That's a man, baby!
Posted on 12/03/2014 12:03:46 PM PST by TurboZamboni
I’m on the fence on this one. She was hired to do a specific job of which she was 100% capable when hired (I assume). Now through no fault of her employer she is in a condition in which she can no longer fulfill her duties.
As it is no fault of the employer I don’t understand why a company would be required to make an exception. It is not the employer’s fault she got pregnant nor is it their fault she has the capability of getting pregnant therefore I would have to say she has no standing as she can no longer fulfill the job she was hired to do.
But I do believe it would be in the company’s best interest to make some sort of arrangement for her provided she is able to resume her normal duties in the future.
sarcasm
I would think that having a short term disability offering would be the most appropriate course for both the business and the employee. That way, if someone is unable to work for any reason, the short term disability policy kicks in, the employer can temp hire to fill the position and only pay one salary, and the employee continues as an employee and continues to receive their pay.
When I lived in Michigan, a company that made car batteries was sued in a similar case. It seems some of the chemicals floating around in the air and the by-products of battery production were a threat to cause birth defects. Women were not allowed to work in that area of production unless they could prove they were not fertile.
The Supreme Court shot that down. The women argued that not being able to work in that part of the plant was a barrier to future promotion, even though it might harm their unborn child.
So the company was damned if they did and damned if they didn’t. They could not take reasonable precautions to protect their female employees and their unborn children. But they were on the hook for the legal liabilities should one of them give birth to a deformed child.
I believe they moved the plant to Mexico.
But that would not be fare as the female policy would cost more than the male...
I can’t wait till Title 9 is applied to the military by the leftards and RINOs in charge.
We’ll be there soon. We’ll have the ‘fairest’ military of them all!
So what would be the cost to insure female employees between 18-45? I'd imagine pretty damned high.
So? It is neither the company’s nor the insurance company’s job to provide fairness. The insurance company’s job is to provide financial mitigation against risk. In this case, the risk of the employee being unable to perform their work.
Here is a web page that has a table for STD coverage.
http://insurance.leeschools.net/pdf/12-13/Reliance%20Disabilty%20Calculation%20Sheet%204-13.pdf
Not endorsing nor do I know about the coverage. Just putting it out there for a point of reference.
My point is that the coverage for a female would cost 3-4 times as much as a male if pregnancy was a covered condition.
My point is that the condition of pregnancy is irrelevant. Many short term disability policies do not price differently between male and female.
That's a man, baby!
Yes, because they don't cover pregnancy as a disability.
You are correct in a real world, but we are in a ‘fairness, and feelings’ world. life isn’t fair.
That may be true under some plans, not true for all.
Here is a web page that explains the situation in Massachusetts.
http://www.growingfamilybenefits.com/massachusetts-short-term-disability/
Note from the page:
Pregnancy Bed Rest
MA short-term disability for pregnancy can alleviate financial anxiety. Twenty five percent of pregnant women will experience complications prior to delivery. Many women with high-risk pregnancies are ordered to take bed rest by their doctor. This often translates into unpaid leave from work when a family is least able to afford the lost income. Your policy may replace your income while on bed rest for a covered medical reason.
This really isn’t that complicated. Those women are not able to work, not simply pregnant.
“But I do believe it would be in the company’s best interest to make some sort of arrangement for her provided she is able to resume her normal duties in the future.
“
It is not in their interest. Why would it be? Others can do her job. She needs to decide if she wants to be pregnant or employed as a driver. This is the stupidity of the feminist movement whereby they want their cake and eat it too, so when they eat their cake they want someone else to pay for another cake.
I think employment law requires UPS must make ‘reasonable’ accomodations. ‘Reasonable’ is intentionally vague so lawyers can drive dump trucks through it and deposit the loads of cash into electing more Democrat lawyers to write more vague laws/regulations for them to ‘interpret’.
Short term disability?
I’m pretty sure UPS has this benefit.
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.