The original poster (OP) works in an environment where an employee, who recently experienced a miscarriage nine days prior and took a week of bereavement leave, announced a new pregnancy immediately upon returning to work. The OP questioned this, as the employee stated the new conception occurred the night before returning, implying the loss of the new fetus after only three days of gestation.
This situation is part of a larger pattern, as the employee has reportedly experienced the loss of thirteen unborn children in similar short durations throughout 2024, resulting in the use of thirteen weeks of paid time off, in addition to vacation and personal days. Faced with updating the company’s bereavement policy to require documentation, the OP decided to reject the standard procedure, leading to a dilemma regarding how to proceed with policy enforcement.
Denied bereavement to employee who lost 3-day old fetus. Well?
As noted by organizational psychologist Dr. David Allen, known for his work on productivity and stress management, though context matters greatly, ‘You can’t manage what you don’t measure.’ While this quote often relates to task management, it applies here to policy management; unverified usage of significant company resources like paid time off creates an unmeasurable liability and undermines the integrity of the system for others.
The employee’s reported pattern—thirteen very early pregnancy losses within a single year, each warranting bereavement leave—suggests either an extreme and highly unusual medical circumstance requiring specialized HR accommodation beyond standard policy, or a severe misuse of the bereavement benefit. The OP’s reaction, deciding to ‘fuck it’ and move towards documentation enforcement, stems from a natural managerial boundary reaction when perceived abuse or extreme deviation from norms occurs. This behavior shifts the focus from compassion for genuine loss to policy security.
The OP’s action to add documentation requirements, while understandable as a reaction to perceived policy strain, must be handled carefully. A constructive recommendation would be to consult with legal or higher-level HR immediately to address this specific, anomalous case privately, rather than implementing a broad, reactive documentation requirement that might negatively affect employees experiencing genuine, verifiable losses. A direct, compassionate but firm conversation about the use of PTO related to these specific claims is often the most effective first step before blanket policy changes.
THE COMMENTS SECTION WENT WILD – REDDIT HAD *A LOT* TO SAY ABOUT THIS ONE.
The poster is currently wrestling with the administrative challenge posed by an employee whose pattern of reported pregnancy losses appears highly unusual and potentially exploitative of company policy, creating a conflict between established HR procedures and the need to address an outlier situation.
The central question is whether the OP is wrong for deciding to enforce stricter documentation requirements for bereavement leave in response to this specific pattern, or if the need to maintain policy integrity for all employees overrides the potential impact on this individual?
