Pregnancy Discrimination- Should UPS Have to Accommodate?

[Mai72]

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...reme-court-pregnancy-discrimination/19834725/

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

Should have UPS accommodated Peggy until she had her baby? Obviously, she wasn't able to do her job since she was pregnant. What should have been the response of UPS?

IMO, what looks bad UPS is the fact that they made accommodations for people with injuries, but they couldn't make accommodations for Peggy. The Pregnancy Discrimination Act states:

The Pregnancy Discrimination Act, which was passed in 1978, appears designed to guard against her situation. The act guarantees that a pregnant woman (or a woman who has just given birth) “shall be treated the same for all employment-related purposes, including receipt of benefits under fringe benefit programs, as other persons not so affected but similar in their ability or inability to work.

I doubt the Supreme Court is going to side with Peggy. Since the Supreme Court is dominated by Republican leaning justices, I see them voting in favor of UPS.

Reported Repost.

Perknose
Forum Director

 

[Smoblikat]

This will sound harsh...........

Is she able to do the job she signed up for, and agreed to do?

If not, then why should she get special treatment?

 

[Londo_Jowo]

I'm surprised that UPS didn't have short disability insurance for situations like this, women that work for the same company as I do go out on short term disability and receive full pay/benefits for 12 weeks.

 

[Mai72]

This will sound harsh...........

Is she able to do the job she signed up for, and agreed to do?

If not, then why should she get special treatment?

The issue is UPS made accommodations for people who have been injured, but they refused to accommodate Peggy when she got pregnant. That's the issue.

This lawsuit might have a long reaching effect on businesses if she wins. In fact, UPS has stated that they will begin to accommodate workers in the near future. I still think she's going to lose. The majority of the Supreme Court are Republican leaning justices, so I don't see them voting against UPS.

 

[xBiffx]

Re...

 

[BoomerD]

The issue is UPS made accommodations for people who have been injured, but they refused to accommodate Peggy when she got pregnant. That's the issue.

This lawsuit might have a long reaching effect on businesses if she wins. In fact, UPS has stated that they will begin to accommodate workers in the near future. I still think she's going to lose. The majority of the Supreme Court are Republican leaning justices, so I don't see them voting against UPS.

Well...pregnancy could be considered to be a "self-inflicted injury."

 

[CPA]

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...reme-court-pregnancy-discrimination/19834725/

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

Should have UPS accommodated Peggy until she had her baby? Obviously, she wasn't able to do her job since she was pregnant. What should have been the response of UPS?

IMO, what looks bad UPS is the fact that they made accommodations for people with injuries, but they couldn't make accommodations for Peggy. The Pregnancy Discrimination Act states:



I doubt the Supreme Court us going to side with Peggy. Since the Supreme Court is dominated by Republican leaning justices I see them voting in favor of UPS.

Or maybe the Court is going to side with how the laws were written, which clearly states she was to be treated similarly to those not affected.

I also love how women's rights are lining up with her. Aren't women's rights groups generally for equality? You know equality of opportunity, pay, benefits, etc? Now, they seem to want a special clause to this equality based on a women's ability to get pregnant.

Peggy didn't lose her job and she was able to take advantage of her right to FMLA. Oh, and two other lower courts ruled against her. Sorry, but she shouldn't win based on the laws at the time of her pregnancy.