Page 4 of 8 FirstFirst ... 23456 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 71

Thread: Supreme Court to hear pregnancy discrimination case

  1. #31
    Sage
    Hatuey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:41 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    42,057

    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.
    Hehehehe, I saw what you did there.
    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

  2. #32
    Bat Chain Puller
    beefheart's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    The burning sands of the desert southwest.
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:35 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    19,370

    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

    I've had to deal a lot with these cases and ADA cases, etc. The Pregnancy Discrimination Act is pretty solid law, however, ADA (or the much less restrictive ADAAA) does not consider pregnancy a disability, unless there are debilitating factors relating to the pregnancy.

    I get all the press releases from the EEOC on cases in my district, some of the cases would make your jaw drop. One sports bar forced a pregnant female employee who had been working there for years to not work on Monday nights, which is the highest night for tips because of football. The bar said something like "no one wants to see a pregnant waitress while they are watching football"

    This should be an interesting case, I was briefed on it and others upcoming by a labor attorney yesterday. Labor law is fascinating.
    Last edited by beefheart; 12-03-14 at 11:08 AM.
    "Those who do not remember the past are condemned to repeat it." George Santayana

  3. #33
    Bat Chain Puller
    beefheart's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    The burning sands of the desert southwest.
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:35 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    19,370

    Re: Supreme Court to hear pregnancy discrimination case

    Quote Originally Posted by American View Post
    So now they're accommodating her and you're complaining. Figures.
    But, the matter is, they didn't offer accommodation and were going to term her.

    There was a case EEOC decided this week, guy had a heart attack, went on FMLA, and while he was on FMLA, the company laid him off. They can't do that while he is on protected leave...to make matters worse, he was the only person laid off in the whole company, and the company tried to play it as a regular company wide layoff (of course, no WARN act notices, etc).
    "Those who do not remember the past are condemned to repeat it." George Santayana

  4. #34
    Professor

    Join Date
    May 2013
    Last Seen
    06-21-17 @ 12:55 PM
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    1,577

    Re: Supreme Court to hear pregnancy discrimination case

    Quote Originally Posted by beefheart View Post
    This should be an interesting case, I was briefed on it and others upcoming by a labor attorney yesterday. Labor law is fascinating.
    I see what you did there

  5. #35
    Bat Chain Puller
    beefheart's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    The burning sands of the desert southwest.
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:35 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    19,370

    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?

    Is climbing up the side of a building a part of your work duties as spelled out in your job description? If not...company is right. Companies must require an employee to see a doctor as part of the FMLA process (and for workers comp,they have to go to the company's doctor first), if the doctor says they can work with reasonable accommodations, the company has to either have them work somewhere where they can be accommodated, or pay them to do nothing. Hell, I used to have 757 Captains who were unable to fly working with me in recruitment during their recovery time.

    But, UPS was breaking laws by not accommodating this employee, inconsistency = lawsuits.
    "Those who do not remember the past are condemned to repeat it." George Santayana

  6. #36
    I'm kind of a big deal

    AGENT J's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Pittsburgh
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:12 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    44,822

    Re: Supreme Court to hear pregnancy discrimination case

    Quote Originally Posted by joG View Post
    1.)Oh, I was only implying that I imagined you to be economically rational.
    2.) But, of course, if you run your business as an altruistic set up, that is your privilege and I wish you survival.
    3.) 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.
    1.) translation: your assumption was factually wrong ans still is
    2.) another wrong assumption neither company was ran that way both are great companies and doing well.
    3.) i dont have to act, it factually didnt and doesnt for those companies
    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. #37
    Bat Chain Puller
    beefheart's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    The burning sands of the desert southwest.
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:35 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    19,370

    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.
    FMLA is unpaid leave, you have 12 weeks of it over a 12 month period (after you have been working for one year). The 60% pay was most likely your Short Term/Long Term Disability coverage. Also, companies can (and should) force employees to concurrently use any PTO hours during their leave first, then the Short term kicks in, then the long term. Also, while on FMLA, the employee still has to pay for their insurance. What is very tough is if someone is on a very long sick leave, and the prospects of them never recovering, how long it too long before you end the work relationship? Case by case basis, not a fun process, but a company cannot have a policy that says "After X amount of time on an unpaid leave, you will be terminated"

    I am SO glad I am not an HR director these days. The sheer amount of laws and regulations that you have to know and be trained on is so massive, and the liabilities are so huge. What I do now is related to HR, but more of a contract compliance nature, getting ready to do a mandatory survey of 60,000 employees for protected veteran status and disability status. Jumping through so many hoops and going over every single word of communication to employees and management to ensure consistency. Nerve wracking.
    "Those who do not remember the past are condemned to repeat it." George Santayana

  8. #38
    Tavern Bartender
    Constitutionalist
    American's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Virginia
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:49 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    76,323

    Re: Supreme Court to hear pregnancy discrimination case

    Quote Originally Posted by beefheart View Post
    But, the matter is, they didn't offer accommodation and were going to term her.

    There was a case EEOC decided this week, guy had a heart attack, went on FMLA, and while he was on FMLA, the company laid him off. They can't do that while he is on protected leave...to make matters worse, he was the only person laid off in the whole company, and the company tried to play it as a regular company wide layoff (of course, no WARN act notices, etc).
    My gf lost her job during some very emotionally devastating family tragedies, when her company wouldn't give her an extra two weeks. Nevertheless it appears UPS changed their company policy.
    "He who does not think himself worth saving from poverty and ignorance by his own efforts, will hardly be thought worth the efforts of anybody else." -- Frederick Douglass, Self-Made Men (1872)
    "Fly-over" country voted, and The Donald is now POTUS.

  9. #39
    Guru
    1750Texan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    Southcental Texas
    Last Seen
    10-14-17 @ 02:13 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    3,569

    Re: Supreme Court to hear pregnancy discrimination case

    Quote Originally Posted by American View Post
    So now they're accommodating her and you're complaining. Figures.
    They can not accommodate "HER" as they gave her unpaid leave until she gave birth.

    Their actions may help others in that situation in the future. A court ruling would affirm the law and would not allow UPS to ever rescind their current accommodation and revert back to their previous standing...if they so wished.


  10. #40
    Bat Chain Puller
    beefheart's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    The burning sands of the desert southwest.
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:35 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    19,370

    Re: Supreme Court to hear pregnancy discrimination case

    She should have gone to a doctor and gotten some documentation.

    The fact that UPS changed their policy is prima facia proof they did something wrong.

    But trying to prove it was unintentional? Good luck.

    A company I worked at (after I was there) got busted for not explaining how they count FMLA (how much leave over 12 months...rolling or calendar) in the employee handbook. BACHELDER v. AMERICA WEST AIRLINES INC - FindLaw

    I hated doing FMLA, I was a one man HR department at a 150 employee place, so much paperwork and liabilities.
    "Those who do not remember the past are condemned to repeat it." George Santayana

Page 4 of 8 FirstFirst ... 23456 ... 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
  •