Page 6 of 8 FirstFirst ... 45678 LastLast
Results 51 to 60 of 71

Thread: Supreme Court to hear pregnancy discrimination case

  1. #51
    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 Samhain View Post
    Her request to be given only packages under 20lbs to deliver was unreasonable, which is why she lost the discrimination case twice now.
    What cases were these exactly? EEOC?


  2. #52
    Bat Chain Puller
    beefheart's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    The burning sands of the desert southwest.
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:53 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    19,311

    Re: Supreme Court to hear pregnancy discrimination case

    Quote Originally Posted by Samhain View Post
    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.
    "Those who do not remember the past are condemned to repeat it." George Santayana

  3. #53
    Bat Chain Puller
    beefheart's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    The burning sands of the desert southwest.
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:53 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    19,311

    Re: Supreme Court to hear pregnancy discrimination case

    Quote Originally Posted by 1750Texan View Post
    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.
    "Those who do not remember the past are condemned to repeat it." George Santayana

  4. #54
    Guru
    Samhain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Northern Ohio
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:26 AM
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    3,883

    Re: Supreme Court to hear pregnancy discrimination case

    Quote Originally Posted by 1750Texan View Post
    What cases were these exactly? EEOC?
    Her first two cases on this matter at a state level and via federal appeals courts.

  5. #55
    Guru
    Samhain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Northern Ohio
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:26 AM
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    3,883

    Re: Supreme Court to hear pregnancy discrimination case

    Quote Originally Posted by beefheart View Post
    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.

  6. #56
    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 beefheart View Post
    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.


  7. #57
    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 Samhain View Post
    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.


  8. #58
    Outer space potato man

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:29 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    51,777

    Re: Supreme Court to hear pregnancy discrimination case

    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.
    He touched her over her bra and underpants, she says, and guided her hand to touch him over his underwear
    Quote Originally Posted by Lutherf View Post
    We’ll say what? Something like “nothing happened” ... Yeah, we might say something like that.

  9. #59
    I'm kind of a big deal

    AGENT J's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Pittsburgh
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:32 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    44,789

    Re: Supreme Court to hear pregnancy discrimination case

    Quote Originally Posted by Deuce View Post
    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.
    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

  10. #60
    Liberal Fascist For Life!


    Redress's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Georgia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:58 AM
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    93,299
    Blog Entries
    2

    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
    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.
    We became a great nation not because we are a nation of cynics. We became a great nation because we are a nation of believers - Lindsey Graham

    Quote Originally Posted by Fiddytree View Post
    Uh oh Megyn...your vagina witchcraft is about ready to be exposed.

Page 6 of 8 FirstFirst ... 45678 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
  •