Supreme Court considers pregnancy in the workplace - Polidicks

[quote]Women's reproductive rights are once again before the U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday. Only this time, pregnancy discrimination is the issue and pro-life and pro-choice groups are on the same side, opposed by business groups. In 1976, the Supreme Court ruled that an employer that does not include pregnancy in its disability plan is not discriminating based on gender; it's just omitting coverage for one disability. Congress quickly amended the sex-discrimination law to ban discrimination based on pregnancy. But since then, most appeals courts have interpreted the law narrowly. Wednesday's case is a test of what is now required under the Pregnancy Discrimination Act. The case was brought by Peggy Young, then of Annapolis, Md., who had been driving a United Parcel Service delivery truck for four years when she became pregnant. UPS requested that she contact the company nurse, and the nurse asked for a doctor's note. Young explained to her doctor that her job involved driving the early morning shift at the airport, and that almost all of her pickups involved envelopes and small packages. She says the doctor thought the request for a note was "odd," but wrote one recommending that Young not lift more than 20 pounds. "When I took the note to the nurse, she basically said, 'Well, we don't give alternative work or light duty to off-work incidents.' I'm like, 'I'm pregnant, there's not an incident here, and I can do my regular job.' They would not allow me to," says Young. She lost her job and UPS health insurance for nine months. The job and insurance losses were financially difficult for Young and her husband, she says. "Many nights I didn't sleep so well." She adds that it was "very disturbing that I couldn't work when I wanted to work. ... They coded me in their system as disabled, but I didn't qualify for disability because I could work. ... I'm a normal person, I was just pregnant. Pregnancy is not a disability. Pregnancy is not a handicap. It's none of that." Young sued UPS for back pay and damages under the Pregnancy Discrimination Act. UPS fought the suit in court, contending that it treated Young just as it treated other employees who were limited in their ability to lift as a result of events that took place off the job. UPS's policy is that drivers are supposed to be able to lift up to 70 pounds. It didn't matter to the company that Young's actual job required her to lift more than 20 pounds only a few times a month, and that a co-worker was willing to help. In the Supreme Court on Wednesday, lawyer Caitlin Halligan, representing UPS, will tell the justices that the Pregnancy Discrimination Act was not intended to accommodate pregnancy. Rather, she says, the act bars only intentional discrimination by an employer. UPS, she asserts, has no animus toward pregnant women; it has a generally applied policy that does not accommodate disabilities that occur off the job. ... Representing Peggy Young in the Supreme Court on Wednesday, University of Michigan law professor Samuel Bagenstos will tell the justices that drivers who lost their licenses were assigned light duty until they could get their licenses back — in other words, that nonpregnant workers with temporary disabilities were treated more favorably than pregnant workers. ... He maintains that the Pregnancy Discrimination Act requires pregnant women to be treated the same way that other individuals are treated who have temporary disabilities. UPS says that it did just that. It argues that workers who suffer on-the-job injuries are in a separate category. And it disputes the contention that it accommodated with light duty nonpregnant workers who could not drive or lift because of events that occurred off the job.[/quote] [url=http://www.npr.org/2014/12/03/367835679/did-ups-discriminate-against-a-pregnant-worker-by-letting-her-go]NPR[/url] tl;dr -Woman given the boot from UPS because she was pregnant and couldn't lift more than 20 lbs -UPS (arguably) regularly gives employees with temporary disability (injury, etc) lighter work duty to accommodate -Question: Do employers have an obligation to provide pregnant employees with lighter work duty or workplace accommodations? -Question: Do pregnant employees have the same workplace rights to accommodation as temporarily disabled employees? Can you treat them differently? -Question: Is it discrimination to give pregnant women the boot or to not accommodate them as you would other employees? UPS: We don't accommodate any disabled employees, and equally treat them like crap. This is not discriminating against a pregnant employee- she can not do the job as required by the description in her employment contract. The law does not require us to accommodate pregnant employees who can not do the job as described. Young: UPS regularly grants lighter work duty to injured employees. Firing pregnant employees is discriminatory against them. Not accommodating them the same as injured employees is discriminatory. The job rarely requires employees to achieve the requirements as listed in the contract. Asking for accommodation is not a burden.

Wait, do you not have maternity leave in the US?

[QUOTE=bravehat;46645210]Wait, do you not have maternity leave in the US?[/QUOTE] We do, but we also have rather lax laws regarding why you can be fired. It's employer's discretion for the most part, you can be let go because your boss doesn't like your hair style and it's perfectly legal. Douchey as hell and a PR nightmare for the company, but A-OK in the eyes of the courts. What UPS did was douchey as hell, yes. And they're going to catch hell for it. Rightly so. But it was perfectly legal. Probably won't be for too much longer, but it was at the time it happened.

[QUOTE=bravehat;46645210]Wait, do you not have maternity leave in the US?[/QUOTE] Yes, for 12 weeks maximum, unpaid. Some states (California and New Jersey mainly) have paid leave; the vast majority of the US does not require it. God bless America [IMG]http://theboomflash.files.wordpress.com/2010/12/emot-911.gif[/IMG]

In short. Firing someone because they are pregnant is wrong. But there is more to it than that because if you enforce something like that very strictly the employers generally will begin to favor males as potential employees even more than they do currently. That only adds to more complex problems. I don't know if there is an elegant solution to this. It sucks for everyone involved to be honest. For the employer if a female employee is pregnant and can't perform fully they can't always just find light duty work, especially since lighter duties often require better qualifications and skills that they may not have. They are essentially left with an employee they can't use and have to pay for. At the same time the employee may not be able to just get up and leave somewhere else where they can do lighter work. To balance it all out you would probably need to get the state involved to perhaps provide training to pregnant employees where they could do simple office work or something. Or grants for employers. There needs to be some extra motivation for the employers.

Yeah why would we protect some of the most vulnerable yet most crucial people in the society when we could have $$$PROFIT$$$ [editline]5th December 2014[/editline] [QUOTE=Buck.;46645235]In short. Firing someone because they are pregnant is wrong. But there is more to it than that because if you enforce something like that very strictly the employers generally will begin to favor males as potential employees even more than they do currently. That only adds to more complex problems. I don't know if there is an elegant solution to this. It sucks for everyone involved to be honest. For the employer if a female employee is pregnant and can't perform fully they can't always just find light duty work, especially since lighter duties often require better qualifications and skills that they may not have. They are essentially left with an employee they can't use and have to pay for. At the same time the employee may not be able to just get up and leave somewhere else where they can do lighter work. To balance it all out you would probably need to get the state involved to perhaps provide training to pregnant employees where they could do simple office work or something. Or grants for employers. There needs to be some extra motivation for the employers.[/QUOTE] I have an elegant solution: Obligatory paid paternity leave with identical time imprint as the maternity leave it would complement. Because the dad should totally spend the time with the child after the birth, help the wife, etcetera. The time on leave disparity between genders will be balanced out and BABIES WILL ACTUALLY GET TAKEN CARE OF. That's just regarding the leaves tho. When it comes to the last months of pregnancy where the chick needs less physical stress, as said by the dude in the article companies already accommodate to injured people so why not pregnant people. Just give her an office job for a while or something.

You mean that's the only protection America has for pregnant women? That they can't be treated differently than disabled employees? And UPS "we don't accommodate disabilities that occur off the job"... so she'd be ok if she got pregnant at work? That doesn't even make sense. [QUOTE=Snowmew;46645226]Yes, for 12 weeks maximum, unpaid. Some states (California and New Jersey mainly) have paid leave; the vast majority of the US does not require it. God bless America [IMG]http://theboomflash.files.wordpress.com/2010/12/emot-911.gif[/IMG][/QUOTE] That's fucking barbaric. Jesus America get with the times. [QUOTE=Awesomecaek;46645246]I have an elegant solution: Obligatory paid paternity leave with identical time imprint as the maternity leave it would complement.[/QUOTE] This is so simple... I can't believe I never thought of it.

imagine being sexually assaulted now you're pregnant with a baby you don't want and abortion laws say that you can't abort, and now because of shitty regulations you get fired from your job and this is why maternity leave should like, be a thing that exists

[QUOTE=Snowmew;46645226]Yes, for 12 weeks maximum, unpaid. Some states (California and New Jersey mainly) have paid leave; the vast majority of the US does not require it. God bless America [IMG]http://theboomflash.files.wordpress.com/2010/12/emot-911.gif[/IMG][/QUOTE] Holy shit that's fucking rancid, mate in the UK you get a basic 6 months plus a possible additional 6 months and for that time you get 90% of your weekly wage for the first 6 weeks, then £133 or 90% of your wage again, depending on what's lowest. Fathers are also entitled to 1 or 2 weeks off when their kid is born but I think that's changing next year so parents can split leave and pay between them and share out the time as they see fit between them. This shit' retarded yo, if someone can;t perform the job due to pregnancy you move them into a simpler/easier role, in this case instead of carrying heavy shit just leave them in a sorting office.

[QUOTE=RenegadeCop;46645305]And companies accomodate the physically disabled because they're forever disabled. A woman is only pregnant 9 months in comparison.[/QUOTE] Pregnancy is a natural function of the female body. Discrimination against pregnancy is discrimination against women (and families).

Yeah I mean most employment in America is at-will, so you can be fired for just about anything

[QUOTE=RenegadeCop;46645305]That's a lot if money a company is paying for employees not to work, though. Small businesses will be fucked. And companies accomodate the physically disabled because they're forever disabled. A woman is only pregnant 9 months in comparison.[/QUOTE] Yeah instead you should leave the family in question to get fist fucked because small businesses might be harmed. They can hire a temp worker or some shit, companies won't be harmed in the fucking slightest.

[QUOTE=RenegadeCop;46645364]From a small business perspective, hiring temp isn't an option. I'm not saying fuck the family, but we need a way to do it without hurting small businesses. They already have enough issues.[/QUOTE] Sorry, but I fail to understand how they might be unable to hire a temp worker, if you're trying to tell me that they might not have the money to hire a temp worker then they've probably got bigger issues than needing to hire a temp worker.

[QUOTE=bravehat;46645383]Sorry, but I fail to understand how they might be unable to hire a temp worker, if you're trying to tell me that they might not have the money to hire a temp worker then they've probably got bigger issues than needing to hire a temp worker.[/QUOTE] Maybe they have bigger issues and they're trying to overcome them but can't afford a paid leave + temp worker. Many startups can barely afford the employees they got, paying 6 months to someone when they don't work can be devastating for such companies.

[QUOTE=RenegadeCop;46645364]From a small business perspective, hiring temp isn't an option. I'm not saying fuck the family, but we need a way to do it without hurting small businesses. They already have enough issues. When it comes to pregnancy, men and women are not equal. If you gave women paid leave, you'd have to also give the father paid leave as well or else that'd be discrimination.[/QUOTE] Why is hiring a temp not an option? especially for a small business who can just do quick paperwork for a teen with a clean record. And you wouldnt have to give the father maternity leave probably because hes not the one carrying a baby.

[QUOTE=codemaster85;46645397]And you wouldnt have to give the father maternity leave probably because hes not the one carrying a baby.[/QUOTE] That's discrimination.

[QUOTE=bravehat;46645383]Sorry, but I fail to understand how they might be unable to hire a temp worker, if you're trying to tell me that they might not have the money to hire a temp worker then they've probably got bigger issues than needing to hire a temp worker.[/QUOTE] Well to be fair to RenegadeCop's statements, employees do make up a significant chunk of any small business' costs. In all the small places I've worked, employees made up around 30-40% of costs.

[QUOTE=codemaster85;46645397]Why is hiring a temp not an option? especially for a small business who can just do quick paperwork for a teen with a clean record. And you wouldnt have to give the father maternity leave probably because hes not the one carrying a baby.[/QUOTE] Cause the father doesn't wanna spend time with his kid either? Paternity leave yo. Really this entire thing comes down to America just being fucking weird, if it can be done in the UK there's no reason it can't be done in the US and I can pretty much guarantee that there's never been a company that came crashing down because they had to pay maternity leave.

12 weeks ?! what

[QUOTE=itisjuly;46645402]That's discrimination.[/QUOTE] thats like your wife breaking her leg at work and forced to stay home for a couple of months is discrimination for the husband. The male should only get maternity leave towards the end and after the pregnancy when hes actually needed the most.

[QUOTE=codemaster85;46645436]thats like your wife breaking her leg at work and forced to stay home for a couple of months is discrimination for the husband. The male should only get maternity leave towards the end and after the pregnancy when hes actually needed the most.[/QUOTE] No, if the woman can get leave for while they are pregnant, the father should be able to get the same to help her prepare. Are you looking for equality or special treatment?

[QUOTE=codemaster85;46645436]The male should only get maternity leave towards the end and after the pregnancy when hes actually needed the most.[/QUOTE] I don't see a problem as long as it's same length as maternity leave and paid too. He could either take it to help pregnant wife or take it later to help with baby. Sounds good to me.

[QUOTE=RenegadeCop;46645449]The broken leg isn't pregnancy. The broken leg does 't give life to a human baby and doesn't need the other partner to care for it. Two different things, try another comparison.[/QUOTE] Both are the husband being off to the side waiting for it to actually heal or be born, so yes it is a good comparison. Towards the end I can understand because she needs help most of the time and the baby needs to be taken care of, but at the early stages of pregnancy there isn't really anything the husband can really do.

[QUOTE=bravehat;46645349]Yeah instead you should leave the family in question to get fist fucked because small businesses might be harmed. They can hire a temp worker or some shit, companies won't be harmed in the fucking slightest.[/QUOTE] For a really small business that could be a killer blow. Maybe they've only got money for 2 employees, now they're paying for 3. Better solution is have the government pay a living allowance during pregnancy

[QUOTE=Flapadar;46645530]For a really small business that could be a killer blow. Maybe they've only got money for 2 employees, now they're paying for 3. Better solution is have the government pay a living allowance during pregnancy[/QUOTE] Yeah that's what maternity leave is here, but any time I've seen anyone suggestion the US government pay any of their citizens for anything it's shot down immediately. [editline]5th December 2014[/editline] [QUOTE=RenegadeCop;46645531]I thought maternaty leave doesn't take effect until the later stages anyway?[/QUOTE] It doesn't, the mum usually works up until the point she's pretty much unable to or due in a week or two.

[QUOTE=RenegadeCop;46645531]I thought maternaty leave doesn't take effect until the later stages anyway?[/QUOTE] Well you wouldnt want a pregnant woman lifting things in a job like UPS (which is like sweat house level work there) at early stages of pregnancy anyway, same with any stressful job. i thought you meant the man should be there way way before the baby was born.

[QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;46645453]No, if the woman can get leave for while they are pregnant, the father should be able to get the same to help her prepare. Are you looking for equality or special treatment?[/QUOTE] There's no physical reason to offer leave to men, because, unlike women, their ability to work and their medical condition is not physically being compromised. For much of pregnancy, there's no real reason to have two people committed to the process because women generally can handle, without risk of problems, the first half or more of pregnancy without issue or help. However, since we are a first world society with progressive values, men should also be granted equal leave and be motivated to be involved with their spouse and their child's life, just as much as their SO. I'd go further to say that ideally, men would be targeted for affirmative action, like they had in Sweden and such, to promote mutual raising of the child or inclusiveness to the concept of the "stay-at-home-dad" as a means of fighting harmful or backwards gender and sex perceptions.

[QUOTE='[Seed Eater];46645583']There's no physical reason to offer leave to men, because, unlike women, their ability to work and their medical condition is not physically being compromised. For much of pregnancy, there's no real reason to have two people committed to the process because women generally can handle, without risk of problems, the first half or more of pregnancy without issue or help. However, since we are a first world society with progressive values, men should also be granted equal leave and be motivated to be involved with their spouse and their child's life, just as much as their SO. I'd go further to say that ideally, men would be targeted for affirmative action, like they had in Sweden and such, to promote mutual raising of the child or inclusiveness to the concept of the "stay-at-home-dad" as a means of fighting harmful or backwards gender and sex perceptions.[/QUOTE] I think not only would it help promote the mutual raising of a child, but it also takes away the de-facto incentive to hire men over women. If a business has to give only women maternity leave, men become a more attractive applicant for a potential job due to him not having the potential to get pregnant. If a business has to give women AND men maternity leave equally, then the playing field is even again when it comes to the aspect of potential pregnancies.

[QUOTE=codemaster85;46645397]Why is hiring a temp not an option? especially for a small business who can just do quick paperwork for a teen with a clean record. And you wouldnt have to give the father maternity leave probably because hes not the one carrying a baby.[/QUOTE] Temps take time to train which costs money, usually do not fit in as well as the person custom to their job.

[QUOTE=FlakAttack;46645336]Pregnancy is a natural function of the female body. Discrimination against pregnancy is discrimination against women (and families).[/QUOTE] I'm really curious as to how this got a disagree