[pc86]

No, because what the policy is essentially doing is saying "anyone with a new kid gets 8 weeks off. If you happened to have actually given birth to the kid, we'll give you an extra 8 weeks."

As others have stated, it would only be discriminatory if it was based on gender, but it's not - it's based on whether or not you had the physical toll of childbirth, as evident in the adoption v. birth difference for women.

It would be interesting to hear what the leave would be for a lesbian couple with one of the women giving birth. I would think 16/8 like a heterosexual couple, but that could get dicey depending on how the rule is worded.

[just2n]

Without trying to get involved, I just want to point out that it is (currently) physically impossible for males to give birth.

So it would appear that such a claim is implicitly identifying a gender by excluding all of the other gender.

[itafroma]

That would be true if the policy gave women 16 weeks and men 8 weeks, regardless of whether or not the woman gave birth. But, as reported, if you did not give birth, for example if you adopted a child, you only get 8 weeks: even if you are a woman.

A larger point could be made that it's somewhat pointless to speculate about whether a policy is sexist when we're hearing a brief summary from a secondary source. A large aspect of this is how the policy is actually worded and carried out in practice.

[gertef]

This is "disparate impact" and is fiercely debated where it appears.