• 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!

Justices revive case claiming UPS discriminated against pregnant worker

JANFU

JANFU

Land by the Gulf Stream
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
Dec 27, 2014
Messages
59,339
Reaction score
38,878
Location
Best Coast Canada
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
Justices revive case claiming UPS discriminated against pregnant worker
Justices revive case claiming UPS discriminated against pregnant worker - The Washington Post
The court ruled 6 to 3 that Peggy Young, who worked for the company in Landover, Md., should get another chance to show that UPS was wrong to force her to take an unpaid leave rather than give her the lighter duty her doctor had said was appropriate.
The 1978 act, passed in reaction to a previous Supreme Court ruling, made clear that sex discrimination includes discrimination on the basis of “pregnancy, childbirth or related medical conditions.” It also directs employers to treat pregnant employees the same “as other persons not so affected but similar in their ability or inability to work.”
Click to expand...
Thoughts are?
Why would a pregnant women, not be given light duties? Not like she is pregnant forever.
 
JANFU said:
Justices revive case claiming UPS discriminated against pregnant worker
Justices revive case claiming UPS discriminated against pregnant worker - The Washington Post

Thoughts are?
Why would a pregnant women, not be given light duties? Not like she is pregnant forever.
Click to expand...

The answer is in the word before "leave," that word being "unpaid." Light duty, she still gets paid, and likely at the same rate whether the duties justify it or not, as that would likely be the case for a man recovering from an accident or something not lifelong.
 
Summerwind said:
The answer is in the word before "leave," that word being "unpaid." Light duty, she still gets paid, and likely at the same rate whether the duties justify it or not, as that would likely be the case for a man recovering from an accident or something not lifelong.
Click to expand...

She had no choice but to take unpaid leave.
Clearly I am missing your point?

Justices revive case claiming UPS discriminated against pregnant worker - The Washington Post
Breyer laid it out this way: A worker making a claim that her company intentionally treated her differently due to her pregnancy must show that she sought an accommodation, her company refused but that it did grant accommodations to others suffering from similar restrictions.
Click to expand...
 
Summerwind said:
The answer is in the word before "leave," that word being "unpaid." Light duty, she still gets paid, and likely at the same rate whether the duties justify it or not, as that would likely be the case for a man recovering from an accident or something not lifelong.
Click to expand...

UPS had a light duty policy which, at the time, did not include pregnancy and as such the employee had no reasonable expectation that she would be granted her request based on pregnancy. Part of the law/ruling states that the person must "show that it did grant accommodations to others suffering from similar restrictions". It should come down to what is deemed to be a similar condition to a planned pregnancy.
 
JANFU said:
Justices revive case claiming UPS discriminated against pregnant worker
Justices revive case claiming UPS discriminated against pregnant worker - The Washington Post

Thoughts are?
Why would a pregnant women, not be given light duties? Not like she is pregnant forever.
Click to expand...

She was given various options in regards to her pregnancy. She didn't take them. Why? I don't know. However, my position on this hasn't changed. It'd be like a person trying to bring their kid to work, and then trying to sue their employer because they have a no children in the workplace policy. The policy was put in place because the company could be sued if anything happened to the fetus. If I were her employer, I'd make her sign a waiver that I would not be held responsible for anything that happens to the fetus before, during, or after her pregnancy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom