Page 7 of 8 FirstFirst ... 5678 LastLast
Results 61 to 70 of 71

Thread: Supreme Court to hear pregnancy discrimination case

  1. #61
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Zyphlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    NoMoAuchie
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    47,998

    Re: Supreme Court to hear pregnancy discrimination case

    Quote Originally Posted by Redress View Post
    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.

  2. #62
    Liberal Fascist For Life!


    Redress's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Georgia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:31 PM
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    93,348
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Supreme Court to hear pregnancy discrimination case

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post
    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.
    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.

  3. #63
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Zyphlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    NoMoAuchie
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    47,998

    Re: Supreme Court to hear pregnancy discrimination case

    Quote Originally Posted by Redress View Post
    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?

  4. #64
    Liberal Fascist For Life!


    Redress's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Georgia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:31 PM
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    93,348
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Supreme Court to hear pregnancy discrimination case

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post
    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.
    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.

  5. #65
    Outer space potato man

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:29 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    51,849

    Re: Supreme Court to hear pregnancy discrimination case

    Quote Originally Posted by Redress View Post
    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.
    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.

  6. #66
    Liberal Fascist For Life!


    Redress's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Georgia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:31 PM
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    93,348
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Supreme Court to hear pregnancy discrimination case

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post
    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.
    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.

  7. #67
    Liberal Fascist For Life!


    Redress's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Georgia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:31 PM
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    93,348
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Supreme Court to hear pregnancy discrimination case

    Quote Originally Posted by Deuce View Post
    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.
    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.

  8. #68
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Zyphlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    NoMoAuchie
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    47,998

    Re: Supreme Court to hear pregnancy discrimination case

    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.

  9. #69
    I'm kind of a big deal

    AGENT J's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Pittsburgh
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:04 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    44,831

    Re: Supreme Court to hear pregnancy discrimination case

    Quote Originally Posted by Redress View Post
    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
    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. #70
    Liberal Fascist For Life!


    Redress's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Georgia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:31 PM
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    93,348
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Supreme Court to hear pregnancy discrimination case

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post
    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.
    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 7 of 8 FirstFirst ... 5678 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
  •