Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Personnel Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council member proposes broader employee protections and bereavement changes; administration cautions legal review, timeline
Summary
Council Member Erin Anderson proposed expanding the personnel manual to list additional protected identities and create bereavement leave for pregnancy loss; staff and the mayor’s office said legal review is required, the unions must be notified and the process could take several months.
Council Member Erin Anderson introduced a personnel‑policy proposal during council talk time on Jan. 28 asking the city to expand the non‑discrimination and harassment language in the Redmond personnel manual and to add bereavement leave specifically covering pregnancy loss and abortion.
Anderson read proposed text into the record and asked the council to consider edits to sections on nondiscrimination (2.2.10), harassment (2.2.20), hiring procedures (3.40, including “ban the box”/Fair Chance Act references) and bereavement leave for nonunion employees (9.60). Anderson framed the changes as expanding protections to groups not explicitly named in the manual — for example, survivors of assault, stalking or domestic violence; people with varied neurodiversity; and people with differing immigration or socioeconomic status — and as clarifying benefits for applicants and employees.
Administration response: Human Resources Director Catherine Laird said leave for pregnancy loss is likely to be covered by federal and state protections such as FMLA, PFML and pregnancy‑related accommodation laws; HR will need to review where existing leaves apply. Mayor Angela Birney and staff noted that updates to the personnel manual follow a standard process: drafting, legal review, director‑level and supervisor review, union notification and, where applicable, collective‑bargaining negotiations. City attorneys noted some features (for example, neurodiversity) may already be covered under federal or state disability definitions.
Council reaction and next steps: Several council members praised the intent but cautioned the proposal is broad and may require extended legal review and negotiation with unions. Director Laird estimated the full process could take multiple months. Council members discussed raising the item for prioritization at the upcoming council retreat or asking for a focused study session on personnel‑policy modernization. Anderson asked that the council consider moving the item forward to legal review; a vote to send the specific draft to legal review did not receive majority support at the meeting.
