TOTALLY GEEKED!

Lady Gaga Snerd · Guru

Supreme Court to hear pregnancy discrimination case

Lady Gaga Snerd · Guru

Any comments on this?

I know what to do_sometimes · Frozen Sucks!

UPS can suck to work for if you have an issue with lifting. The majority of their jobs are loading and unloading trucks. Some packages are light, others not. During busy times, they probably have other jobs appropriate for light duty, but if her job is a loader, I agree with UPS

ETA: if a company is forced to "make up" a job then we might as well force all employers to pay full salary to those that can't do their jobs due to disabilities..

-- Edited by I know what to do_sometimes on Wednesday 3rd of December 2014 05:35:52 PM

Tinydancer · Guru

If no laws were broken I don't know what kind of case she'll have.

Southern_Belle · Nothing's Impossible

I know my job would tell me tough poop if I were to have elective surgery and needed light duty. There is no light duty on my job. Unless I'm injured doing my job they are not required too pay me if I can't lift or stand for long periods of time. That is why I have short term disability and plenty of PDO'S on the book. I was responsible and covered myself.
She shouldn't expect her employer to accommodate her choices. If they did it for some people it may have been because they were better employees that they wanted to retain. Maybe she was a problem employee to begin with.

huskerbb · Guru

I'm torn--but at the end of the day, how can we force employers to simply make "busy work" for employees that can't do the job? It sucks for women--and families--to have to make a choice between their job and their pregnancy, but how is that the company's problem?

My wife worked up until the day she went into labor with both kids--not a "lifting" job, but still. It's not the company's fault if someone has a more difficult pregnancy.

I am in favor of them holding the job until they can come back to work full bore--but they did that, or would have.

Southern_Belle · Nothing's Impossible

They can go out on FMLA.

huskerbb · Guru

Sure, but they don't get paid, so the family is without some, or maybe all, of their income during that period.

I understand why they want this--I just don't see how this is a problem that the company they work for should have to deal with. It's their choice to have a baby--not the choice of the company. Sometimes you have to pay dearly for the choices you make.

Lady Gaga Snerd · Guru

Pregnancy is temporary. And as human beings can we not recognize that this is different for women and support that?

Lady Gaga Snerd · Guru

She has a lovely daughter. Screw them.

I know what to do_sometimes · Frozen Sucks!

Lady Gaga Snerd wrote:
Pregnancy is temporary. And as human beings can we not recognize that this is different for women and support that?

What? And make employers pay people to not do their job? I don't agree with that.

lilyofcourse · My spirit animal is a pink flamingo.

I am all for being able to work if you can. And I am all for making it easier on pregnant women. However it is the choice of the woman to get pregnant and maybe she should think about and ask the right questions before hand so she can make the right decisions.

I don't think a business should have to bend over backwards for anyone.

Southern_Belle · Nothing's Impossible

Totally! If you plan on having kids invest on some short term disability. If you are medically unable to do your job during pregnancy then you will still get paid!

huskerbb · Guru

Lady Gaga Snerd wrote:
Pregnancy is temporary. And as human beings can we not recognize that this is different for women and support that?

But why should a corporation who had nothing to do with GETTING her pregnant have to pay for that?

ed11563 · Guru

huskerbb wrote:
Lady Gaga Snerd wrote:
Pregnancy is temporary. And as human beings can we not recognize that this is different for women and support that?
But why should a corporation who had nothing to do with GETTING her pregnant have to pay for that?

UPS is a very big company, that DOES have jobs that don't involve lifting heavy packages. Maybe not a LOT of unskilled no-lifting jobs, but they do have places to put people who have temporary or permanent disabilities. They chose not to offer her one.

The rules for very big companies are different than for small (50 or less employees) companies.

ed11563 · Guru

huskerbb wrote:
But why should a corporation who had nothing to do with GETTING her pregnant have to pay for that?

Why do you suggest that they might have gotten her pregnant? No one else is suggesting that cry

Lawyerlady · On the bright side...... Christmas is coming! (Mod)

I think these facts will matter -

The question at the Supreme Court is whether UPS was required to accommodate Young, 42, because it gave temporary assignments to some workers, including those who were injured on the job or had a condition that was covered by the Americans With Disabilities Act.

Young's dispute with UPS arose after she gave her supervisor a doctor's note recommending that she not lift packages heavier than 20 pounds. Young said she dealt almost exclusively with overnight letters, but UPS said its drivers must be able to lift packages weighing up to 70 pounds. Young left the company in 2009.

She already had a pretty much light duty job but they let her go because she wouldn't be able to lift packages as needed.

Lady Gaga Snerd · Guru

huskerbb wrote:
Lady Gaga Snerd wrote:
Pregnancy is temporary. And as human beings can we not recognize that this is different for women and support that?
But why should a corporation who had nothing to do with GETTING her pregnant have to pay for that?

Husker. All employers deal with human beings. And, human beings have human being issues such as getting sick, pregnancy, or life events. Good employers usually understand that and want to work to keep good employees. I have 3 children. And, I took 3, 12 week leaves of absence. I also had some other issues such as needing out my gallbladder and minor things like that. In the span of being employed for 30+ years are those things really any big deal?

huskerbb · Guru

Lady Gaga Snerd wrote:
huskerbb wrote:
Lady Gaga Snerd wrote:
Pregnancy is temporary. And as human beings can we not recognize that this is different for women and support that?
But why should a corporation who had nothing to do with GETTING her pregnant have to pay for that?
Husker. All employers deal with human beings. And, human beings have human being issues such as getting sick, pregnancy, or life events. Good employers usually understand that and want to work to keep good employees. I have 3 children. And, I took 3, 12 week leaves of absence. I also had some other issues such as needing out my gallbladder and minor things like that. In the span of being employed for 30+ years are those things really any big deal?

They didn't say she couldn't come back to work. Did they pay you for your 12 week leave without using any of your vacation or sick time?

If they did--great for you, most companies would not, nor should they have to.

huskerbb · Guru

ed11563 wrote:
huskerbb wrote:
But why should a corporation who had nothing to do with GETTING her pregnant have to pay for that?
Why do you suggest that they might have gotten her pregnant? No one else is suggesting that

Don't be absurd. I didn't say that. What I suggested was that she made her choices--the company should not have to pay for them.

just Czech · Give Me Grand's!

huskerbb wrote:
ed11563 wrote:
huskerbb wrote:
But why should a corporation who had nothing to do with GETTING her pregnant have to pay for that?
Why do you suggest that they might have gotten her pregnant? No one else is suggesting that
Don't be absurd. I didn't say that. What I suggested was that she made her choices--the company should not have to pay for them.

You're right, husker. Anytime a man falls down and injures his back, the company should not give him light duty either. After all, he made a choice when his actions caused his accident.

huskerbb · Guru

just Czech wrote:
huskerbb wrote:
ed11563 wrote:
huskerbb wrote:
But why should a corporation who had nothing to do with GETTING her pregnant have to pay for that?
Why do you suggest that they might have gotten her pregnant? No one else is suggesting that
Don't be absurd. I didn't say that. What I suggested was that she made her choices--the company should not have to pay for them.
You're right, husker. Anytime a man falls down and injures his back, the company should not give him light duty either. After all, he made a choice when his actions caused his accident.

It depends on if his actions caused it--however, even if they did, that's completely different than a deliberate choice to get pregnant.

If it was HIS actions that caused it--being unsafe, not using proper equipment, etc...--then I don't think the company should have to pay, either. However, falls could be caused by hazardous conditions, co-workers, and things beyond any individual's control.

huskerbb · Guru

Also, if he falls putting up Christmas lights on his own time--then I don't think the company should have any obligation to put him on light duty, either.

I was talking about injuries during work. Pregnancy should not happen during work--and if it does, that's a whole nuther issue.

just Czech · Give Me Grand's!

The question at the Supreme Court is whether UPS was required to accommodate Young, 42, because it gave temporary assignments to some workers, including those who were injured on the job or had a condition that was covered by the Americans With Disabilities Act.

I find the wording here telling. They gave temporary assignments to SOME WORKERS, including those who were injured on the job (which I agree with), or had a condition that was covered by the Americans With Disabilities Act.

To me, this is saying they gave special consideration to a few individuals NOT injured while on the job. Double standard IMHO.

Maybe I am interpreting this sentence wrong, but that is what it is telling me.

If so much as one individual received special consideration for an injury that was non-job related, there is a problem. It could have been someone who was going through cancer treatments. Who knows, but if there was one, then that one received special treatment.

The company may loose if that is true.

huskerbb · Guru

just Czech wrote:
The question at the Supreme Court is whether UPS was required to accommodate Young, 42, because it gave temporary assignments to some workers, including those who were injured on the job or had a condition that was covered by the Americans With Disabilities Act.
I find the wording here telling. They gave temporary assignments to SOME WORKERS, including those who were injured on the job (which I agree with), or had a condition that was covered by the Americans With Disabilities Act.
To me, this is saying they gave special consideration to a few individuals NOT injured while on the job. Double standard IMHO.
Maybe I am interpreting this sentence wrong, but that is what it is telling me.
If so much as one individual received special consideration for an injury that was non-job related, there is a problem. It could have been someone who was going through cancer treatments. Who knows, but if there was one, then that one received special treatment.
The company may loose if that is true.

They are required under ADA to do so in some cases. Pregnancy is not covered under the ADA.

lilyofcourse · My spirit animal is a pink flamingo.

Pregnancy is not a disability in and of itself.

It can become disabling though.

I just think being pregnant is not something that should be protected under the disability act.

It's generally over in 40 weeks.