependence, rather than requiring someone to be completely dependent on the worker.
6) Unregistered Domestic Partners (Or a Close Relationship) Based on A List of Requirements
• Defines domestic partners to include individuals who meet a specific list of requirements
(note: this approach can be used without describing the relationship as a “domestic
partner”).
• Pros: Does not require legal registration. Can be worded broadly to include families of
choice. Specific list of factors may avoid concerns about how an employee proves the
relationship.
• Cons: It can be difficult for many relationships to meet a long, specific list of requirements.
When used, it’s typically only available to unmarried workers. Also, it usually only covers
one person and excludes family members who are related by blood in a way that would
prohibit marriage (example: siblings).
• Where Used:
o Wisconsin’s Family and Medical Leave Law (Wis. Stat. Ann. §§ 103.10(1)(ar);
40.02(21c)-21(d)). Among other requirements, the individuals must: consider
themselves to be each other’s immediate family; must be responsible for each
other’s basic living expenses; must share a common residence (joint ownership not
required; either or both may have additional separate residences).
o Maine’s Family and Medical Leave Law (Me. Rev. Stat. Ann. tit. 26 § 843(7))
7) Unregistered Domestic Partners (Or a Close Relationship) Based on a “Nexus of Factors”
• Defines domestic partners according to a “nexus of factors,” or a list of examples that can
satisfy the test, as opposed to specific requirements (note: this approach can be used without
describing the relationship as a “domestic partner”).
5
For specific drafting assistance, please contact A Better Balance at [email protected] or 212-430-5982.
Last Updated: July 2015
•
•
•
Pros: Does not require legal registration. Can be worded broadly to include families of
choice. By not listing specific requirements, this approach reflects that family relationships
are diverse. Yet the use of examples can help to avoid concerns about proof.
Cons: Proof concerns may still be raised when only examples are included. When used, it’s
typically only available to unmarried workers. Also, it usually only covers one person and
excludes family members who are related by blood in a way that would prohibit marriage.
Where Used: This approach is used in New York’s proposed paid family leave bill (S.
3004, 2014). This bill defines “domestic partner” as a person who is dependent upon the
employee for support, “as shown by either unilateral dependence or mutual interdependence,
as evidenced by a nexus of factors including, but not limited to,” common
ownership/property, common house, children in common, intent to marry, shared budgets,
length of relationship.
6
For specific drafting assistance, please contact A Better Balance at [email protected] or 212-430-5982.