• 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!

Supreme Court to hear pregnancy discrimination case

1.)The assumption is not wrong.
2.) You just do not think through the matter. You see, if you have a large number of employees the thing is a statistical problem of large numbers. In your case it was one of a small sample that does not allow your conclusion.
3.) As to the fact that anyone can get sick, it is hard to say anything polite other than that you probably mean well. Because the costs to a company from pregnancy are differently structured to those of illness and they add on top of those.

1.) this was your assumption "I suspect that you have never employed a young lady in a job and had her go pregnant on you. "
your assumption was 100% factual wrong
2.) your meaningless subjective opinion of this doesnt change your assumption being wrong. also WHAT conclusion of mine are you talking about?
3.) and yet anybody could be gone 9 months or longer not just pregnant woman and in a lot of jobs they only need to mise like 2-4 months
 
Here would be my question...

This article stated that UPS made accomodations for people that are injured on the job and who have disabilities.

If you're injured off of the job, then does UPS accomodate it? For example, if a person was to throw their back out playing football, or break their arm playing basketball, does UPS have a policy to accomodate those individuals with "light duty"?

If they do then I'd absolutely say that a similar policy should be in place with regards to pregnancy.

However, if they do not, then I don't see any difference here. Pregnancy is not a federally protected or medically designated "disability". It's not a handicap. So the closest it could be compared to is an injury. A woman is not going to be getting pregnant as part of her duties on the job, and as such this is an off the job impedement to her work. Just like UPS shouldn't have to bare the brunt of you injuring yourself while playing basketball, they shouldn't have to bare the brunt of you getting pregnant as well, if either hurts their business.

Now, personally I think they should accomodate her if at all feasible to do so and still get the necessary productivity from the shop as a whole...but I don't necessarily think they should HAVE to accomodate her if they don't for other instances of peoples actions outside of work causing them to be limited in their ability to do the job.
 
1.) this was your assumption "I suspect that you have never employed a young lady in a job and had her go pregnant on you. "
your assumption was 100% factual wrong
2.) your meaningless subjective opinion of this doesnt change your assumption being wrong. also WHAT conclusion of mine are you talking about?
3.) and yet anybody could be gone 9 months or longer not just pregnant woman and in a lot of jobs they only need to mise like 2-4 months

Oh, I was only implying that I imagined you to be economically rational. But, of course, if you run your business as an altruistic set up, that is your privilege and I wish you survival. Just don't act as if the costs of pregnancy did not decrease the probability of a woman's being employed and the average level of women's pay. That was what the it was about.
 
Here would be my question...

This article stated that UPS made accomodations for people that are injured on the job and who have disabilities.

If you're injured off of the job, then does UPS accomodate it? For example, if a person was to throw their back out playing football, or break their arm playing basketball, does UPS have a policy to accomodate those individuals with "light duty"?

If they do then I'd absolutely say that a similar policy should be in place with regards to pregnancy.

However, if they do not, then I don't see any difference here. Pregnancy is not a federally protected or medically designated "disability". It's not a handicap. So the closest it could be compared to is an injury. A woman is not going to be getting pregnant as part of her duties on the job, and as such this is an off the job impedement to her work. Just like UPS shouldn't have to bare the brunt of you injuring yourself while playing basketball, they shouldn't have to bare the brunt of you getting pregnant as well, if either hurts their business.

Now, personally I think they should accomodate her if at all feasible to do so and still get the necessary productivity from the shop as a whole...but I don't necessarily think they should HAVE to accomodate her if they don't for other instances of peoples actions outside of work causing them to be limited in their ability to do the job.

Accommodations have to be "reasonable". If her request, as a driver, as not to deliver packages over 20 lbs, I don't think that counts as reasonable. Their offer of maternity leave was appropriate.
 
That's basically what it boils down to. Companies who encourage their employees to take their guaranteed unpaid maternity leave aren't breaking the law or discriminating. What's funny is that agent J thinks this isn't about FMLA and yet FMLA is the legislation which made UPS' policy possible in the first place. Read some of his posts, he thinks that by going on maternity leave, this woman will lose her health insurance.

Exactly.

They're not discriminating here IF they don't have a policy to offer accomodations for other injuries or issues sustained outside of the job, which aren't recognized as "disabilities".

Indeed, if they were to actually just accomodate pregnancies, but not other things that FMLA covers, I think there'd possibly be a stronger case for "discrimination" than currently if they really do treat all instances of outside of the job impairments the same.
 
Here would be my question...

This article stated that UPS made accomodations for people that are injured on the job and who have disabilities.

If you're injured off of the job, then does UPS accomodate it? For example, if a person was to throw their back out playing football, or break their arm playing basketball, does UPS have a policy to accomodate those individuals with "light duty"?

If they do then I'd absolutely say that a similar policy should be in place with regards to pregnancy.

However, if they do not, then I don't see any difference here. Pregnancy is not a federally protected or medically designated "disability". It's not a handicap. So the closest it could be compared to is an injury. A woman is not going to be getting pregnant as part of her duties on the job, and as such this is an off the job impedement to her work. Just like UPS shouldn't have to bare the brunt of you injuring yourself while playing basketball, they shouldn't have to bare the brunt of you getting pregnant as well, if either hurts their business.

Now, personally I think they should accomodate her if at all feasible to do so and still get the necessary productivity from the shop as a whole...but I don't necessarily think they should HAVE to accomodate her if they don't for other instances of peoples actions outside of work causing them to be limited in their ability to do the job.

Hehehehe, I saw what you did there. ;)
 
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 :roll:

why are we like the only developed country that doesnt have protected maternity leave? pathetic
Parental leave - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


I've had to deal a lot with these cases and ADA cases, etc. The Pregnancy Discrimination Act is pretty solid law, however, ADA (or the much less restrictive ADAAA) does not consider pregnancy a disability, unless there are debilitating factors relating to the pregnancy.

I get all the press releases from the EEOC on cases in my district, some of the cases would make your jaw drop. One sports bar forced a pregnant female employee who had been working there for years to not work on Monday nights, which is the highest night for tips because of football. The bar said something like "no one wants to see a pregnant waitress while they are watching football"

This should be an interesting case, I was briefed on it and others upcoming by a labor attorney yesterday. Labor law is fascinating.
 
Last edited:
So now they're accommodating her and you're complaining. Figures.

But, the matter is, they didn't offer accommodation and were going to term her.

There was a case EEOC decided this week, guy had a heart attack, went on FMLA, and while he was on FMLA, the company laid him off. They can't do that while he is on protected leave...to make matters worse, he was the only person laid off in the whole company, and the company tried to play it as a regular company wide layoff (of course, no WARN act notices, etc).
 
Do you know what a pregnancy is?



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.



Hmm maybe because other employees aren't responsible for the wellbeing of someone else.



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?


Is climbing up the side of a building a part of your work duties as spelled out in your job description? If not...company is right. Companies must require an employee to see a doctor as part of the FMLA process (and for workers comp,they have to go to the company's doctor first), if the doctor says they can work with reasonable accommodations, the company has to either have them work somewhere where they can be accommodated, or pay them to do nothing. Hell, I used to have 757 Captains who were unable to fly working with me in recruitment during their recovery time.

But, UPS was breaking laws by not accommodating this employee, inconsistency = lawsuits.
 
1.)Oh, I was only implying that I imagined you to be economically rational.
2.) But, of course, if you run your business as an altruistic set up, that is your privilege and I wish you survival.
3.) just don't act as if the costs of pregnancy did not decrease the probability of a woman's being employed and the average level of women's pay. That was what the it was about.

1.) translation: your assumption was factually wrong ans still is
2.) another wrong assumption neither company was ran that way both are great companies and doing well.
3.) i dont have to act, it factually didnt and doesnt for those companies
 
1.) i hope she does
2.) you are free to have that opinion
3.) false over the years i have had 4
4.) they were all good employees and besides them not being at work her not being at work it had no impact. They (3) took FMLA which they GOT paid 60% at one company i worked for and (1) 60% plus a maternity package at a different company and none of them lost insurance.

they were also aloud to work as long as thier doctors said and under those conditions.
:shrug:

FMLA is unpaid leave, you have 12 weeks of it over a 12 month period (after you have been working for one year). The 60% pay was most likely your Short Term/Long Term Disability coverage. Also, companies can (and should) force employees to concurrently use any PTO hours during their leave first, then the Short term kicks in, then the long term. Also, while on FMLA, the employee still has to pay for their insurance. What is very tough is if someone is on a very long sick leave, and the prospects of them never recovering, how long it too long before you end the work relationship? Case by case basis, not a fun process, but a company cannot have a policy that says "After X amount of time on an unpaid leave, you will be terminated"

I am SO glad I am not an HR director these days. The sheer amount of laws and regulations that you have to know and be trained on is so massive, and the liabilities are so huge. What I do now is related to HR, but more of a contract compliance nature, getting ready to do a mandatory survey of 60,000 employees for protected veteran status and disability status. Jumping through so many hoops and going over every single word of communication to employees and management to ensure consistency. Nerve wracking.
 
But, the matter is, they didn't offer accommodation and were going to term her.

There was a case EEOC decided this week, guy had a heart attack, went on FMLA, and while he was on FMLA, the company laid him off. They can't do that while he is on protected leave...to make matters worse, he was the only person laid off in the whole company, and the company tried to play it as a regular company wide layoff (of course, no WARN act notices, etc).

My gf lost her job during some very emotionally devastating family tragedies, when her company wouldn't give her an extra two weeks. Nevertheless it appears UPS changed their company policy.
 
So now they're accommodating her and you're complaining. Figures.

They can not accommodate "HER" as they gave her unpaid leave until she gave birth.

Their actions may help others in that situation in the future. A court ruling would affirm the law and would not allow UPS to ever rescind their current accommodation and revert back to their previous standing...if they so wished.
 
She should have gone to a doctor and gotten some documentation.

The fact that UPS changed their policy is prima facia proof they did something wrong.

But trying to prove it was unintentional? Good luck.

A company I worked at (after I was there) got busted for not explaining how they count FMLA (how much leave over 12 months...rolling or calendar) in the employee handbook. BACHELDER v. AMERICA WEST AIRLINES INC - FindLaw

I hated doing FMLA, I was a one man HR department at a 150 employee place, so much paperwork and liabilities.
 
They can not accommodate "HER" as they gave her unpaid leave until she gave birth.

Their actions may help others in that situation in the future. A court ruling would affirm the law and would not allow UPS to ever rescind their current accommodation and revert back to their previous standing...if they so wished.


She had the right to FMLA, a company doesn't give it. Also, FMLA can be intermittent..meaning someone can work 20 hours a week and take 20 hours of FMLA, etc.

Also, the company has to adequately prove that an accommodation isn't reasonable under ADA/ADAAA. Reasonable is moving someone to work in another location, having them work their job with restrictions, assistive devices, etc. Not reasonable is building an entire new bathroom just for them, having the company hire someone else to work with them to do lifting only, etc.
 
I've had to deal a lot with these cases and ADA cases, etc. The Pregnancy Discrimination Act is pretty solid law, however, ADA (or the much less restrictive ADAAA) does not consider pregnancy a disability, unless there are debilitating factors relating to the pregnancy.

I get all the press releases from the EEOC on cases in my district, some of the cases would make your jaw drop. One sports bar forced a pregnant female employee who had been working there for years to not work on Monday nights, which is the highest night for tips because of football. The bar said something like "no one wants to see a pregnant waitress while they are watching football"

This should be an interesting case, I was briefed on it and others upcoming by a labor attorney yesterday. Labor law is fascinating.

thats despicable . . . .

and i agree i not anywhere near as familiar as you are im sure but i do find it interesting.
Like the truth behind some places hiring "models" or "actresses" that serve so the can play in the grey areas of hiring and firing on looks . . . interesting loop holes
 
They can not accommodate "HER" as they gave her unpaid leave until she gave birth.

Their actions may help others in that situation in the future. A court ruling would affirm the law and would not allow UPS to ever rescind their current accommodation and revert back to their previous standing...if they so wished.

So the supreme court is going to clarify a law. You think a company the size of UPS comes up with arbitrarily rule for just one single case? They probably have a team of lawyer review every policy.
 
FMLA is unpaid leave, you have 12 weeks of it over a 12 month period (after you have been working for one year). The 60% pay was most likely your Short Term/Long Term Disability coverage. Also, companies can (and should) force employees to concurrently use any PTO hours during their leave first, then the Short term kicks in, then the long term. Also, while on FMLA, the employee still has to pay for their insurance. What is very tough is if someone is on a very long sick leave, and the prospects of them never recovering, how long it too long before you end the work relationship? Case by case basis, not a fun process, but a company cannot have a policy that says "After X amount of time on an unpaid leave, you will be terminated"

I am SO glad I am not an HR director these days. The sheer amount of laws and regulations that you have to know and be trained on is so massive, and the liabilities are so huge. What I do now is related to HR, but more of a contract compliance nature, getting ready to do a mandatory survey of 60,000 employees for protected veteran status and disability status. Jumping through so many hoops and going over every single word of communication to employees and management to ensure consistency. Nerve wracking.

you are correct it was the over lap of that and yes we do force the usage of PTO before hand

and yes it sucked for me when i was on it to come back and have almost my first pay wiped out. I did have the option to spread it out though but i choose not too.
 
1.)She should have gone to a doctor and gotten some documentation.
2.)The fact that UPS changed their policy is prima facia proof they did something wrong.
3.)But trying to prove it was unintentional? Good luck.

A company I worked at (after I was there) got busted for not explaining how they count FMLA (how much leave over 12 months...rolling or calendar) in the employee handbook. BACHELDER v. AMERICA WEST AIRLINES INC - FindLaw

I hated doing FMLA, I was a one man HR department at a 150 employee place, so much paperwork and liabilities.

1.) if you are talking about this case she did according to the article
2 and 3.) i agree 100%
 
thats despicable . . . .

and i agree i not anywhere near as familiar as you are im sure but i do find it interesting.
Like the truth behind some places hiring "models" or "actresses" that serve so the can play in the grey areas of hiring and firing on looks . . . interesting loop holes

You wouldn't believe the one I got yesterday.Swissport Fueling to Pay $250,000 to Settle EEOC Race and National Origin Harassment Lawsuit

Cases like this make for great training material.

As for models and actresses...that falls under Bona Fide Occupational Qualifications. If Denzel Washington sued because he was denied the role of JFK, he has no case (unless it is a very odd interpretation film "Bubba Ho-Tep")
 
She had the right to FMLA, a company doesn't give it. Also, FMLA can be intermittent..meaning someone can work 20 hours a week and take 20 hours of FMLA, etc.

Also, the company has to adequately prove that an accommodation isn't reasonable under ADA/ADAAA. Reasonable is moving someone to work in another location, having them work their job with restrictions, assistive devices, etc. Not reasonable is building an entire new bathroom just for them, having the company hire someone else to work with them to do lifting only, etc.

Her request to be given only packages under 20lbs to deliver was unreasonable, which is why she lost the discrimination case twice now.
 
She had the right to FMLA, a company doesn't give it. Also, FMLA can be intermittent..meaning someone can work 20 hours a week and take 20 hours of FMLA, etc.

Also, the company has to adequately prove that an accommodation isn't reasonable under ADA/ADAAA. Reasonable is moving someone to work in another location, having them work their job with restrictions, assistive devices, etc. Not reasonable is building an entire new bathroom just for them, having the company hire someone else to work with them to do lifting only, etc.

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.
 
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.

where is the 7 months coming from?
 
You wouldn't believe the one I got yesterday.Swissport Fueling to Pay $250,000 to Settle EEOC Race and National Origin Harassment Lawsuit

Cases like this make for great training material.

As for models and actresses...that falls under Bona Fide Occupational Qualifications. If Denzel Washington sued because he was denied the role of JFK, he has no case (unless it is a very odd interpretation film "Bubba Ho-Tep")
lol
I believe (i could be wrong) that the company tilted skirt does this so they arent hiring "waitresses" and have more wiggle room on hiring/firing based on looks
 
Back
Top Bottom