Posted on 12/03/2014 12:03:46 PM PST by TurboZamboni
Reuters) - U.S. Supreme Court justices appeared unsure on Wednesday how to decide a case that could determine whether employers must provide accommodations for pregnant workers who may have physical limitations on duties they can perform. During a one-hour argument before the nine justices, two of the court's three women - Elena Kagan and Ruth Bader Ginsburg - showed most sympathy for former UPS Inc truck driver Peggy Young. But it was unclear how some of the other justices would vote in the closely watched case involving women's workplace rights. The case concerns whether the package delivery company violated a federal law, the Pregnancy Discrimination Act, by denying Young's request for temporary changes in work duties after she became pregnant in 2006.
(Excerpt) Read more at reuters.com ...
Apparently, the company’s problem is that she DID seek a temporary accommodation. They could have found her some office job until she was able again to haul/life heavy packages.
The argument on the other side might be that there’s a limit to # of office/clerical jobs, that drivers are what’s needed for them to fulfill their corporate mission and service to customers.
It’ll be interesting to see how they come down on this.
Exactly - STD should cover any and all medical conditions where the employee is unable to work for a short time period.
sarcasm
salternatively, as enacted into law by Executive Order
I think the key here is whether or not the provide accommodation for other employees with temporary work restrictions. If they do, I don’t see how they avoid providing similar accommodations to pregnant women. On the other hand, if they do not provide accommodations for other employees with temporary limitations, then they should not be forced to provide them for pregnant women.
That is not saying they should not have a way to provide temporary light duty for employees where possible - it is a way to keep good employees who may be injured or otherwise incapable of working at full capacity for a short time. But they should not be forced to do so.
Sounds to me like she should have been put on Short Term Disability if she could not perform her duties due to her pregnancy and no other positions were available.
I find it hard to believe in the life of UPS they’ve never had a pregnant driver before.
I wonder how they handled it before now?
YES!
Now go eat your peas ,wear your helmet and wave at your neighbor daily! See you at the town square for mandatory morning exercises!
'Nuff said.
And who’s paying for that?
Seemingly that should only apply to complications, not normal pregnancies.
If the doctor signs off on bed rest for a woman, just so she can collect disability benefits, he is defrauding the system, IMHO.
Makes sense.
In the Bizarro World
Either the employer, the employee, or a split between the two.
we all like to say that America loves its children, but do they really when pregnancy is just another ho hum back ache type thing....
women make up about half the workforce in this country....many households have only mommy with a job....women need to have jobs....
and this country needs children to be born.....
I don't know why this had to be a court case, because court cases set precedent, but why the heck do companies not have family friendly polices unless their sued?.....of course then we'll get the father rights people saying that its not fair because men can only cause pregnancy and not be pregnant so they can never get light duty.....I can hear it all now...
keep making pregnancy a major disruption in a woman's life and she'll just not get pregnant or have an abortion....and our birthrate will keep falling like Japan's....
“..many households have only mommy with a job....”
—
Then I would strongly advise Mommy not to get pregnant.
Problem solved.
.
This is why Obamacare had to include pre-existing conditions.
FEDGUV INC exists to redistribute and make life ‘fair’.
I’m torn on this one.
While she applied for a company position while not pregnant and was hired to do a specific job, I don’t think she should be let go because she is with child.
On the other hand, it’s a bad precedent to tell businesses that they have to keep someone on the payroll that is unable to do the job she was hired to do.
Don’t put words in my mouth.
I’m not sure if that analogy is correct.
Have a talk with your mom or dad.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.