Here is an Interesting One Going to SCOTUS

[bshole]

In a nutshell, woman was a UPS driver and was forced on to unpaid leave when she got pregnant. She wanted to work during this period for the insurance benefits. She is now suing for back pay and benefits.

http://www.businessweek.com/article...ed-into-unpaid-leave-goes-to-supreme-court#p1

http://www.npr.org/2014/12/03/36783...e-against-a-pregnant-worker-by-letting-her-go

 

[The Merg]

That is an interesting case. I would think that she has a good chance as the case looks to be in her favor, however, with the currently sitting SCOTUS, I'm not sure how it will turn out.

- Merg

 

[s0me0nesmind1]

I think this was already posted somewhere....

To be honest, not much of an argument - The doc gave her orders for what not to do for her day-to-day labor. UPS should have given accommodations given the doctor's orders for a pregnancy. For such a unionized industry, I'm surprised.

The only stupid part? The woman admits that 99% of the time all she did was deliver envelopes that sure as hell didn't weigh 20lbs, let alone 40lbs+, so I think this is rather stupid to begin with. Also, she was not "forced" to be unpaid, nice liberal media bias tossed in there. They said you have to agree to be able to lift 40lbs+ (or something close to that). She refused (based on doc orders).

I honestly don't even see how there is any legit argument, or what this will change if SCOTUS sides with her (which I hope they do).

edit: Sorry, it's 70lbs, not 40lbs.

 

[xBiffx]

What can brown do for you?

Only thing I can add is that it seems rather silly to compare pregnancy to an injury, illness, or disability which it appears everyone on her side is doing here. One is voluntary, the other isn't. And please don't use rape as a work around because that's not even the same and you know it. By making this comparison, isn't she and others setting back the women's liberation/equality movement just a tad?

Also, its stories like these that shouldn't make people wonder why women are paid less.

 

[nageov3t]

I think this was already posted somewhere....

To be honest, not much of an argument - The doc gave her orders for what not to do for her day-to-day labor. UPS should have given accommodations given the doctor's orders for a pregnancy. For such a unionized industry, I'm surprised.

The only stupid part? The woman admits that 99% of the time all she did was deliver envelopes that sure as hell didn't weigh 20lbs, let alone 40lbs+, so I think this is rather stupid to begin with. Also, she was not "forced" to be unpaid, nice liberal media bias tossed in there. They said you have to agree to be able to lift 40lbs+ (or something close to that). She refused (based on doc orders).

I honestly don't even see how there is any legit argument, or what this will change if SCOTUS sides with her (which I hope they do).

edit: Sorry, it's 70lbs, not 40lbs.

I think another driver on her route offered to take any packages that may occasionally come up while she was pregnant, but UPS refused to make that allowance.

 

[AznAnarchy99]

Any decent manager would have just moved her to a different position, scanning packages or something lighter. Any of my previous jobs would have done it for me if something happened.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

I don't see how she will win many people including myself have had to go out on short term disability because we could not perform all the required tasks of our jobs. I could handle the day to day technical calls but I couldn't go to clients plants as required due to having a torn rotator cuff/recovering from rotator cuff repair surgery.

 

[theeedude]

Gonna be another 5:4 for the corporation with this SCOTUS.

 

[glenn1]

Was a long discussion topic on NPR today. Evidently the law covering pregnancy discrimination very stupidly doesn't include the same "must be able to perform the essential functions of the job" requirement that other similar laws like the ADA does. As such, I think it's complete and utter crap and should be thrown out by the SCOTUS and let Congress clean up their mess. "Reasonable accomodation" doesn't mean you should be allowed to not do what you were hired to, but only if you're pregnant but no other "short term disabilities".

 

[theeedude]

Yeah, if she couldn't do the job, should have aborted.

 

[xBiffx]

Yeah, if she couldn't do the job, should have aborted.

 

[theeedude]

Could be a good financial decision. Especially if she had to pay for birth without insurance.

 

[xBiffx]

Could be a good financial decision. Especially if she had to pay for birth without insurance.

 

[GTaudiophile]

Paid maternity leave. Isn't the US like the only industrialized nation that doesn't have it?

 

[glenn1]

Could be a good financial decision. Especially if she had to pay for birth without insurance.

So tell me genius, does it make sense that the current law allows the same woman to get a reasonable accomodation for pregnancy regardless of whether she can perform the essential job duties, but then deny the same reasonable accomodation afterwards if she has post-delivery complications because it's no longer "pregnancy discrimination"?

FFS, do you folks even bother using your brain to think things through or just skip all logic and reason to determine "what can I do to make the result happen that I think is best for the 'little guy', fuck all other laws, common sense, and economic consequence"?

 

[Londo_Jowo]

People that work for good companies have paid maternity leave however, it's known by another name - short term disability.

 

[nageov3t]

Paid maternity leave. Isn't the US like the only industrialized nation that doesn't have it?

taking maternity leave starting in the first trimester, though? she'd be on leave for a year.

 

[xBiffx]

People that work for good companies have paid maternity leave however, it's known by another name - short term disability.

That's how it works here.

 

[theeedude]

So tell me genius, does it make sense that the current law allows the same woman to get a reasonable accomodation for pregnancy regardless of whether she can perform the essential job duties, but then deny the same reasonable accomodation afterwards if she has post-delivery complications because it's no longer "pregnancy discrimination"?

FFS, do you folks even bother using your brain to think things through or just skip all logic and reason to determine "what can I do to make the result happen that I think is best for the 'little guy', fuck all other laws, common sense, and economic consequence"?

Woman can take economic consequences into consideration and make a choice to abort. Why you angry?

 

[glenn1]

Woman can take economic consequences into consideration and make a choice to abort. Why you angry?

I'm not, but abortion is unrelated to this. Or I could just use your example against you and ask why you'd support someone to not need to meet "essential job functions" when pregnant, but if they had abortion complications would require you to meet those same essential functions. Why do you hate women who get abortions?

 

[Blanky]

She claims she could do he regular job, but this claim belies her request from employer for an exception.

IMO if you work in a job that requires physical labor inconsistent with something you voluntarily bring upon yourself you cannot expect your employer to cover you.

Being pregnant and having kids totally screws with work in a lot of cases but that is just how it is. It sounds like ups made little effort to help her but that is their prerogative. It is this kind of thing that makes some hirers resistant to child-bearing age women, irrespective of the legality of such decision making.

 

[s0me0nesmind1]

She claims she could do he regular job, but this claim belies her request from employer for an exception.

IMO if you work in a job that requires physical labor inconsistent with something you voluntarily bring upon yourself you cannot expect your employer to cover you.

Being pregnant and having kids totally screws with work in a lot of cases but that is just how it is. It sounds like ups made little effort to help her but that is their prerogative. It is this kind of thing that makes some hirers resistant to child-bearing age women, irrespective of the legality of such decision making.

Last I checked, UPS/Fedex were both HEAVILY unionized (derp derp no wonder it takes $10 to send a tiny package 1 block away). So why wasn't she able to do short term medical leave?

 

[xBiffx]

Last I checked, UPS/Fedex were both HEAVILY unionized (derp derp no wonder it takes $10 to send a tiny package 1 block away). So why wasn't she able to do short term medical leave?

Medical leave is just that, leave. She wanted to continue working but not doing the entire job. She wanted light duty work, which UPS doesn't grant to anybody who encounters off the job issues, pregnant or not, apparently. If she was closer to the due date, she easily could have taken FMLA and/or short term disability/maternity leave.

 

[theeedude]

I'm not, but abortion is unrelated to this. Or I could just use your example against you and ask why you'd support someone to not need to meet "essential job functions" when pregnant, but if they had abortion complications would require you to meet those same essential functions. Why do you hate women who get abortions?

It's a free market decision. Foregone income plus uninsured medical expenses can easily bring it into six figure hit. Not the best financial environment to bring a child into for most people, especially considering other expenses of raising a kid.

 

[BoomerD]

Last I checked, UPS/Fedex were both HEAVILY unionized (derp derp no wonder it takes $10 to send a tiny package 1 block away). So why wasn't she able to do short term medical leave?

IIRC, FedEx has always been anti-union...and not unionized.