Supreme Court to hear pregnancy discrimination case

AGENT J · Dec 3, 2014

Supreme Court to hear pregnancy discrimination case | MSNBC

[h=1]Supreme Court to hear pregnancy discrimination case[/h]
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 :roll:

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

Hatuey · Dec 3, 2014

AGENT J said:
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

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.

American · Dec 3, 2014

UPS has changed their policy.

AGENT J · Dec 3, 2014

Hatuey said:
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

American · Dec 3, 2014

AGENT J said:
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.

Hatuey · Dec 3, 2014

AGENT J said:
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?

AGENT J · Dec 3, 2014

American said:
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

AGENT J · Dec 3, 2014

Hatuey said:
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.

Hatuey · Dec 3, 2014

AGENT J said:
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. :shrug:

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.

AGENT J · Dec 3, 2014

Hatuey said:
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. :shrug:
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

joG · Dec 3, 2014

AGENT J said:
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

She probably will win. And delivery services will face higher costs, when employing women. They will tend to employ fewer at lower wages. That is trivial economics and always the case.
I suspect that you have never employed a young lady in a job and had her go pregnant on you. Depending on the job it is catastrophic or only costly. And it always hurts you. You learn these things after it has happened to you a couple of times.

tres borrachos · Dec 3, 2014

Hatuey said:
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?

I gave you a like on one of the other posts because I have to say, your posts in this thread are among the most sensible posts I've read on this board on any issue. At first read I was all about siding with the woman at the center of the issue. I have 3 kids and was working during all pregnancies, and with blazing gestational diabetes for all 3 as well as some other complications, my doctors were always "recommending" what I should do, and what I could do, and so on. My company actually wanted me to start my maternity leave much sooner than I did with the others, which started the day they were born since I worked right up to the end of my scheduled C-sections. My doctors said it was still okay for me to work but I was an outside sales person who spent about 5 hours a day in her car and my company just didn't want the risk of me driving all over New England and them being on the hook somehow.

Thank you for your reasoned and well constructed posts.

Hatuey · Dec 3, 2014

AGENT J said:
1.) easy underlaw one person vs two

You've now crossed the line of utter nonsense. Under the law, injury to a pregnant woman actually takes her fetus into consideration. As such, under the law, there are two people being put in harms way, not one. SPECIALLY in Va where this took place. Again, educate yourself. Here is Virginia law on the matter:

State Homicide Laws That Recognize Unborn Victims | National Right to Life

Virginia: Effective July 1, 2004, Code of Virginia Section 18.2-32.2 provides: “Any person who unlawfully, willfully, deliberately, maliciously and with premeditation kills the fetus of another” may be imprisoned from 20 years to life; and any person who does so without premeditation may be imprisoned for not less than five nor more than 40 years.

2.) yes it was irrelevant for you to point it out since didnt make that claim or this one

It was irrelevant for me to point out it was irrelevant? Lol. You made an irrelevant statement. I pointed it out. Get over it.

3.) didnt say he put them at PHYSICAL risk did i? nope

Considering that's what we're discussing, there is nothing else for you to refer to other than physical risk. You tried to be purposely obtuse and it failed. A disabled person who takes on manual labor only puts themselves at risk. A pregnant woman who takes on manual labor is putting herself and whatever is inside her at risk.

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

You said it had not been established that UPS had broken any laws. I stated it had been established that they haven't considering they actually followed FMLA on this by offering the woman paid leave or to leave.

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.

It's ignorant because you have no idea how the law seems to work. That you think unpaid leave means she'll lose her insurance is just laughable.

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

6.) not about FMLA

First, it's not about FMLA, then, FMLA is sort of involved. Here, I'll make it easier for you: As UPS' defense relies on the premise that it didn't break any standing laws on maternity leave, this is about FMLA. Why? Because for her to win the case, she has to argue that company policy, which again, is in line with the legislation on the matter, discriminated against her specifically. In short, they'd have to show that the law being used to enforce this policy discriminates. As such, this case is really about whether or not FMLA discriminates against pregnant women. I'm getting tired of your boring ignorance on this topic.

7.) weird another strawman and something you just made since i never said that. I agree silly indeed

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

Guess what? The measure I provided? You said you'd be fine with it. It would actually leave this woman at a disadvantage.

8.) who mentioned injuring themselves at the work place? oh thats right not me lol

Look at your point 1, point 3 and tell yourself that's true.

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

It's almost like you have no idea what the discussion surrounds. This woman was provided with the conditions federally required of employees. That involves FMLA law. That she's suing over discrimination and you support her suggest you both believe a law was broken. Supposedly an anti-discrimination law. However, as FMLA applies to everyone equally, no law was broken and no discrimination took place. Is this really hard for you to understand?

AGENT J · Dec 3, 2014

joG said:
1.)She probably will win.
2.) And delivery services will face higher costs, when employing women. They will tend to employ fewer at lower wages. That is trivial economics and always the case.
3.) I suspect that you have never employed a young lady in a job and had her go pregnant on you.
4.) Depending on the job it is catastrophic or only costly. And it always hurts you. You learn these things after it has happened to you a couple of times.

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:

AGENT J · Dec 3, 2014

Hatuey said:
1.)You've now crossed the line of utter nonsense. Under the law, injury to a pregnant woman actually takes her fetus into consideration. As such, under the law, there are two people being put in harms way, not one. SPECIALLY in Va where this took place. Again, educate yourself. Here is Virginia law on the matter:

State Homicide Laws That Recognize Unborn Victims | National Right to Life

2.)It was irrelevant for me to point out it was irrelevant? Lol. You made an irrelevant statement. I pointed it out. Get over it.

3.)Considering that's what we're discussing, there is nothing else for you to refer to other than physical risk. You tried to be purposely obtuse and it failed. A disabled person who takes on manual labor only puts themselves at risk. A pregnant woman who takes on manual labor is putting herself and whatever is inside her at risk.
4.)You said it had not been established that UPS had broken any laws. I stated it had been established that they haven't considering they actually followed FMLA on this by offering the woman paid leave or to leave.
5.)It's ignorant because you have no idea how the law seems to work. That you think unpaid leave means she'll lose her insurance is just laughable.
6.)If it's not about FMLA, then FMLA is sort of involved. As UPS' defense relies on the premise that it didn't break any standing laws on maternity leave, this is about FMLA. I'm getting tired of your boring ignorance on this topic.
7.)Guess what? The measure I provided? You said you'd be fine with it. It would actually leave this woman at a disadvantage.

Look at your point 1, point 3 and tell yourself that's true.

It's almost like you have no idea what the discussion surrounds. This woman was provided with the conditions federally required of employees. That involves FMLA law. That she's suing over discrimination and you support her suggest you both believe a law was broken. Supposedly an anti-discrimination law. However, as FMLA applies to everyone equally, no law was broken and no discrimination took place. Is this really hard for you to understand?

1.) awesome another strawman!
2.) been over the straman since you stated it
3.) no WE were not, i made a statement and you tried to change it and failed
4.) yes i did say that and it remains true it has not been established yet and will not be until SCOTUS rules
5.) she did lose it according to one of the articles, i never made any correlation to "unpaid leave" another made up statement
6.) again its not about FMLA its about possible discrimination keep desperately trying to reframe the op, the court case and what i said though. you are factually wrong. is the case about violating FML. . . nope its about possible discrimination. tell me that cool line about ignorance again?
7.) nope thats your opinion . . . she wanted to work get paid and keep her insurances, she disagrees with you
8.) yes point 1 and 3 dont do that thanks for proving it
9.) no i know exactly what the COURT CASE is about . . possible discrimination . . . and exactly about how I feel about it and what i actually said . . .

i simply just didnt allow you to reframe it and change my words or get caught up in your failed strawmen, good luck trying though it wont work

Hatuey · Dec 3, 2014

tres borrachos said:
I gave you a like on one of the other posts because I have to say, your posts in this thread are among the most sensible posts I've read on this board on any issue. At first read I was all about siding with the woman at the center of the issue. I have 3 kids and was working during all pregnancies, and with blazing gestational diabetes for all 3 as well as some other complications, my doctors were always "recommending" what I should do, and what I could do, and so on. My company actually wanted me to start my maternity leave much sooner than I did with the others, which started the day they were born since I worked right up to the end of my scheduled C-sections. My doctors said it was still okay for me to work but I was an outside sales person who spent about 5 hours a day in her car and my company just didn't want the risk of me driving all over New England and them being on the hook somehow.

Thank you for your reasoned and well constructed posts.

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.

Hatuey · Dec 3, 2014

AGENT J said:
1.) awesome another strawman!
2.) been over the straman since you stated it

You've been reduced to repetition. That's not good sign less than 3 pages in. It's really simple, J, harm to women and fetuses are considered harm to two separate people. Who will be held legally responsible for willfully putting this woman at any risk? I'll wait.

3.) no WE were not, i made a statement and you tried to change it and failed

We've been discussing physical risk for literally 2 pages now. That's what this entire case is about. Physical risk, liability and a company being forced to take it. That you're trying to deny that is pretty silly.

4.) yes i did say that and it remains true it has not been established yet and will not be until SCOTUS rules

Lol, can you tell us what law UPS broke by modeling its policy on FMLA legislation?

I'll wait.

5.) she did lose it according to one of the articles, i never made any correlation to "unpaid leave" another made up statement

She lost it because she went on leave of absence. Do you understand the difference between that and maternity leave?

6.) again its not about FMLA its about possible discrimination keep desperately trying to reframe the op, the court case and what i said though. you are factually wrong. is the case about violating FML. . . nope its about possible discrimination. tell me that cool line about ignorance again?

I'll explain this one last time because you seem to have issues. She's claiming she's being discriminated against because UPS' policy on maternity leave, which is based on FMLA legislation, is discriminatory. Do you realize why it's about FMLA yet? Or not?

7.) nope thats your opinion . . . she wanted to work get paid and keep her insurances, she disagrees with you

And yet, the company was under absolutely no obligation to abide by her demands. It provided her with unpaid maternity leave and it followed the federally mandated requirements of FMLA.

8.) yes point 1 and 3 dont do that thanks for proving it

Lol, you're being obtuse. You discuss physical injury in the last 3 post then claim you haven't. Not a good sign to be backtracking this early, dude.

9.) no i know exactly what the COURT CASE is about . . possible discrimination . . . and exactly about how I feel about it and what i actually said . . .

Can you please show us which law was violated by affording her the same options which would be offered to other employees who aren't putting anyone else at risk?

i simply just didnt allow you to reframe it and change my words or get caught up in your failed strawmen, good luck trying though it wont work

You use strawman like it's going out of style, but I don't think you actually know what it is. Your words on this have been pretty sketchy. First it's not about FMLA, then you say that you didn't say that FMLA wasn't involved. Then you claim you haven't mentioned injury at the workplace, but that's literally what this thread has been about since the beginning. Backtracking won't help you.

AGENT J · Dec 3, 2014

Hatuey said:
1.) You've been reduced to repetition. That's not good sign less than 3 pages in. It's really simple, J, harm to women and fetuses are considered harm to two separate people. Who will be held legally responsible for willfully putting this woman at any risk? I'll wait.
2.)We've been discussing physical risk for literally 2 pages now. That's what this entire case is about. Physical risk, liability and a company being forced to take it. That you're trying to deny that is pretty silly.
3.)Lol, can you tell us what law UPS broke by modeling its policy on FMLA legislation? I'll wait.
4.)She lost it because she went on leave of absence. Do you understand the difference between that and maternity leave?
5.)I'll explain this one last time because you seem to have issues. She's claiming she's being discriminated against because UPS' policy on maternity leave, which is based on FMLA legislation, is discriminatory. Do you realize why it's about FMLA yet? Or not?
6.) And yet, the company was under absolutely no obligation to abide by her demands. It provided her with unpaid maternity leave and it followed the federally mandated requirements of FMLA.

Lol, you're being obtuse. You discuss physical injury in the last 3 post then claim you haven't. Not a good sign to be backtracking this early, dude.

Can you please show us which law was violated by affording her the same options which would be offered to other employees who aren't putting anyone else at risk?

You use strawman like it's going out of style, but I don't think you actually know what it is. Your words on this have been pretty sketchy. First it's not about FMLA, then you say that you didn't say that FMLA wasn't involved. Then you claim you haven't mentioned injury at the workplace, but that's literally what this thread has been about since the beginning. Backtracking won't help you.

1.) this already failed further pushing your strawman doenst help it, can you point out where i said anything you claim? ill wait

2.) nope that was your reframe, its about . . . . possible discrimination
3.) another strawman, can you point out where i said they broke the laws of FMLA? Ill wait

you cant cause you made it up. this is about discrimination. thats exactly what the lawsuit is about lol If FMLA didnt even exist would this lawsuit still exist? yep
4.) wow talk about a total backpedal. soooo did I say i thought insurance stayed with unpaid leave or not? no I didnt. good try but a total fail
5.) I know thats YOUR spin and YOUR claim and attempt at reframing but if FMLA didnt exist the case still would cause its about discrimination
6.) so does that impact the fact she disagrees with you about "negative" effects or not? no it doesnt its a reframe that is meaningless to your original wrong claim and ANOTHER strawman.

sis i say they were obligated to abide by her demands? nope i never even called them demands
7.) another deflection
8.) same? expect for the others that were allowed to do light duty like the articles point out . . not the same

9.) yes i agree if you stop using them i wont have to point them out

still about discrimination, and i still hope she wins, and if she doesnt i wont be claiming it broke the laws of FMLA cause i never did and ill still be an advocate for maternity leave. Cant wait to see the next arguments and positions of mine you make up though! Like i said good luck so far it hasnt worked out well at all!

tres borrachos · Dec 3, 2014

Hatuey said:
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.

Not only did I never lose my insurance while on maternity leave...my insurance paid for pretty much everything related to the pregnancies and births. And you are 100% correct when you say it's the FMLA that made this policy possible in the first place.

Excellent posts, Hatuey. Many likes for all of them.

Hatuey · Dec 3, 2014

AGENT J said:
1.) this already failed further pushing your strawman doenst help it, can you point out where i said anything you claim? ill wait

That you dismiss it because you can't address doesn't make it a strawman. The fact that you think under the law a pregnant woman counts as two people has already been shown to be false as per Virginia law. Should we look at federal law too and prove you wrong again?

2.) nope that was your reframe, its about . . . . possible discrimination

Discrimination which has been alleged when it's no different than a company not wanting to take responsibility for any injuries which may happen to the fetus.

3.) another strawman, can you point out where i said they broke the laws of FMLA? Ill wait you cant cause you made it up. this is about discrimination. thats exactly what the lawsuit is about lol If FMLA didnt even exist would this lawsuit still exist? yep

Eh, nobody has said you said that because the point is that the policy is based on FMLA. For the last time, if the policy is discriminatory, then the law it's based on is discriminatory. Do you not realize that yet?

4.) wow talk about a total backpedal. soooo did I say i thought insurance stayed with unpaid leave or not? no I didnt. good try but a total fail

Total backpedal? Dude, you just argued she lost it because she went on parental leave. What actually happened is she went on a leave of absence and lost it. If she had gone on parental leave, she wouldn't have lost it. That's not backpedaling, that's realizing just how little you actually understand this issue to begin with.

5.) I know thats YOUR spin and YOUR claim and attempt at reframing but if FMLA didnt exist the case still would cause its about discrimination

Discrimination against whom!?!?! The policy is based on a law which applies equally to all employees.

6.) so does that impact the fact she disagrees with you about "negative" effects or not? no it doesnt its a reframe that is meaningless to your original wrong claim and ANOTHER strawman.

sis i say they were obligated to abide by her demands? nope i never even called them demands
7.) another deflection
8.) same? expect for the others that were allowed to do light duty like the articles point out . . not the same
9.) yes i agree if you stop using them i wont have to point them out

still about discrimination, and i still hope she wins, and if she doesnt i wont be claiming it broke the laws of FMLA cause i never did and ill still be an advocate for maternity leave. Cant wait to see the next arguments and positions of mine you make up though! Like i said good luck so far it hasnt worked out well at all!

Repeating the same nonsense over and over again won't help you. As the facts stand:

- She was offered unpaid maternity leave, that would have allowed her to keep her insurance BY LAW.
- She took a leave of absence instead and lost her insurance.

Do you realize why there was no discrimination at all? The company offered her an option which would have allowed her to keep her health insurance and is mandated of all employers. It's also guaranteed to all of its employees. She took a different option which was up to the discretion of the employer (and not illegal or discriminatory). In short, she wanted the company to assume whatever risks she took (which it would have to if she injured herself or her fetus) and the company said no in the same way it would deny someone who wants to bring their kids to work. That's not discriminatory, that's an entirely legal practice.

joG · Dec 3, 2014

AGENT J said:
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:

4 is a very small sample. But it is true that my experience with women employees has been good on most levels and usually better than with men. But there is no question that if a crucial employee becomes pregnant the company can be hit severely. In small companies it can even mean bankruptcy. Even in a large company losing the head and vice head of a department at more or less the same time to pregnancy can cost the whole team its bonuses. And the more protection a society forces the employer to grant the higher is his risk compared to an employee that cannot become pregnant. You know that.

AGENT J · Dec 3, 2014

Hatuey said:
That you dismiss it because you can't address doesn't make it a strawman. The fact that you think under the law a pregnant woman counts as two people has already been shown to be false as per Virginia law. Should we look at federal law too and prove you wrong again?

Discrimination which has been alleged when it's no different than a company not wanting to take responsibility for any injuries which may happen to the fetus.

Eh, nobody has said you said that because the point is that the policy is based on FMLA. For the last time, if the policy is discriminatory, then the law it's based on is discriminatory. Do you not realize that yet?

Total backpedal? Dude, you just argued she lost it because she went on parental leave. What actually happened is she went on a leave of absence and lost it. If she had gone on parental leave, she wouldn't have lost it. That's not backpedaling, that's realizing just how little you actually understand this issue to begin with.

Discrimination against whom!?!?! The policy is based on a law which applies equally to all employees.

Repeating the same nonsense over and over again won't help you. As the facts stand:

- She was offered unpaid maternity leave, that would have allowed her to keep her insurance BY LAW.
- She took a leave of absence instead and lost her insurance.

Do you realize why there was no discrimination at all? The company offered her an option which would have allowed her to keep her health insurance and is mandated of all employers. It's also guaranteed to all of its employees. She took a different option which was up to the discretion of the employer (and not illegal or discriminatory). In short, she wanted the company to assume whatever risks she took (which it would have to if she injured herself or her fetus) and the company said no in the same way it would deny someone who wants to bring their kids to work. That's not discriminatory, that's an entirely legal practice.

AWESOME you didnt let me down more made up stuff! but nothgin has changed
this is not about FMLA nor have i ever said it was, thats why your straman fails, its about possible discrimination

also just to address one HILARIOUS lie and strawman its this:

i never argued she lost it for ANY reason i simple stated she lost it "Dude, you just argued she lost it because she went on parental leave."
never made that claim at all i simply pointed out she didnt have insurance and you made up the rest. If you disagree simply qoute me saying the lie you claim

once again
still about possible discrimination, this fact wont change
i still hope she wins, and if she doesnt i wont be claiming it broke the laws of FMLA cause i never did and ill still be an advocate for maternity leave.
Cant wait to see the next arguments and positions of mine you make up though! Like i said good luck so far it hasnt worked out well at all!

AGENT J · Dec 3, 2014

joG said:
1.)4 is a very small sample.
2.) But there is no question that if a crucial employee becomes pregnant the company can be hit severely. In small companies it can even mean bankruptcy. Even in a large company losing the head and vice head of a department at more or less the same time to pregnancy can cost the whole team its bonuses. And the more protection a society forces the employer to grant the higher is his risk compared to an employee that cannot become pregnant. You know that.

1.) never said it was large or small simply pointed out the fact your assumption was wrong.
2.) or 100s of other medical conditions, or quits etc etc
:shrug:

Hatuey · Dec 3, 2014

AGENT J said:
AWESOME you didnt let me down more made up stuff! but nothgin has changed
this is not about FMLA nor have i ever said it was, thats why your straman fails, its about possible discrimination

also just to address one HILARIOUS lie and strawman its this:

i never argued she lost it for ANY reason i simple stated she lost it "Dude, you just argued she lost it because she went on parental leave."
never made that claim at all i simply pointed out she didnt have insurance and you made up the rest. If you disagree simply qoute me saying the lie you claim

once again
still about possible discrimination, this fact wont change
i still hope she wins, and if she doesnt i wont be claiming it broke the laws of FMLA cause i never did and ill still be an advocate for maternity leave.
Cant wait to see the next arguments and positions of mine you make up though! Like i said good luck so far it hasnt worked out well at all!

Typing in caps lock won't change the fact that you really don't know what you're talking about. This woman was offered maternal leave. That would have allowed her to keep her insurance by law. Hell, a female poster validated my statements and Wikipedia link on this very thread.

The woman in the article lost her insurance because she took a LOA. She lost her insurance in the same way that any other employee on a LOA would have lost their insurance. She asked if she could keep working. The company denied her based on the fact that it would add a second liability - that liability being the life of her fetus.

That is not in anyway similar to accommodations being given to disabled employees because disabled employees aren't carrying another lifeform with them. If anything, it's more like a person who wants to bring their child to work with them and then is complaining because they can't. However, for all of her complaining not only is the policy perfectly reasonable, it is within the limits of legality.

There was never any discrimination here. The policy was applied equally to all workers.

joG · Dec 3, 2014

AGENT J said:
1.) never said it was large or small simply pointed out the fact your assumption was wrong.
2.) or 100s of other medical conditions, or quits etc etc
:shrug:

The assumption is not wrong. 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. 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.

Supreme Court to hear pregnancy discrimination case

"If you ain't first, you're last"

Rule of Two

Trump Grump Whisperer

"If you ain't first, you're last"

Trump Grump Whisperer

Rule of Two

"If you ain't first, you're last"

"If you ain't first, you're last"

Rule of Two

"If you ain't first, you're last"

HoHoHo

Rule of Two

"If you ain't first, you're last"

"If you ain't first, you're last"

Rule of Two

Rule of Two

"If you ain't first, you're last"

HoHoHo

Rule of Two

"If you ain't first, you're last"

"If you ain't first, you're last"

Rule of Two