Page 2 of 8 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 71

Thread: Supreme Court to hear pregnancy discrimination case

  1. #11
    Sage

    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:16 PM
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    43,414

    Re: Supreme Court to hear pregnancy discrimination case

    Quote Originally Posted by AGENT J View Post
    Supreme Court to hear pregnancy discrimination case | MSNBC

    backup links:
    U.S. top court to weigh UPS pregnancy discrimination claim | Reuters
    For pregnant women, a needed accommodation - The Washington Post
    Former UPS driver's pregnancy discrimination case heading to Sup - DC News FOX 5 DC WTTG
    Supreme Court to Determine Workplace Pregnancy Protections


    I hope she wins because this is an insult to womens rights and pregnant women everywhere.
    She wanted to keep working, didnt need much of anything to do so and was told no and placed on UNPAID LEAVE with NO INSURANCE . . . .really?

    shes only trying to bring a child into this world, pay and insurance isnt needed

    why are we like the only developed country that doesnt have protected maternity leave? pathetic
    Parental leave - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    She probably will win. And delivery services will face higher costs, when employing women. They will tend to employ fewer at lower wages. That is trivial economics and always the case.
    I suspect that you have never employed a young lady in a job and had her go pregnant on you. Depending on the job it is catastrophic or only costly. And it always hurts you. You learn these things after it has happened to you a couple of times.

  2. #12
    Kinky
    tres borrachos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    New England
    Last Seen
    12-15-17 @ 03:53 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    39,234

    Re: Supreme Court to hear pregnancy discrimination case

    Quote Originally Posted by Hatuey View Post
    Do you know what a pregnancy is?



    What doctors recommend and a company's willingness to take on extra risk are two entirely different things. For example, my doctor has told me I'm in perfect physical condition. The companies that I work for will not allow me to climb up the side of a building just for an advertisement campaign. What a doctor says is irrelevant to a company's risk assessment.



    Hmm maybe because other employees aren't responsible for the wellbeing of someone else.



    In this world where people like you get bent out of shape out of shape when they don't understand that a company isn't breaking any laws, I can see why. Regardless, UPS wasn't breaking any laws and it wasn't discriminating against anyone in particular. FMLA applies to every single employee equally and their change of policy could in theory work out for the worst. The company could make her sign an agreement saying that if she loses the pregnancy as a result of her work, the company won't be held responsible in any sort of financial manner. How does that help her?
    I gave you a like on one of the other posts because I have to say, your posts in this thread are among the most sensible posts I've read on this board on any issue. At first read I was all about siding with the woman at the center of the issue. I have 3 kids and was working during all pregnancies, and with blazing gestational diabetes for all 3 as well as some other complications, my doctors were always "recommending" what I should do, and what I could do, and so on. My company actually wanted me to start my maternity leave much sooner than I did with the others, which started the day they were born since I worked right up to the end of my scheduled C-sections. My doctors said it was still okay for me to work but I was an outside sales person who spent about 5 hours a day in her car and my company just didn't want the risk of me driving all over New England and them being on the hook somehow.

    Thank you for your reasoned and well constructed posts.
    Horse sense is the thing a horse has which keeps it from betting on people. ~W.C. Fields

  3. #13
    Sage
    Hatuey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:08 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    42,089

    Re: Supreme Court to hear pregnancy discrimination case

    Quote Originally Posted by AGENT J View Post
    1.) easy underlaw one person vs two
    You've now crossed the line of utter nonsense. Under the law, injury to a pregnant woman actually takes her fetus into consideration. As such, under the law, there are two people being put in harms way, not one. SPECIALLY in Va where this took place. Again, educate yourself. Here is Virginia law on the matter:

    State Homicide Laws That Recognize Unborn Victims | National Right to Life

    Virginia: Effective July 1, 2004, Code of Virginia Section 18.2-32.2 provides: “Any person who unlawfully, willfully, deliberately, maliciously and with premeditation kills the fetus of another” may be imprisoned from 20 years to life; and any person who does so without premeditation may be imprisoned for not less than five nor more than 40 years.
    2.) yes it was irrelevant for you to point it out since didnt make that claim or this one
    It was irrelevant for me to point out it was irrelevant? Lol. You made an irrelevant statement. I pointed it out. Get over it.

    3.) didnt say he put them at PHYSICAL risk did i? nope
    Considering that's what we're discussing, there is nothing else for you to refer to other than physical risk. You tried to be purposely obtuse and it failed. A disabled person who takes on manual labor only puts themselves at risk. A pregnant woman who takes on manual labor is putting herself and whatever is inside her at risk.

    4.) nothing in there that matters to anything i have actually said and i have used FMLA twice i well aware of it but thanks for another strawman
    You said it had not been established that UPS had broken any laws. I stated it had been established that they haven't considering they actually followed FMLA on this by offering the woman paid leave or to leave.

    5.) except what i said is factually true and not ignorant, it has NOT be established the UPS broke "no laws" yet. They very well may be found to have discriminated, they also might not. Thats a fact.
    It's ignorant because you have no idea how the law seems to work. That you think unpaid leave means she'll lose her insurance is just laughable.

    6.) again another strawman did i say FMLA isnt involved at all or claim the FMLA law was broken? nope lol i said it doesnt matter to what i was tlakign about or the lawsuit its about POSSIBLE discrimination and FMLA doesnt impact that. another failed strawman by you
    6.) not about FMLA
    First, it's not about FMLA, then, FMLA is sort of involved. Here, I'll make it easier for you: As UPS' defense relies on the premise that it didn't break any standing laws on maternity leave, this is about FMLA. Why? Because for her to win the case, she has to argue that company policy, which again, is in line with the legislation on the matter, discriminated against her specifically. In short, they'd have to show that the law being used to enforce this policy discriminates. As such, this case is really about whether or not FMLA discriminates against pregnant women. I'm getting tired of your boring ignorance on this topic.

    7.) weird another strawman and something you just made since i never said that. I agree silly indeed
    7.) id be fine with that and they would be pretty legally free since the doctor cleared her to do her job as long as they didnt force her to work outside her restrictions
    Guess what? The measure I provided? You said you'd be fine with it. It would actually leave this woman at a disadvantage.

    8.) who mentioned injuring themselves at the work place? oh thats right not me lol
    Look at your point 1, point 3 and tell yourself that's true.

    so after all your failed strawman here I am in the same place, i hope she wins and this is found to be discriminatory.
    If they decide its not thats fine ill still be an advocate for protected maternity leave and I wont be claiming were broken lol

    just a recap
    i never claimed FMLA laws were broken nor mentioned it nor does FMLA matter to the issue
    i never claimed I want a measure which actually doesn't benefit her at all and actually puts her in a negative position if the child were to be harmed

    glad i could help you actually stick to things i actually said
    It's almost like you have no idea what the discussion surrounds. This woman was provided with the conditions federally required of employees. That involves FMLA law. That she's suing over discrimination and you support her suggest you both believe a law was broken. Supposedly an anti-discrimination law. However, as FMLA applies to everyone equally, no law was broken and no discrimination took place. Is this really hard for you to understand?
    Last edited by Hatuey; 12-03-14 at 08:57 AM.
    I refuse to accept the view that mankind is so tragically bound to the starless midnight of racism and war that the bright daybreak of peace and brotherhood can never become a reality. - MLK

  4. #14
    I'm kind of a big deal

    AGENT J's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Pittsburgh
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:04 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    44,831

    Re: Supreme Court to hear pregnancy discrimination case

    Quote Originally Posted by joG View Post
    1.)She probably will win.
    2.) And delivery services will face higher costs, when employing women. They will tend to employ fewer at lower wages. That is trivial economics and always the case.
    3.) I suspect that you have never employed a young lady in a job and had her go pregnant on you.
    4.) Depending on the job it is catastrophic or only costly. And it always hurts you. You learn these things after it has happened to you a couple of times.
    1.) i hope she does
    2.) you are free to have that opinion
    3.) false over the years i have had 4
    4.) they were all good employees and besides them not being at work her not being at work it had no impact. They (3) took FMLA which they GOT paid 60% at one company i worked for and (1) 60% plus a maternity package at a different company and none of them lost insurance.

    they were also aloud to work as long as thier doctors said and under those conditions.
    This space is currently owned by The Great Winchester, stay tuned for future messages!
    Make America Great Again!
    Pro-Equal Rights / Pro-Gun Rights / Pro-Human Rights / Pro-Choice

  5. #15
    I'm kind of a big deal

    AGENT J's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Pittsburgh
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:04 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    44,831

    Re: Supreme Court to hear pregnancy discrimination case

    Quote Originally Posted by Hatuey View Post
    1.)You've now crossed the line of utter nonsense. Under the law, injury to a pregnant woman actually takes her fetus into consideration. As such, under the law, there are two people being put in harms way, not one. SPECIALLY in Va where this took place. Again, educate yourself. Here is Virginia law on the matter:

    State Homicide Laws That Recognize Unborn Victims | National Right to Life

    2.)It was irrelevant for me to point out it was irrelevant? Lol. You made an irrelevant statement. I pointed it out. Get over it.

    3.)Considering that's what we're discussing, there is nothing else for you to refer to other than physical risk. You tried to be purposely obtuse and it failed. A disabled person who takes on manual labor only puts themselves at risk. A pregnant woman who takes on manual labor is putting herself and whatever is inside her at risk.
    4.)You said it had not been established that UPS had broken any laws. I stated it had been established that they haven't considering they actually followed FMLA on this by offering the woman paid leave or to leave.
    5.)It's ignorant because you have no idea how the law seems to work. That you think unpaid leave means she'll lose her insurance is just laughable.
    6.)If it's not about FMLA, then FMLA is sort of involved. As UPS' defense relies on the premise that it didn't break any standing laws on maternity leave, this is about FMLA. I'm getting tired of your boring ignorance on this topic.
    7.)Guess what? The measure I provided? You said you'd be fine with it. It would actually leave this woman at a disadvantage.



    Look at your point 1, point 3 and tell yourself that's true.



    It's almost like you have no idea what the discussion surrounds. This woman was provided with the conditions federally required of employees. That involves FMLA law. That she's suing over discrimination and you support her suggest you both believe a law was broken. Supposedly an anti-discrimination law. However, as FMLA applies to everyone equally, no law was broken and no discrimination took place. Is this really hard for you to understand?
    1.) awesome another strawman!
    2.) been over the straman since you stated it
    3.) no WE were not, i made a statement and you tried to change it and failed
    4.) yes i did say that and it remains true it has not been established yet and will not be until SCOTUS rules
    5.) she did lose it according to one of the articles, i never made any correlation to "unpaid leave" another made up statement
    6.) again its not about FMLA its about possible discrimination keep desperately trying to reframe the op, the court case and what i said though. you are factually wrong. is the case about violating FML. . . nope its about possible discrimination. tell me that cool line about ignorance again?
    7.) nope thats your opinion . . . she wanted to work get paid and keep her insurances, she disagrees with you
    8.) yes point 1 and 3 dont do that thanks for proving it
    9.) no i know exactly what the COURT CASE is about . . possible discrimination . . . and exactly about how I feel about it and what i actually said . . .

    i simply just didnt allow you to reframe it and change my words or get caught up in your failed strawmen, good luck trying though it wont work
    This space is currently owned by The Great Winchester, stay tuned for future messages!
    Make America Great Again!
    Pro-Equal Rights / Pro-Gun Rights / Pro-Human Rights / Pro-Choice

  6. #16
    Sage
    Hatuey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:08 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    42,089

    Re: Supreme Court to hear pregnancy discrimination case

    Quote Originally Posted by tres borrachos View Post
    I gave you a like on one of the other posts because I have to say, your posts in this thread are among the most sensible posts I've read on this board on any issue. At first read I was all about siding with the woman at the center of the issue. I have 3 kids and was working during all pregnancies, and with blazing gestational diabetes for all 3 as well as some other complications, my doctors were always "recommending" what I should do, and what I could do, and so on. My company actually wanted me to start my maternity leave much sooner than I did with the others, which started the day they were born since I worked right up to the end of my scheduled C-sections. My doctors said it was still okay for me to work but I was an outside sales person who spent about 5 hours a day in her car and my company just didn't want the risk of me driving all over New England and them being on the hook somehow.

    Thank you for your reasoned and well constructed posts.
    That's basically what it boils down to. Companies who encourage their employees to take their guaranteed unpaid maternity leave aren't breaking the law or discriminating. What's funny is that agent J thinks this isn't about FMLA and yet FMLA is the legislation which made UPS' policy possible in the first place. Read some of his posts, he thinks that by going on maternity leave, this woman will lose her health insurance.
    I refuse to accept the view that mankind is so tragically bound to the starless midnight of racism and war that the bright daybreak of peace and brotherhood can never become a reality. - MLK

  7. #17
    Sage
    Hatuey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:08 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    42,089

    Re: Supreme Court to hear pregnancy discrimination case

    Quote Originally Posted by AGENT J View Post
    1.) awesome another strawman!
    2.) been over the straman since you stated it
    You've been reduced to repetition. That's not good sign less than 3 pages in. It's really simple, J, harm to women and fetuses are considered harm to two separate people. Who will be held legally responsible for willfully putting this woman at any risk? I'll wait.

    3.) no WE were not, i made a statement and you tried to change it and failed
    We've been discussing physical risk for literally 2 pages now. That's what this entire case is about. Physical risk, liability and a company being forced to take it. That you're trying to deny that is pretty silly.

    4.) yes i did say that and it remains true it has not been established yet and will not be until SCOTUS rules
    Lol, can you tell us what law UPS broke by modeling its policy on FMLA legislation? I'll wait.

    5.) she did lose it according to one of the articles, i never made any correlation to "unpaid leave" another made up statement
    She lost it because she went on leave of absence. Do you understand the difference between that and maternity leave?

    6.) again its not about FMLA its about possible discrimination keep desperately trying to reframe the op, the court case and what i said though. you are factually wrong. is the case about violating FML. . . nope its about possible discrimination. tell me that cool line about ignorance again?
    I'll explain this one last time because you seem to have issues. She's claiming she's being discriminated against because UPS' policy on maternity leave, which is based on FMLA legislation, is discriminatory. Do you realize why it's about FMLA yet? Or not?

    7.) nope thats your opinion . . . she wanted to work get paid and keep her insurances, she disagrees with you
    And yet, the company was under absolutely no obligation to abide by her demands. It provided her with unpaid maternity leave and it followed the federally mandated requirements of FMLA.

    8.) yes point 1 and 3 dont do that thanks for proving it
    Lol, you're being obtuse. You discuss physical injury in the last 3 post then claim you haven't. Not a good sign to be backtracking this early, dude.

    9.) no i know exactly what the COURT CASE is about . . possible discrimination . . . and exactly about how I feel about it and what i actually said . . .
    Can you please show us which law was violated by affording her the same options which would be offered to other employees who aren't putting anyone else at risk?

    i simply just didnt allow you to reframe it and change my words or get caught up in your failed strawmen, good luck trying though it wont work
    You use strawman like it's going out of style, but I don't think you actually know what it is. Your words on this have been pretty sketchy. First it's not about FMLA, then you say that you didn't say that FMLA wasn't involved. Then you claim you haven't mentioned injury at the workplace, but that's literally what this thread has been about since the beginning. Backtracking won't help you.
    I refuse to accept the view that mankind is so tragically bound to the starless midnight of racism and war that the bright daybreak of peace and brotherhood can never become a reality. - MLK

  8. #18
    I'm kind of a big deal

    AGENT J's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Pittsburgh
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:04 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    44,831

    Re: Supreme Court to hear pregnancy discrimination case

    Quote Originally Posted by Hatuey View Post
    1.) You've been reduced to repetition. That's not good sign less than 3 pages in. It's really simple, J, harm to women and fetuses are considered harm to two separate people. Who will be held legally responsible for willfully putting this woman at any risk? I'll wait.
    2.)We've been discussing physical risk for literally 2 pages now. That's what this entire case is about. Physical risk, liability and a company being forced to take it. That you're trying to deny that is pretty silly.
    3.)Lol, can you tell us what law UPS broke by modeling its policy on FMLA legislation? I'll wait.
    4.)She lost it because she went on leave of absence. Do you understand the difference between that and maternity leave?
    5.)I'll explain this one last time because you seem to have issues. She's claiming she's being discriminated against because UPS' policy on maternity leave, which is based on FMLA legislation, is discriminatory. Do you realize why it's about FMLA yet? Or not?
    6.) And yet, the company was under absolutely no obligation to abide by her demands. It provided her with unpaid maternity leave and it followed the federally mandated requirements of FMLA.



    Lol, you're being obtuse. You discuss physical injury in the last 3 post then claim you haven't. Not a good sign to be backtracking this early, dude.



    Can you please show us which law was violated by affording her the same options which would be offered to other employees who aren't putting anyone else at risk?



    You use strawman like it's going out of style, but I don't think you actually know what it is. Your words on this have been pretty sketchy. First it's not about FMLA, then you say that you didn't say that FMLA wasn't involved. Then you claim you haven't mentioned injury at the workplace, but that's literally what this thread has been about since the beginning. Backtracking won't help you.
    1.) this already failed further pushing your strawman doenst help it, can you point out where i said anything you claim? ill wait
    2.) nope that was your reframe, its about . . . . possible discrimination
    3.) another strawman, can you point out where i said they broke the laws of FMLA? Ill wait
    you cant cause you made it up. this is about discrimination. thats exactly what the lawsuit is about lol If FMLA didnt even exist would this lawsuit still exist? yep
    4.) wow talk about a total backpedal. soooo did I say i thought insurance stayed with unpaid leave or not? no I didnt. good try but a total fail
    5.) I know thats YOUR spin and YOUR claim and attempt at reframing but if FMLA didnt exist the case still would cause its about discrimination
    6.) so does that impact the fact she disagrees with you about "negative" effects or not? no it doesnt its a reframe that is meaningless to your original wrong claim and ANOTHER strawman.

    sis i say they were obligated to abide by her demands? nope i never even called them demands
    7.) another deflection
    8.) same? expect for the others that were allowed to do light duty like the articles point out . . not the same
    9.) yes i agree if you stop using them i wont have to point them out

    still about discrimination, and i still hope she wins, and if she doesnt i wont be claiming it broke the laws of FMLA cause i never did and ill still be an advocate for maternity leave. Cant wait to see the next arguments and positions of mine you make up though! Like i said good luck so far it hasnt worked out well at all!
    This space is currently owned by The Great Winchester, stay tuned for future messages!
    Make America Great Again!
    Pro-Equal Rights / Pro-Gun Rights / Pro-Human Rights / Pro-Choice

  9. #19
    Kinky
    tres borrachos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    New England
    Last Seen
    12-15-17 @ 03:53 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    39,234

    Re: Supreme Court to hear pregnancy discrimination case

    Quote Originally Posted by Hatuey View Post
    That's basically what it boils down to. Companies who encourage their employees to take their guaranteed unpaid maternity leave aren't breaking the law or discriminating. What's funny is that agent J thinks this isn't about FMLA and yet FMLA is the legislation which made UPS' policy possible in the first place. Read some of his posts, he thinks that by going on maternity leave, this woman will lose her health insurance.
    Not only did I never lose my insurance while on maternity leave...my insurance paid for pretty much everything related to the pregnancies and births. And you are 100% correct when you say it's the FMLA that made this policy possible in the first place.

    Excellent posts, Hatuey. Many likes for all of them.
    Horse sense is the thing a horse has which keeps it from betting on people. ~W.C. Fields

  10. #20
    Sage
    Hatuey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:08 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    42,089

    Re: Supreme Court to hear pregnancy discrimination case

    Quote Originally Posted by AGENT J View Post
    1.) this already failed further pushing your strawman doenst help it, can you point out where i said anything you claim? ill wait
    That you dismiss it because you can't address doesn't make it a strawman. The fact that you think under the law a pregnant woman counts as two people has already been shown to be false as per Virginia law. Should we look at federal law too and prove you wrong again?

    2.) nope that was your reframe, its about . . . . possible discrimination
    Discrimination which has been alleged when it's no different than a company not wanting to take responsibility for any injuries which may happen to the fetus.

    3.) another strawman, can you point out where i said they broke the laws of FMLA? Ill wait you cant cause you made it up. this is about discrimination. thats exactly what the lawsuit is about lol If FMLA didnt even exist would this lawsuit still exist? yep
    Eh, nobody has said you said that because the point is that the policy is based on FMLA. For the last time, if the policy is discriminatory, then the law it's based on is discriminatory. Do you not realize that yet?

    4.) wow talk about a total backpedal. soooo did I say i thought insurance stayed with unpaid leave or not? no I didnt. good try but a total fail
    Total backpedal? Dude, you just argued she lost it because she went on parental leave. What actually happened is she went on a leave of absence and lost it. If she had gone on parental leave, she wouldn't have lost it. That's not backpedaling, that's realizing just how little you actually understand this issue to begin with.

    5.) I know thats YOUR spin and YOUR claim and attempt at reframing but if FMLA didnt exist the case still would cause its about discrimination
    Discrimination against whom!?!?! The policy is based on a law which applies equally to all employees.

    6.) so does that impact the fact she disagrees with you about "negative" effects or not? no it doesnt its a reframe that is meaningless to your original wrong claim and ANOTHER strawman.

    sis i say they were obligated to abide by her demands? nope i never even called them demands
    7.) another deflection
    8.) same? expect for the others that were allowed to do light duty like the articles point out . . not the same
    9.) yes i agree if you stop using them i wont have to point them out

    still about discrimination, and i still hope she wins, and if she doesnt i wont be claiming it broke the laws of FMLA cause i never did and ill still be an advocate for maternity leave. Cant wait to see the next arguments and positions of mine you make up though! Like i said good luck so far it hasnt worked out well at all!
    Repeating the same nonsense over and over again won't help you. As the facts stand:

    - She was offered unpaid maternity leave, that would have allowed her to keep her insurance BY LAW.
    - She took a leave of absence instead and lost her insurance.

    Do you realize why there was no discrimination at all? The company offered her an option which would have allowed her to keep her health insurance and is mandated of all employers. It's also guaranteed to all of its employees. She took a different option which was up to the discretion of the employer (and not illegal or discriminatory). In short, she wanted the company to assume whatever risks she took (which it would have to if she injured herself or her fetus) and the company said no in the same way it would deny someone who wants to bring their kids to work. That's not discriminatory, that's an entirely legal practice.
    I refuse to accept the view that mankind is so tragically bound to the starless midnight of racism and war that the bright daybreak of peace and brotherhood can never become a reality. - MLK

Page 2 of 8 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •