Pregnancy Accommodations

[bhsmte]

Sorry, an employer cannot discriminate on the basis of pregnancy.

I don't believe they did discriminate. Her job was available for her if she could perform the functions of the job, which she knew existed and agreed to when she took the job.

All employers don't have an unlimited amount of light duty available. The question will end up being, should employers be compelled to offer unlimited light duty for any employee desiring the same in these circumstances.

My guess would be, the supreme court will decide, it would create an undue burden on the employer to do so.

 

[bhsmte]

Seems to me that UPS has a very bad situation. First the worker in question already was almost exclusively doing letters and light packages, second they had already given similar accommodations to others under the ADA. One assumes the others got those accommodations on a permanent basis. In any case UPS has established that such accommodations are possible and most likely reasonable.

Yes, if an employer does for one, the open they door to needing to do the same for all.

I still say, this will come down to whether light duty jobs are available at any given time, and whether the employer should be compelled to create one, on demand, even if one does not exist.

 

[HorsieJuice]

Bear in mind there ARE laws in place to protect pregnancy, but when reasonable accommodations CANNOT be made, what happens then?

The article doesn't have a lot of information, but it's sort of implied that UPS could have made reasonable accommodations, and sometimes did for other workers, but did not make those accommodations for her.

Unless they are violating policy concerning employees they can fire whoever they want whenever they want. If they have nothing outlined in their policies over pregnancies, why would a woman who, maybe wants to get pregnant, get the job to begin with? If they pretty much have a policy that allows them to fire you for not being able to perform your duties because of being pregnant, you put yourself at risk for in becoming pregnant. The company shouldn't have to pay for your personal choices. If you want to get pregnant and the company's policies give you the risk, find a new job then.

Sorry, but you're wrong. The Pregnancy Discrimination Act adds pregnancy to the list of things protected under the Civil Rights Act. Legally speaking, firing someone (or failing to accomodate them in some other fashion) for being pregnant is no different than do so because they're black or Jewish.

 

[MachZer0]

The article doesn't have a lot of information, but it's sort of implied that UPS could have made reasonable accommodations, and sometimes did for other workers, but did not make those accommodations for her.



Sorry, but you're wrong. The Pregnancy Discrimination Act adds pregnancy to the list of things protected under the Civil Rights Act. Legally speaking, firing someone (or failing to accomodate them in some other fashion) for being pregnant is no different than do so because they're black or Jewish.

Being black pr Jewish doesn't prevent one from lifting 70 pounds

 

[HorsieJuice]

Being black pr Jewish doesn't prevent one from lifting 70 pounds

No, but being Jewish does present one with different religious holidays and observances than our federal holiday calendar that's based off of Christian holidays. If a company has the ability to allow a Jewish employee to take off certain holidays, but doesn't, despite making similar accommodations for other employees, then the employer is likely breaking the law.

 

[ChristsSoldier115]

The article doesn't have a lot of information, but it's sort of implied that UPS could have made reasonable accommodations, and sometimes did for other workers, but did not make those accommodations for her.



Sorry, but you're wrong. The Pregnancy Discrimination Act adds pregnancy to the list of things protected under the Civil Rights Act. Legally speaking, firing someone (or failing to accomodate them in some other fashion) for being pregnant is no different than do so because they're black or Jewish.

Totally unaware such an act existed.

They aren't firing them because they are pregnant, they're firing them because they cannot physically perform their duties. the big loophole in that law, which is what companies argue for in their defense.

If you pay someone to throw 80 pound bundles of paper and they can't do it anymore, are you obliged to keep them on the payroll since they fail to perform the duties you've hired them for?

 

[HorsieJuice]

They aren't firing them because they are pregnant, they're firing them because they cannot physically perform their duties. the big loophole in that law, which is what companies argue for in their defense.

It is sort of a conundrum, and one which has manifested itself in other ways, such as the female teacher at a private Christian school who becomes pregnant out of wedlock. The school fires her for violating the moral beliefs of the school, while she says that she's being fired for being pregnant. They're both correct, but AFAIK, the teacher in this case typically wins, which is why some private schools are starting to classify all teachers as being some sort of religious instructor/leader or clergy, which is exempt from the civil rights act, despite these teachers not performing any actual religious instruction.

If you pay someone to throw 80 pound bundles of paper and they can't do it anymore, are you obliged to keep them on the payroll since they fail to perform the duties you've hired them for?

It depends on why they're no longer able to perform those duties, how much of an accommodation the employee would need, and how much accommodation the company gives to other employees who face physical issues (for say, being sick). AFAIK, different states also have some extra laws covering what is and isn't legal in this regard.

 

[ChristsSoldier115]

It is sort of a conundrum, and one which has manifested itself in other ways, such as the female teacher at a private Christian school who becomes pregnant out of wedlock. The school fires her for violating the moral beliefs of the school, while she says that she's being fired for being pregnant. They're both correct, but AFAIK, the teacher in this case typically wins, which is why some private schools are starting to classify all teachers as being some sort of religious instructor/leader or clergy, which is exempt from the civil rights act, despite these teachers not performing any actual religious instruction.

Listen, I am not arguing against pregnant women. I think they should be accommodated for in work load and position, but the companies do not have to do it. They should do it, but they shouldn't have to do it.

and that is the big problem in america isn't it? We have to regulate ethics and compassion in the business world because they choose to ignore it for profit. It is like a weird dystopian world, but where the businesses control it all. Where employees have absolutely no rights to anything as a person because they sign it them all away getting the job. That doesn't sound like the kind of freedom my friends fought and died for at all.

 

[HorsieJuice]

Listen, I am not arguing against pregnant women. I think they should be accommodated for in work load and position, but the companies do not have to do it. They should do it, but they shouldn't have to do it.

AFAIK (and I could be wrong), whether or not the company has to do it depends on the particulars of the job, whether or not the accommodations would be "reasonable" and whether or not the company has set a precedent in the past of making similar accommodations for other workers with similar limitations. So it's not so much that they have to accommodate pregnant women specifically, it's that they have to treat pregnant women fairly and consistently.

 

[bhsmte]

AFAIK (and I could be wrong), whether or not the company has to do it depends on the particulars of the job, whether or not the accommodations would be "reasonable" and whether or not the company has set a precedent in the past of making similar accommodations for other workers with similar limitations. So it's not so much that they have to accommodate pregnant women specifically, it's that they have to treat pregnant women fairly and consistently.

Agree, the fact the company has offered light duty in the past is important.

What will determine this case, is whether the company had a light duty job available but did not offer it to this person and, since light duty jobs clearly have a limit on number, should the company be compelled to offer one, even if there are none currently available.

 

[ChristsSoldier115]

Agree, the fact the company has offered light duty in the past is important.

What will determine this case, is whether the company had a light duty job available but did not offer it to this person and, since light duty jobs clearly have a limit on number, should the company be compelled to offer one, even if there are none currently available.

Yes I see the problem with companies being forced by law to accommodate with light duty, what if the crazy, and unlikely situation, occurs when all their female employees get pregnant at the same time? They now have to lose productivity to accommodate the law? Does this mean the employer must make the hiring decision based upon male to female ratio to prepare for such a possible event? Would he get sued because he "has too many women" and he refuses to hire women who apply for the job because he has to allow the best productivity he can manage for such a crazy event?

 

[bhsmte]

Yes I see the problem with companies being forced by law to accommodate with light duty, what if the crazy, and unlikely situation, occurs when all their female employees get pregnant at the same time? They now have to lose productivity to accommodate the law? Does this mean the employer must make the hiring decision based upon male to female ratio to prepare for such a possible event? Would he get sued because he "has too many women" and he refuses to hire women who apply for the job because he has to allow the best productivity he can manage for such a crazy event?

That is why this will come down to what is considered "a reasonable accommodation".

If an employer has the ability to offer 5 light duty jobs at any point in time, without creating an undue burden on their business, what do they do when a pregnant women needs one and all five light duty jobs (which are typically temporary) are filled by other people?

Do they give the pregnant women priority over the female or male worker who is currently on light duty because of a work injury and basically knock them out of the box?

It will be interesting to see how they rule on this.

 

[PreachersWife2004]

Do you think because you perhaps suffered everyone else should suffer? don't most parents try to make life easier for their kids than they had it themselves? within reason of course.

Who said I suffered?

I do not believe a woman who is currently expecting should have the right to be in a protected class. If you are expecting do not try to get a job. If you find out you are expecting and will be giving birth any time PRIOR to having worked a year with your employer do not expect your job back.

Two of my jobs were applied for and gotten while I was pregnant.

Most full time jobs in the UK offer 21 paid holidays per year as standard. I get 28 days holiday in my contract, and got paid for the 6 days I had off earlier on in the year due to illness.

Strange to hear that employees from the richest country in the world don't even get vacation days?

Well, theoretically we do. You just have to work for a time before you qualify. And for me, I've currently chosen to accept a job that is classified as temporary, and will be temporary at least through February of 2015. That means I do not qualify for insurance, sick time or vacation days. I get holiday pay and I will get a bonus check this next week. I am an hourly employee (when I go permanent I will be salary) so if I need time off I take it unpaid. I can make it up, though, and I also have the ability to work from home.

So...there's some tradeoffs depending on where you work.

I do with the US would get in line with the rest of the world when it comes to maternity leave for both moms and dads though.

As for this specific case, she used her paid time off when she was getting fertility treatments.

Wow.

Way to focus on the family, guys.

-- A2SG, so much for this whole "family values" thing, huh? Guess that went out with buggy whips and disco....

This isn't about family values. I applaud her decision to get fertility treatments and I am glad she was able to get pregnant. But I think she is going over and beyond in suing UPS. I think UPS made the accommodations it was supposed to BY THE LAW. They have since changed those policies so that they are even more accommodating, but they were within the law to do what they did. She did NOT get fired, she had a job waiting for her when she returned.

This was 7 years ago, come to think of it.

 

[HorsieJuice]

Well, theoretically we do. You just have to work for a time before you qualify.

eh, not quite. The UK (and many other countries) mandate a certain number of paid vacation days per year. The US has no such mandate. Paid vacation is purely voluntary on the part of the employer.

As a side note, because vacation is voluntary, employers in most states (except CA, IIRC) are free to implement use-it-or-lose-it policies for accrued vacation time, which IMO is pretty lousy.

 

[DaisyDay]

As far as I know, she didn't get pregnant on the worksite

I meant off. Should temporary disability from pregnancy be treated differently than a temporary disability gotten off the worksite (rules are different for workplace injuries)?

 

[DaisyDay]

Totally unaware such an act existed.

They aren't firing them because they are pregnant, they're firing them because they cannot physically perform their duties. the big loophole in that law, which is what companies argue for in their defense.

Except she could and was doing her job.

If you pay someone to throw 80 pound bundles of paper and they can't do it anymore, are you obliged to keep them on the payroll since they fail to perform the duties you've hired them for?

This wasn't the case:

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....

... 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.​

Source: NPR

 

[DaisyDay]

This isn't about family values. I applaud her decision to get fertility treatments and I am glad she was able to get pregnant. But I think she is going over and beyond in suing UPS. I think UPS made the accommodations it was supposed to BY THE LAW. They have since changed those policies so that they are even more accommodating, but they were within the law to do what they did. She did NOT get fired, she had a job waiting for her when she returned.

What did they do to accommodate her? Laying her off without pay and suspending her insurance is not an accommodation when what she wanted was to keep doing her job as she had been for the last four years.

 

[PreachersWife2004]

What did they do to accommodate her? Laying her off without pay and suspending her insurance is not an accommodation when what she wanted was to keep doing her job as she had been for the last four years.

They accommodated her within the law as much as they could.

If her packages weren't that heavy, and a coworker could help, why make a big deal out of it?

While I was working at Home Depot I reinjured my back. I didn't do it at work, I did it outside of work. I knew this could be an issue when I started working, and I did let them know that it could possibly happen. I told my store manager and then I asked people to help me. If I couldn't lift a box, I got a team member to help me. We're instructed to do that anyway, even though the job routinely calls for being able to lift 50 pounds.

I never got an exception while I was working, although my physical therapist said she'd give me one. But *I* made the arrangements to make sure *MY* job got done.

 

[HorsieJuice]

Here are some more details on the case:
Justices Will Review Accommodation Issue Arising Under Pregnancy Discrimination Act | Bloomberg BNA

One of UPS' big arguments seems to be about whether or not someone in her position with some other job-limiting condition would have been afforded a light-duty role. UPS is arguing that, because of collective bargaining rules (mostly due to seniority IIRC), someone in her position would not have been given a light-duty role and would've, instead, been sent home. According to UPS, she was therefore treated fairly.

Here's her complaint to the USSC, which has an interesting tidbit about UPS fighting against the Teamsters trying to insert pregnancy protections in their collective bargaining agreement:
http://www.americanbar.org/content/...preview/BriefsV4/12-1226_pet.authcheckdam.pdf

Although UPS provides temporary accommodated work to drivers with on-the-job injuries, ADA disabilities, and DOT-disqualifying conditions, it does not do the same thing for drivers who need workplace accommodations due to pregnancy. See Pet. App. 35a.

A shop steward testified that “[t]o the best of [her] knowledge, the only light duty requested restrictions that became an issue” in her workplace “were with women who were pregnant.” J.A. 504 (emphasis added). Indeed, during negotiations over the collective bargaining agreement that governs its drivers, UPS rejected language, proposed by the Teamsters Union, “that would have provided light duty to all employees
who requested light duty as a result of a pregnancy-related condition.” J.A. 651. UPS also “rejected other proposals that clearly would have provided alternate work for all UPS employees who temporarily could not perform their regular jobs due to pregnancy-related conditions.” Id. See also J.A. 358-360.

In the end, UPS would agree to only the following CBA language: “A light duty request, certified in writing by a physician, shall be granted in compliance with state or federal laws, if applicable.” J.A. 592.

I also can't figure out who initially sought out the doctor's note. Most articles suggest that is was the pregnant lady who sought it, but the NPR piece suggests that it was UPS that asked her to get one.

 

[DaisyDay]

They accommodated her within the law as much as they could.

The didn't accommodate her at all.

If her packages weren't that heavy, and a coworker could help, why make a big deal out of it?

She didn't. She informed her employer that she was pregnant and they told her to get a note from her doctor. The company nurse decided on the basis of the note that she couldn't do her job.

While I was working at Home Depot I reinjured my back. I didn't do it at work, I did it outside of work. I knew this could be an issue when I started working, and I did let them know that it could possibly happen. I told my store manager and then I asked people to help me. If I couldn't lift a box, I got a team member to help me. We're instructed to do that anyway, even though the job routinely calls for being able to lift 50 pounds.

She was not allowed to do just that. She had already arranged with co-workers for help, but she was laid off nonetheless.

Other drivers did get reassigned light-duty - at least one for having his license suspended. Another who had a stroke was also accommodated. She did asked to keep doing the job she was doing, but UPS refused - that is not accommodation.

I never got an exception while I was working, although my physical therapist said she'd give me one. But *I* made the arrangements to make sure *MY* job got done.

Yeah, *YOU* were allowed to do so while *SHE* was not. This is why she sued.