Ich habe schon Pferde vor der Apotheke kotzen sehen.
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.
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.
One of you will end up here next!
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.
Argument analysis: “As compared to what?” : SCOTUSblog
Bolded emphasis mine.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?