Page 1 of 8 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 71

Thread: Supreme Court to hear pregnancy discrimination case

  1. #1
    I'm kind of a big deal

    AGENT J's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Pittsburgh
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:33 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    44,835

    Supreme Court to hear pregnancy discrimination case

    Supreme Court to hear pregnancy discrimination case | MSNBC
    Supreme Court to hear pregnancy discrimination case

    WASHINGTON, D.C. – When Peggy Young got pregnant, she could still do most of her job as a UPS driver, except lift boxes heavier than 20 pounds. But despite the fact that UPS had policies to work around other workers’ restrictions – if they were injured on the job, or if they had certain disabilities – Young was told she could take unpaid leave or leave her job. On Tuesday, the Supreme Court will consider whether what happened to Young is legal. Discriminating against pregnant workers has been illegal since 1978. But lower courts, like the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals panel that ruled in Young’s case, have interpreted the law so narrowly that many women have found themselves unprotected.
    The hitch has been when a pregnant woman can do her job but, for example, needs a stool to sit on or can’t climb the occasional ladder. The core question is whether it is enough for employers to be essentially pregnancy-blind, or whether they have to treat pregnant workers the way they already accommodate employees with some limitations, the way UPS did for injured or disabled workers.

    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
    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

  2. #2
    Sage
    Hatuey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:54 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    42,089

    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
    The way I see it, this is like a person who can't leave their newborn baby at home, trying to bring the baby to work and still do their job. The fact that it represents an additional liability for the company is enough for it to be denied. Furthermore, I don't think she has much of a case. UPS followed the law on this one and FMLA has yet to be overturned in any significant manner as it covers practically everyone. It doesn't discriminate against pregnant women anymore than it does against their husbands or their grandparents. The discrimination factor simply isn't 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

  3. #3
    Tavern Bartender
    Constitutionalist
    American's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Virginia
    Last Seen
    12-15-17 @ 10:49 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    76,323

    Re: Supreme Court to hear pregnancy discrimination case

    UPS has changed their policy.
    Last edited by American; 12-03-14 at 07:37 AM.
    "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.

  4. #4
    I'm kind of a big deal

    AGENT J's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Pittsburgh
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:33 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    44,835

    Re: Supreme Court to hear pregnancy discrimination case

    Quote Originally Posted by Hatuey View Post
    The way I see it, this is like a person who can't leave their newborn baby at home, trying to bring the baby to work and still do their job. The fact that it represents an additional liability for the company is enough for it to be denied. Furthermore, I don't think she has much of a case. UPS followed the law on this one and FMLA has yet to be overturned in any significant manner as it covers practically everyone. It doesn't discriminate against pregnant women anymore than it does against their husbands or their grandparents. The discrimination factor simply isn't there.
    thats not the way it is at all though. She wasnt trying to bring the baby to work and she had clearance from her doctor to do light duty which OTHER employers were allowed to do. She was not. If theres no discrimination why were other employees allowed light duty because of conditions and she wasnt?

    “… UPS provided accommodated work to basically anyone who has a lifting restriction of 20 pounds or more – except when it results from pregnancy.”
    also i find it very interesting that UPS has magically CHANGED its policies . . . . . I wonder why
    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

  5. #5
    Tavern Bartender
    Constitutionalist
    American's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Virginia
    Last Seen
    12-15-17 @ 10:49 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    76,323

    Re: Supreme Court to hear pregnancy discrimination case

    Quote Originally Posted by AGENT J View Post
    thats not the way it is at all though. She wasnt trying to bring the baby to work and she had clearance from her doctor to do light duty which OTHER employers were allowed to do. She was not. If theres no discrimination why were other employees allowed light duty because of conditions and she wasnt?



    also i find it very interesting that UPS has magically CHANGED its policies . . . . . I wonder why
    So now they're accommodating her and you're complaining. Figures.
    "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.

  6. #6
    Sage
    Hatuey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:54 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    42,089

    Re: Supreme Court to hear pregnancy discrimination case

    Quote Originally Posted by AGENT J View Post
    thats not the way it is at all though. She wasnt trying to bring the baby to work
    Do you know what a pregnancy is?

    and she had clearance from her doctor to do light duty which OTHER employers were allowed to do. She was not. If theres no discrimination
    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.

    why were other employees allowed light duty because of conditions and she wasnt?
    Hmm maybe because other employees aren't responsible for the wellbeing of someone else.

    also i find it very interesting that UPS has magically CHANGED its policies . . . . . I wonder why
    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?
    Last edited by Hatuey; 12-03-14 at 07:49 AM.
    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

  7. #7
    I'm kind of a big deal

    AGENT J's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Pittsburgh
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:33 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    44,835

    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.
    who is her? her case happened 8 years ago and she has been fighting for it.
    They havent accommodated her in anyway
    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

  8. #8
    I'm kind of a big deal

    AGENT J's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Pittsburgh
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:33 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    44,835

    Re: Supreme Court to hear pregnancy discrimination case

    Quote Originally Posted by Hatuey View Post
    1.)Do you know what a pregnancy is?
    2.)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.
    3.)Hmm maybe because other employees aren't responsible for the wellbeing of someone else.
    4.) 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.
    5.) Regardless, UPS wasn't breaking any laws and it wasn't discriminating against anyone in particular.
    6.) FMLA applies to every single employee equally and their change of policy could in theory work out for the worst.
    7.) 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.
    8.) How does that help her?
    1.) yes a medical condition
    2.) good thing i didnt say otherwise i just pointed out the fact she was ok to do light duty
    3.) except thier families if they have them
    4.) that hasnt been established yet . . . if SCOTUS rules that way then ill be fine that part (no laws broken) lol
    5.) see #4
    6.) not about FMLA its about others being allowed to do light duty and her being denied
    7.) id be fine with that and they would be pretty legally free since the doctor cleared her to do her job as long as they didnt force her to work outside her restrictions
    8.) hmmm weird i didnt claim signing anything would help her but if she wasnt let go without pay and insurance for 9 months that would DEFINITELY help her

    I hope she wins, denying her pay and insurance based on her being pregnant is horrible IMO.
    Ive had two surgeries and had to miss work i was never denied pay and insurance. (once for 2 months then a month of light duty one for 3 and 3 months of light duty)

    If she doesnt win you wont here me claiming UPS "broke the law" lol which was just a strawman
    I will however still disagree with not having some type maternity leave for her causing her 9 months of no pay and no insurance. Logically ill never support that.
    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

  9. #9
    Sage
    Hatuey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:54 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    42,089

    Re: Supreme Court to hear pregnancy discrimination case

    Quote Originally Posted by AGENT J View Post
    1.) yes a medical condition
    Yes, and it's no different than trying to bring a baby to work. If they're not, I welcome you to show us a tangible difference.

    2.) good thing i didnt say otherwise i just pointed out the fact she was ok to do light duty
    And it's entirely irrelevant to point it out in the first place. Doctors giving you the a-okay to work doesn't mean your employee is forced to take on the risk.

    3.) except thier families if they have them
    You're being purposely obtuse. A disabled employee with family isn't putting his family at physical risk. A pregnant woman who puts herself at risk automatically is endangering the life of what is inside of her.

    4.) that hasnt been established yet . . . if SCOTUS rules that way then ill be fine that part (no laws broken) lol
    Here, I'll let you educate yourself:

    Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    The Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 (FMLA) is a United States federal law requiring covered employers to provide employees job-protected and unpaid leave for qualified medical and family reasons. Qualified medical and family reasons include: personal or family illness, family military leave, pregnancy, adoption, or the foster care placement of a child.[1] The FMLA is administered by the Wage and Hour Division of the United States Department of Labor.
    UPS followed the law. It afforded her the required options of leaving, or staying with unpaid leave.

    5.) see #4
    As ignorant as before.

    6.) not about FMLA its about others being allowed to do light duty and her being denied
    That you don't realize that FMLA is what is being discussed here is your problem. Did you actually read the article? The company told her it wasn't going to take the added risk in the same manner it would deny someone from bringing their newborn child to work. That's perfectly within the law.

    7.) id be fine with that and they would be pretty legally free since the doctor cleared her to do her job as long as they didnt force her to work outside her restrictions
    So you'd be fine with a measure which actually doesn't benefit her at all and actually puts her in a negative position if the child were to be harmed? Lol. You're silly.

    8.) hmmm weird i didnt claim signing anything would help her but if she wasnt let go without pay and insurance for 9 months that would DEFINITELY help her
    Please, read FMLA legislation. When you do, tell us how erroneous the above statement is.

    I hope she wins, denying her pay and insurance based on her being pregnant is horrible IMO.
    Ive had two surgeries and had to miss work i was never denied pay and insurance. (once for 2 months then a month of light duty one for 3 and 3 months of light duty)

    If she doesnt win you wont here me claiming UPS "broke the law" lol which was just a strawman
    I will however still disagree with not having some type maternity leave for her causing her 9 months of no pay and no insurance. Logically ill never support that.
    One, it's not a strawman because if UPS discriminated, it broke a law - most likely she'll try to argue that UPS policies violate Equal Prot. If they do, guess what? UPS broke the law. Second, Your tirade is irrelevant. The company did not want to take the added risk of someone ending their pregnancy because of work. That's entirely different than someone injuring themselves only at a workplace. Furthermore, you seriously don't know how unpaid leave works, please stop it.
    Last edited by Hatuey; 12-03-14 at 08:24 AM.
    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

  10. #10
    I'm kind of a big deal

    AGENT J's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Pittsburgh
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:33 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    44,835

    Re: Supreme Court to hear pregnancy discrimination case

    Quote Originally Posted by Hatuey View Post
    1.)Yes, and it's no different than trying to bring a baby to work. If they're not, I welcome you to show us a tangible difference.
    2.)And it's entirely irrelevant to point it out in the first place. Doctors giving you the a-okay to work doesn't mean your employee is forced to take on the risk.
    3.)You're being purposely obtuse. A disabled employee with family isn't putting his family at physical risk. A pregnant woman who puts herself at risk automatically is endangering the life of what is inside of her.
    4.)Here, I'll let you educate yourself:

    Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



    UPS followed the law. It afforded her the required options of leaving, or staying with unpaid leave.

    5.)As ignorant as before.
    6.)That you don't realize that FMLA is what is being discussed here is your problem. Did you actually read the article? The company told her it wasn't going to take the added risk in the same manner it would deny someone from bringing their newborn child to work. That's perfectly within the law.
    7.)So you'd be fine with a measure which actually doesn't benefit her at all and actually puts her in a negative position if the child were to be harmed? Lol. You're silly.
    8.)Your tirade is irrelevant. The company did not want to take the added risk of someone ending their pregnancy because of work. That's entirely different than someone injuring themselves only at a workplace.
    1.) easy underlaw one person vs two
    2.) yes it was irrelevant for you to point it out since didnt make that claim or this one
    3.) didnt say he put them at PHYSICAL risk did i? nope
    4.) nothing in there that matters to anything i have actually said and i have used FMLA twice i well aware of it but thanks for another strawman
    5.) except what i said is factually true and not ignorant, it has NOT be established the UPS broke "no laws" yet. They very well may be found to have discriminated, they also might not. Thats a fact.
    6.) again another strawman did i say FMLA isnt involved at all or claim the FMLA law was broken? nope lol i said it doesnt matter to what i was tlakign about or the lawsuit its about POSSIBLE discrimination and FMLA doesnt impact that. another failed strawman by you
    7.) weird another strawman and something you just made since i never said that. I agree silly indeed
    8.) who mentioned injuring themselves at the work place? oh thats right not me lol

    so after all your failed strawman here I am in the same place, i hope she wins and this is found to be discriminatory.
    If they decide its not thats fine ill still be an advocate for protected maternity leave and I wont be claiming were broken lol

    just a recap
    i never claimed FMLA laws were broken nor mentioned it nor does FMLA matter to the issue
    i never claimed I want a measure which actually doesn't benefit her at all and actually puts her in a negative position if the child were to be harmed

    glad i could help you actually stick to things i actually said
    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

Page 1 of 8 123 ... 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
  •