Page 3 of 8 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 71

Thread: Supreme Court to hear pregnancy discrimination case

  1. #21
    Sage

    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:04 PM
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    43,249

    Re: Supreme Court to hear pregnancy discrimination case

    Quote Originally Posted by AGENT J View Post
    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.
    4 is a very small sample. But it is true that my experience with women employees has been good on most levels and usually better than with men. But there is no question that if a crucial employee becomes pregnant the company can be hit severely. In small companies it can even mean bankruptcy. Even in a large company losing the head and vice head of a department at more or less the same time to pregnancy can cost the whole team its bonuses. And the more protection a society forces the employer to grant the higher is his risk compared to an employee that cannot become pregnant. You know that.

  2. #22
    I'm kind of a big deal

    AGENT J's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Pittsburgh
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 02:38 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    44,761

    Re: Supreme Court to hear pregnancy discrimination case

    Quote Originally Posted by Hatuey View Post
    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?



    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.



    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?



    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.



    Discrimination against whom!?!?! The policy is based on a law which applies equally to all employees.



    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.
    AWESOME you didnt let me down more made up stuff! but nothgin has changed
    this is not about FMLA nor have i ever said it was, thats why your straman fails, its about possible discrimination

    also just to address one HILARIOUS lie and strawman its this:

    i never argued she lost it for ANY reason i simple stated she lost it "Dude, you just argued she lost it because she went on parental leave."
    never made that claim at all i simply pointed out she didnt have insurance and you made up the rest. If you disagree simply qoute me saying the lie you claim

    once again
    still about possible discrimination, this fact wont change
    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

  3. #23
    I'm kind of a big deal

    AGENT J's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Pittsburgh
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 02:38 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    44,761

    Re: Supreme Court to hear pregnancy discrimination case

    Quote Originally Posted by joG View Post
    1.)4 is a very small sample.
    2.) But there is no question that if a crucial employee becomes pregnant the company can be hit severely. In small companies it can even mean bankruptcy. Even in a large company losing the head and vice head of a department at more or less the same time to pregnancy can cost the whole team its bonuses. And the more protection a society forces the employer to grant the higher is his risk compared to an employee that cannot become pregnant. You know that.
    1.) never said it was large or small simply pointed out the fact your assumption was wrong.
    2.) or 100s of other medical conditions, or quits etc etc
    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

  4. #24
    Sage
    Hatuey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:20 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    42,018

    Re: Supreme Court to hear pregnancy discrimination case

    Quote Originally Posted by AGENT J View Post
    AWESOME you didnt let me down more made up stuff! but nothgin has changed
    this is not about FMLA nor have i ever said it was, thats why your straman fails, its about possible discrimination

    also just to address one HILARIOUS lie and strawman its this:

    i never argued she lost it for ANY reason i simple stated she lost it "Dude, you just argued she lost it because she went on parental leave."
    never made that claim at all i simply pointed out she didnt have insurance and you made up the rest. If you disagree simply qoute me saying the lie you claim

    once again
    still about possible discrimination, this fact wont change
    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!
    Typing in caps lock won't change the fact that you really don't know what you're talking about. This woman was offered maternal leave. That would have allowed her to keep her insurance by law. Hell, a female poster validated my statements and Wikipedia link on this very thread.

    The woman in the article lost her insurance because she took a LOA. She lost her insurance in the same way that any other employee on a LOA would have lost their insurance. She asked if she could keep working. The company denied her based on the fact that it would add a second liability - that liability being the life of her fetus.

    That is not in anyway similar to accommodations being given to disabled employees because disabled employees aren't carrying another lifeform with them. If anything, it's more like a person who wants to bring their child to work with them and then is complaining because they can't. However, for all of her complaining not only is the policy perfectly reasonable, it is within the limits of legality.

    There was never any discrimination here. The policy was applied equally to all workers.
    Last edited by Hatuey; 12-03-14 at 10:26 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

  5. #25
    Sage

    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:04 PM
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    43,249

    Re: Supreme Court to hear pregnancy discrimination case

    Quote Originally Posted by AGENT J View Post
    1.) never said it was large or small simply pointed out the fact your assumption was wrong.
    2.) or 100s of other medical conditions, or quits etc etc
    The assumption is not wrong. You just do not think through the matter. You see, if you have a large number of employees the thing is a statistical problem of large numbers. In your case it was one of a small sample that does not allow your conclusion. As to the fact that anyone can get sick, it is hard to say anything polite other than that you probably mean well. Because the costs to a company from pregnancy are differently structured to those of illness and they add on top of those.

  6. #26
    I'm kind of a big deal

    AGENT J's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Pittsburgh
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 02:38 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    44,761

    Re: Supreme Court to hear pregnancy discrimination case

    Quote Originally Posted by joG View Post
    1.)The assumption is not wrong.
    2.) You just do not think through the matter. You see, if you have a large number of employees the thing is a statistical problem of large numbers. In your case it was one of a small sample that does not allow your conclusion.
    3.) As to the fact that anyone can get sick, it is hard to say anything polite other than that you probably mean well. Because the costs to a company from pregnancy are differently structured to those of illness and they add on top of those.
    1.) this was your assumption "I suspect that you have never employed a young lady in a job and had her go pregnant on you. "
    your assumption was 100% factual wrong
    2.) your meaningless subjective opinion of this doesnt change your assumption being wrong. also WHAT conclusion of mine are you talking about?
    3.) and yet anybody could be gone 9 months or longer not just pregnant woman and in a lot of jobs they only need to mise like 2-4 months
    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

  7. #27
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Zyphlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    NoMoAuchie
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    47,939

    Re: Supreme Court to hear pregnancy discrimination case

    Here would be my question...

    This article stated that UPS made accomodations for people that are injured on the job and who have disabilities.

    If you're injured off of the job, then does UPS accomodate it? For example, if a person was to throw their back out playing football, or break their arm playing basketball, does UPS have a policy to accomodate those individuals with "light duty"?

    If they do then I'd absolutely say that a similar policy should be in place with regards to pregnancy.

    However, if they do not, then I don't see any difference here. Pregnancy is not a federally protected or medically designated "disability". It's not a handicap. So the closest it could be compared to is an injury. A woman is not going to be getting pregnant as part of her duties on the job, and as such this is an off the job impedement to her work. Just like UPS shouldn't have to bare the brunt of you injuring yourself while playing basketball, they shouldn't have to bare the brunt of you getting pregnant as well, if either hurts their business.

    Now, personally I think they should accomodate her if at all feasible to do so and still get the necessary productivity from the shop as a whole...but I don't necessarily think they should HAVE to accomodate her if they don't for other instances of peoples actions outside of work causing them to be limited in their ability to do the job.

  8. #28
    Sage

    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:04 PM
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    43,249

    Re: Supreme Court to hear pregnancy discrimination case

    Quote Originally Posted by AGENT J View Post
    1.) this was your assumption "I suspect that you have never employed a young lady in a job and had her go pregnant on you. "
    your assumption was 100% factual wrong
    2.) your meaningless subjective opinion of this doesnt change your assumption being wrong. also WHAT conclusion of mine are you talking about?
    3.) and yet anybody could be gone 9 months or longer not just pregnant woman and in a lot of jobs they only need to mise like 2-4 months
    Oh, I was only implying that I imagined you to be economically rational. But, of course, if you run your business as an altruistic set up, that is your privilege and I wish you survival. Just don't act as if the costs of pregnancy did not decrease the probability of a woman's being employed and the average level of women's pay. That was what the it was about.

  9. #29
    Guru
    Samhain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Northern Ohio
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:07 PM
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    3,875

    Re: Supreme Court to hear pregnancy discrimination case

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post
    Here would be my question...

    This article stated that UPS made accomodations for people that are injured on the job and who have disabilities.

    If you're injured off of the job, then does UPS accomodate it? For example, if a person was to throw their back out playing football, or break their arm playing basketball, does UPS have a policy to accomodate those individuals with "light duty"?

    If they do then I'd absolutely say that a similar policy should be in place with regards to pregnancy.

    However, if they do not, then I don't see any difference here. Pregnancy is not a federally protected or medically designated "disability". It's not a handicap. So the closest it could be compared to is an injury. A woman is not going to be getting pregnant as part of her duties on the job, and as such this is an off the job impedement to her work. Just like UPS shouldn't have to bare the brunt of you injuring yourself while playing basketball, they shouldn't have to bare the brunt of you getting pregnant as well, if either hurts their business.

    Now, personally I think they should accomodate her if at all feasible to do so and still get the necessary productivity from the shop as a whole...but I don't necessarily think they should HAVE to accomodate her if they don't for other instances of peoples actions outside of work causing them to be limited in their ability to do the job.
    Accommodations have to be "reasonable". If her request, as a driver, as not to deliver packages over 20 lbs, I don't think that counts as reasonable. Their offer of maternity leave was appropriate.

  10. #30
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Zyphlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    NoMoAuchie
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    47,939

    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.
    Exactly.

    They're not discriminating here IF they don't have a policy to offer accomodations for other injuries or issues sustained outside of the job, which aren't recognized as "disabilities".

    Indeed, if they were to actually just accomodate pregnancies, but not other things that FMLA covers, I think there'd possibly be a stronger case for "discrimination" than currently if they really do treat all instances of outside of the job impairments the same.

Page 3 of 8 FirstFirst 12345 ... 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
  •