• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Supreme Court to hear pregnancy discrimination case

Her request to be given only packages under 20lbs to deliver was unreasonable, which is why she lost the discrimination case twice now.

Then the company finds another job for her to do while she temporarily disabled, it is not difficult.
 
Yes, she had the right to use her FMLA, but that is not accommodation from UPS. FMLA is is only 12 weeks...4 months. UPS required she take unpaid leave for 7 months.

How would that of worked? Either she carry no insurance and be unpaid for 3 months, then claim FMLA for the final 4 months and birth? or vise versa.

You have to pay insurance premiums if you are on FMLA. She could be on Short Term disability as well.

Fact is, you don't fire people that need a reasonable accommodation.
 
Then the company finds another job for her to do while she temporarily disabled, it is not difficult.

Their policy was : employees with work limitations acquired through on-the-job injuries; employees who have a “disability” as defined by the ADA; and employees
with injuries or conditions that render them ineligible for Department of Transportation certification to drive a commercial vehicle.

That policy is equally applied to all, therefore, they didn't discriminate or violate any law.

Would it have been easy to move her temporarily to a different position? Yes. Would they then have to do that for everyone else that asked for it? Yes. That's why they didn't do it.
 
You have to pay insurance premiums if you are on FMLA. She could be on Short Term disability as well.

Fact is, you don't fire people that need a reasonable accommodation.

She was on short term disability...that is still not accommodation by UPS. What she was seeking from UPS was to keep her job, keep her income, and keep her medical insurance during her pregnancy... not all the ad hoc patch work of fixes by UPS was accommodation by UPS as per the law as Young contends.
 
Her first two cases on this matter at a state level and via federal appeals courts.

A loss would have been if the Supreme court did not take the case and concurred with the lower courts rulings. That is a loss.
 
As far as I understand it, discrimination laws for disability, race, gender, etc, all have an exception for a "bona fide occupational qualification."

I fly planes for a living. The job has medical standards. I can refuse to hire a disabled person who can't meet the medical standard because they are unable to do the job.

A strip club can refuse to hire men to be dancers, because "is female" is a job requirement. That same strip club can refuse to hire a paraplegic to be a bouncer, because "is able to hurl drunken leches out of the building" is a job requirement.

Lifting boxes is a job requirement for UPS delivery drivers. If she can't do the job, she can't do the job. If UPS feels like being a not-****ty employer, they can try to accommodate her, but I don't think they have any legal obligation to do so. We're the only developed nation without mandatory paid maternity leave.
 
As far as I understand it, discrimination laws for disability, race, gender, etc, all have an exception for a "bona fide occupational qualification."

I fly planes for a living. The job has medical standards. I can refuse to hire a disabled person who can't meet the medical standard because they are unable to do the job.

A strip club can refuse to hire men to be dancers, because "is female" is a job requirement. That same strip club can refuse to hire a paraplegic to be a bouncer, because "is able to hurl drunken leches out of the building" is a job requirement.

Lifting boxes is a job requirement for UPS delivery drivers. If she can't do the job, she can't do the job. If UPS feels like being a not-****ty employer, they can try to accommodate her, but I don't think they have any legal obligation to do so. We're the only developed nation without mandatory paid maternity leave.

you are correct the issue is she didnt need to lift heavy for her current job and they accommodated others with light duty but not here

also what you are talking about is HIRING thats also different vs temporary medical issue

and yes its said we are the only D nation with out it, makes me shake my head.
 
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 :roll:

why are we like the only developed country that doesnt have protected maternity leave? pathetic
Parental leave - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

AS is usually the case in legal cases reaching SCOTUS, this is not a clear cut case. Here is some good reading from the always excellent SCOTUSBlog: Argument analysis: “As compared to what?” : SCOTUSblog

In order to decide the case of Young v. United Parcel Service, the Court has to figure out what Congress had in mind in 1978 when it passed a law outlawing discrimination in the workplace against pregnant employees. The Justices seemed deeply uncertain about that legal question, so they turned mainly toward exploring the facts of how the package-delivery company treats its workers whose physical condition means that they can’t do the normal tasks of their jobs — like heavy lifting.

One part of the 1978 law (the Pregnancy Discrimination Act) says that pregnant workers are entitled to the same treatment in the workplace as non-pregnant employees who are “similar in their ability or inability to work.” The Justices probed deeply into what that section’s words — and punctuation — convey, even to the point of trying to sort out whether a semi-colon made a difference. There did not appear to be a consensus on the meaning.

But, led by Justices Stephen G. Breyer and Elena Kagan, the Court tried to get at the facts: which UPS employees get assigned to light duty to accommodate their condition, how large a part of the company payroll is entitled to that treatment, are there any other conditions but pregnancy that put a worker outside that group, and how does UPS justify the differences?

Bolded emphasis mine.
 
Bolded emphasis mine.

Hmm, on a quick reading it looks like my question regarding this is kind of in line with the courts. That makes me kind of smile :) (granted, I may be misreading it)

Pregnancy is not a disability
Pregnancy is not a on the job injury

Therefore, compare it to other things that happen outside of the workplace that cause the individual to be physically limited or unable to perform their standard work duty. If it's being treated in a manner similar to those things then it's not discrimination against the person for being pregnant but rather discrimination against them for being physically unable to perform their primary work duty...which is, I believe, generally okay. If it's being treated in a manner different to those things then it potentially is discrimination and thus is problematic.

It seems the information that the court wants to find out from UPS falls in line with what I was wondering myself.
 
Hmm, on a quick reading it looks like my question regarding this is kind of in line with the courts. That makes me kind of smile :) (granted, I may be misreading it)

Pregnancy is not a disability
Pregnancy is not a on the job injury

Therefore, compare it to other things that happen outside of the workplace that cause the individual to be physically limited or unable to perform their standard work duty. If it's being treated in a manner similar to those things then it's not discrimination against the person for being pregnant but rather discrimination against them for being physically unable to perform their primary work duty...which is, I believe, generally okay. If it's being treated in a manner different to those things then it potentially is discrimination and thus is problematic.

It seems the information that the court wants to find out from UPS falls in line with what I was wondering myself.

It gets even more complex when you really get into it. For example, she was on leave from work(in an effort to try and get pregnant) when she got pregnant. She was attempting to return to her job.
 
It gets even more complex when you really get into it. For example, she was on leave from work(in an effort to try and get pregnant) when she got pregnant. She was attempting to return to her job.

On leave as in actually legitimately "on leave", like...still employed but simply being allowed to not come to work?

Or on leave...like she wasn't even employed, and then she was trying to get rehired?
 
On leave as in actually legitimately "on leave", like...still employed but simply being allowed to not come to work?

Or on leave...like she wasn't even employed, and then she was trying to get rehired?

Official leave, approved by HR.
 
Official leave, approved by HR.

To...get pregnant?

As far as I understand it, such a thing often only takes a few minutes. Less, with some guys.
 
On leave as in actually legitimately "on leave", like...still employed but simply being allowed to not come to work?

Or on leave...like she wasn't even employed, and then she was trying to get rehired?

Here is some more info about the case you might find interesting:

Argument preview: Pregnancy and workplace equality : SCOTUSblog

The problem for Young was that company policy, for the kind of driving that Young did, required the driver to be able to lift, push, pull or otherwise move any item that weighed as much as seventy pounds, if it was not oddly shaped. Young was told that, as long as she was under doctor’s orders not to do any significant lifting, she could not return to work in any job while pregnant.
She was simply unable to do the tasks her specific job required, the company told her. It had nothing to do with her pregnancy, UPS argued, because all drivers in Young’s category had to satisfy the lifting rules.
UPS, however, did accommodate its other workers with light-duty assignments, if they were injured on the job, qualified as legally disabled under the federal Americans with Disabilities Act, or had lost their federal driver’s certificate because they failed a medical exam, lost their driver’s license, or had been involved in a car or truck accident. That option, Young was told, was not open to her because of the limitations of her pregnancy, and she did not meet any of the conditions.
She complained to the EEOC, which cleared her for a lawsuit against UPS. Among other claims she made in federal district court, Young contended that UPS had violated the 1978 law by discriminating against her based on sex, due to her pregnancy, and that it had refused to treat her equally under a separate clause of the law which guaranteed that pregnant workers “shall be treated the same for all employment-related purposes” as compared to other employees with a similar ability or inability to work. She lost on both points in the trial court, and in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.
The Fourth Circuit found no direct evidence of sex discrimination based on pregnancy, ruling that the disability policy was “pregnancy-blind” — that is, the company’s limits on accommodation applied to all workers who met one of the specified conditions, and only those workers; it did not single out pregnant workers for less favorable treatment. And that court rejected Young’s separate claim that she had a right to the same treatment as the workers who did meet those conditions. That clause in the Act, the appeals court said, does not create an independent legal right for pregnant workers to pursue.

Again, bolding is mine. Not sure if I agree with that argument however, seems kinda like clutching at straws.
 
To...get pregnant?

As far as I understand it, such a thing often only takes a few minutes. Less, with some guys.

As I remember(this was discussed here a few weeks ago when SCOTUS agreed to hear the case), she needed medical treatment for fertility.
 
So it seems from what you wrote that it goes in line with what I was saying...

If you were playing basketball and then broke your arm, or you were moving things at your house and threw out your back, and were physically unable to perform your duties then UPS would not accomodate you because the injury did not occur while you were on the job.

I don't see why a company should be forced to treat pregnancy any different than that. I'd have no problem, and likely applaud, a company that CHOSE to treat it differently...but that's a different story entirely.

Based on what you've posted I'm pretty sure I do agree.....she is being treated exactly the same as any other employee who is physically unable to perform her job for reasons that don't include:

1. Disability
2. On the job injury
3. Lost federal driver's certificate

There are plenty of reasons other than pregnancy that could impare someone from doing that job that don't fall under those three things, so I can't see based on this information how she was discriminated against for being pregnant.

At best, she was discriminated against for being physically unable to do the job she was hired to do due to events that occured outside of the work place...which to my understanding is entirely legal.
 
AS is usually the case in legal cases reaching SCOTUS, this is not a clear cut case. Here is some good reading from the always excellent SCOTUSBlog: Argument analysis: “As compared to what?” : SCOTUSblog



Bolded emphasis mine.

i agree its not clear cut hence why i said "we dont know" if any laws were broken yet, but i do hope she wins her suit and i will still be an advocate of pushing maturnity leglislation
 
So it seems from what you wrote that it goes in line with what I was saying...

If you were playing basketball and then broke your arm, or you were moving things at your house and threw out your back, and were physically unable to perform your duties then UPS would not accomodate you because the injury did not occur while you were on the job.

I don't see why a company should be forced to treat pregnancy any different than that. I'd have no problem, and likely applaud, a company that CHOSE to treat it differently...but that's a different story entirely.

Based on what you've posted I'm pretty sure I do agree.....she is being treated exactly the same as any other employee who is physically unable to perform her job for reasons that don't include:

1. Disability
2. On the job injury
3. Lost federal driver's certificate

There are plenty of reasons other than pregnancy that could impare someone from doing that job that don't fall under those three things, so I can't see based on this information how she was discriminated against for being pregnant.

At best, she was discriminated against for being physically unable to do the job she was hired to do due to events that occured outside of the work place...which to my understanding is entirely legal.

It is going to come down to how they interpret the Pregnancy Discrimination Act, and it could go either way.
 
It is going to come down to how they interpret the Pregnancy Discrimination Act, and it could go either way.

That I agree with. I can't imagine them taking this case if there wasn't a fair chance it could go either way. I'm just saying from my take on it, from what I've read thus far, I just don't really see any discrimination being done due to her pregnancy
 
Back
Top Bottom