Pregnancy Accommodations

[MachZer0]

So someone who has a DOT-disqualifying conditions that happened off the job will get a new work assignment, but a pregnant who asks for light-duty doesn't. Their policy is that if you lose the required certification to do your job they'll find you another, but if you get pregnant you get an unpaid leave.

Link?

 

[kermit]

Link?

http://www.americanbar.org/content/...preview/BriefsV4/12-1226_pet.authcheckdam.pdf

 

[JohnLocke]

I think that this case should be dismissed as it was below. I think the accommodations of a delivery driver for "light work" are unreasonably burdensome. Even if she primarily dealt with overnight letters, what was UPS supposed to do if there were 70lb. packages on her run? Send another employee on a special run just to deliver those packages? Add a passenger to do the heavy lifting? (I'm not sure that the UPS trucks can legally carry more than one person due to a lack of seats/seatbelts).

 

[MachZer0]

http://www.americanbar.org/content/...preview/BriefsV4/12-1226_pet.authcheckdam.pdf

The conditions that render a driver unable to be certified appear to be those that would be covered by the ADA and are also beyond the employees' control, unlike pregnancy. Looks like another fail

 

[kermit]

I think that this case should be dismissed as it was below. I think the accommodations of a delivery driver for "light work" are unreasonably burdensome. Even if she primarily dealt with overnight letters, what was UPS supposed to do if there were 70lb. packages on her run? Send another employee on a special run just to deliver those packages? Add a passenger to do the heavy lifting? (I'm not sure that the UPS trucks can legally carry more than one person due to a lack of seats/seatbelts).

But other drivers who have "DOT-disqualifying conditions" get work reassignments.

Having worked in the USPS I can tell you that there is never a shortage of people who are looking for temporary reassignments to help with job bidding later. This woman could have been put temporarily on another job that didn't require lifting. Someone in that position is undoubtedly looking for a chance to be a temporary driver so that if they bid for a driver position later it gives them an edge.

 

[MachZer0]

I think that this case should be dismissed as it was below. I think the accommodations of a delivery driver for "light work" are unreasonably burdensome. Even if she primarily dealt with overnight letters, what was UPS supposed to do if there were 70lb. packages on her run? Send another employee on a special run just to deliver those packages? Add a passenger to do the heavy lifting? (I'm not sure that the UPS trucks can legally carry more than one person due to a lack of seats/seatbelts).

UPS doubles up during the Christmas season a temp employee riding in the truck to deliver packages to the door and the permanent employee driving the truck

 

[MachZer0]

But other drivers who have "DOT-disqualifying conditions" get work reassignments.

Having worked in the USPS I can tell you that there is never a shortage of people who are looking for temporary reassignments to help with job bidding later. This woman could have been put temporarily on another job that didn't require lifting. Someone in that position is undoubtedly looking for a chance to be a temporary driver so that if they bid for a driver position later it gives them an edge.

According to UPS, their policy is identical to that of the USPS

 

[kermit]

UPS doubles up during the Christmas season a temp employee riding in the truck to deliver packages to the door and the permanent employee driving the truck

So you admit that a UPS could make a reasonable accommodation for a pregnant driver by having a temporary employee ride along.

 

[MachZer0]

So you admit that a UPS could make a reasonable accommodation for a pregnant driver by having a temporary employee ride along.

I don't know if UPS has temp employees other than in the Christmas season. But the issue isn't what they could do, but rather what they are required to do

 

[kermit]

I don't know if UPS has temp employees other than in the Christmas season. But the issue isn't what they could do, but rather what they are required to do

Also, part of the argument is UPS policies and what they actually did.

If, as this woman's lawyer claims, they have numerous cases of UPS extending the policy to people who weren't strictly covered in some cases but not it others then UPS has a problem. UPS doesn't deny those cases are real.

My office has an official policy against work from home. In practice we allow it occasionally. I track every instance of my employee's work from home in case I feel that someone is abusing. I'll need hard evidence to prove that my claim is not discriminatory or personal.

 

[kermit]

I don't know if UPS has temp employees other than in the Christmas season. But the issue isn't what they could do, but rather what they are required to do

If USP is like the USPS it always has some number of temp employees.

 

[MachZer0]

Also, part of the argument is UPS policies and what they actually did.

If, as this woman's lawyer claims, they have numerous cases of UPS extending the policy to people who weren't strictly covered in some cases but not it others then UPS has a problem. UPS doesn't deny those cases are real.

My office has an official policy against work from home. In practice we allow it occasionally. I track every instance of my employee's work from home in case I feel that someone is abusing. I'll need hard evidence to prove that my claim is not discriminatory or personal.

Link?

 

[MachZer0]

If USP is like the USPS it always has some number of temp employees.

Even so, that does not require them to offer light duty to a pregnant woman, which policy matched that of USPS

 

[kermit]

Even so, that does not require them to offer light duty to a pregnant woman, which policy matched that of USPS

If UPS has made exceptions to the policy in other cases, as claimed, then they will have to justify why it was not made in this and other pregnancy cases. If they cannot then they are guilty of discrimination regardless of their policy; more accurately they are guilty of discrimination because they didn't apply the policy and exceptions with equity.

 

[bhsmte]

If UPS has made exceptions to the policy in other cases, as claimed, then they will have to justify why it was not made in this and other pregnancy cases. If they cannot then they are guilty of discrimination regardless of their policy; more accurately they are guilty of discrimination because they didn't apply the policy and exceptions with equity.

I agree.

There is a common theme most employment lawyers will tell you when it comes to company policies. If you make an exception for one, you open the door to do the same for all.

Now, I don't know all the specifics in this case, but am quite familiar with UPS, since I worked for a company that provided onsite medical services at one of their major hubs years ago.

From my experience, UPS is very proactive when it comes to making sure drivers are healthy, able to perform the duties of their job and they provided education, onsite training, rehab and light duty for those who required it, when light duty was available.

Now, this is where I have questions. Any company, does not have an unlimited amount of light duty available at any given time, just as they have a limited amount of jobs to offer. The question may become, should the company be forced to offer an unlimited amount of light duty jobs at any given time, or would this be considered a undue burden on the business?

 

[kermit]

I agree.

There is a common theme most employment lawyers will tell you when it comes to company policies. If you make an exception for one, you open the door to do the same for all.

Now, I don't know all the specifics in this case, but am quite familiar with UPS, since I worked for a company that provided onsite medical services at one of their major hubs years ago.

From my experience, UPS is very proactive when it comes to making sure drivers are healthy, able to perform the duties of their job and they provided education, onsite training, rehab and light duty for those who required it, when light duty was available.

Now, this is where I have questions. Any company, does not have an unlimited amount of light duty available at any given time, just as they have a limited amount of jobs to offer. The question may become, should the company be forced to offer an unlimited amount of light duty jobs at any given time, or would this be considered a undue burden on the business?

If as you say, you are familiar with letter/parcel handling, you'll also know that most of the jobs don't require lifting. You'll also know that there are always people looking to get experience in other jobs within the organization. The claim that there are no light-duty jobs available is laughable at best.

 

[bhsmte]

If as you say, you are familiar with letter/parcel handling, you'll also know that most of the jobs don't require lifting. You'll also know that there are always people looking to get experience in other jobs within the organization. The claim that there are no light-duty jobs available is laughable at best.

I am not claiming no light duty jobs are available, but maybe UPS is, I didn't read everything on this case. And, the letter parcel handling jobs may not be the same job description as a driver, but there is some lifting that happens inside the hub.

Now, I know UPS offers light duty, but what I don't know, is whether they were tapped on light duty available at the time this person wanted it. Believe it or not, a company can reach a limit on how many light duty activities are available at any given time, depending on how many other employees are on light duty.

I may be wrong, but I believe the courts have found, a company can not be forced to make available an unlimited amount of light duty jobs, just as they have limits on regular jobs. If UPS is declaring they had no light duty available for this women, they will have to show this in court and make the business case why they were filled up, on light duty assignments.

 

[MachZer0]

If UPS has made exceptions to the policy in other cases, as claimed, then they will have to justify why it was not made in this and other pregnancy cases. If they cannot then they are guilty of discrimination regardless of their policy; more accurately they are guilty of discrimination because they didn't apply the policy and exceptions with equity.

Where has UPS made exceptions. They appear to be following the law

 

[bhsmte]

Where has UPS made exceptions. They appear to be following the law

Exceptions to their policy, not the law.

 

[kermit]

Where has UPS made exceptions. They appear to be following the law

That statement means that either:

a) The policy isn't in compliance with the law
b) They are lawfully exceeding the legal requirements in some cases but not others

Which are you trying to say? How does either help the case of the UPS.