Pregnancy Accommodations

[MachZer0]

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.

False dilemma. Nothing suggests either that the policy is not in compliance or exceeding the the requirements. UPS has stated that light duty assignments have been given to people with disabilities covered by the ADA

 

[kermit]

False dilemma. Nothing suggests either that the policy is not in compliance or exceeding the the requirements. UPS has stated that light duty assignments have been given to people with disabilities covered by the ADA

OK, so then the policy is in compliance with the law. The issue remains that they seem to have an issue regarding their exceptions to their policy in when they apply it to people who don't strictly meet standards set in the policy.

 

[MachZer0]

OK, so then the policy is in compliance with the law. The issue remains that they seem to have an issue regarding their exceptions to their policy in when they apply it to people who don't strictly meet standards set in the policy.

I don't recall UPS claiming to make exceptions to the policy

 

[kermit]

I don't recall UPS claiming to make exceptions to the policy

The lawsuit alleges it, do you have any source in which they deny that allegation?

 

[DaisyDay]

Getting fired has nothing to do with it. And those workers who got light duty were either injured on the job or had maladies covered by the ADA

That isn't true - one of those workers had his license suspended which is not even an injury. Others had gotten sports injuries.

 

[kermit]

That isn't true - one of those workers had his license suspended which is not even an injury. Others had gotten sports injuries.

Those are what we would refer to as exceptions to the policy. The policy was extended to those who didn't meet the standards.

 

[MachZer0]

The lawsuit alleges it, do you have any source in which they deny that allegation?

The lawsuit alleging it doesn't make it so. UPS stated that the perceived exceptions were cases involving people covered by the ADA. See the OP link

 

[MachZer0]

That isn't true - one of those workers had his license suspended which is not even an injury. Others had gotten sports injuries.

Maladies covered by the Ada

 

[kermit]

Maladies covered by the Ada

Actually, it wasn't until 2008 that temporary disabilities were covered by the ADA. If you are going to make an exemption (sports injuries were not covered by the ADA in 2007) for 1 person's sports injury then, according to The Pregnancy Discrimination Act of 1978, a lifting restriction caused by pregnancy also has to be an exemption.

 

[Joykins]

"Find a new job" is 1000 times easier said than done.

You can probably add a few more zeroes to the end of that number if you are visibly pregnant when applying.

 

[kermit]

You can probably add a few more zeroes to the end of that number if you are visibly pregnant when applying.

For employers, hiring discrimination is tricky business, but the reality is that it's very hard for a candidate to prove.

I a pregnant woman has 10 interviews and get none of them, was there some discrimination going on? Probably, but with which ones? Some probably hired someone more qualified. Some may have felt another person was a better fit to the team. How would she know?

 

[PreachersWife2004]

You can probably add a few more zeroes to the end of that number if you are visibly pregnant when applying.

It's not impossible, but then you gotta live with the question of whether you got hired because you were qualified or because they were afraid you'd sue if they didn't hire you.

 

[Joykins]

It's not impossible, but then you gotta live with the question of whether you got hired because you were qualified or because they were afraid you'd sue if they didn't hire you.

Or you can live wondering if you were the most qualified applicant but they didn't hire you because you were obviously going to take maternity leave in 2 months.

It's hard for individuals going in and out of the application process to perceive if there's a pattern or not.

 

[MachZer0]

Actually, it wasn't until 2008 that temporary disabilities were covered by the ADA. If you are going to make an exemption (sports injuries were not covered by the ADA in 2007) for 1 person's sports injury then, according to The Pregnancy Discrimination Act of 1978, a lifting restriction caused by pregnancy also has to be an exemption.

A pregnancy is neither a disability nor an injury. Time off for a pregnancy is something a woman should plan for

 

[kermit]

It's not impossible, but then you gotta live with the question of whether you got hired because you were qualified or because they were afraid you'd sue if they didn't hire you.

Being on the hiring side, I can tell you that no-one hires out of fear of lawsuits. If you interview someone covered under the ADA you just have to make sure that you have your bases covered if you don't hire them.

I interviewed a gentleman with a disfigured left arm. He was perfectly capable of doing the job with mild accommodations. I just didn't like him. He was abrasive and arrogant. He had no sense of humility that I could find. Good communication skills was one of the job requirements, and I felt that he was so sorely lacking in that area that I felt perfectly comfortable not hiring him.

 

[kermit]

A pregnancy is neither a disability nor an injury. Time off for a pregnancy is something a woman should plan for

Once again this is not for time off, it's for a lifting restriction.

From the employer's standpoint restrictions due to injury or pregnancy may be identical.

• Person A: Can't lift more than 20lbs for several months due to an occurrence outside the work place
• Person B: Can't lift more than 20lbs for several months due to an occurrence outside the work place

Which one is a sports injury and which is due to pregnancy? Either person could have either a injury sustained outside work or be pregnant.

As I said, the cases of the UPS apply their policy to cases not covered under the ADA in 2007 is going to be an issue unless they have concrete documentation explaining why it was done in some cases but not others.

 

[PreachersWife2004]

Being on the hiring side, I can tell you that no-one hires out of fear of lawsuits. If you interview someone covered under the ADA you just have to make sure that you have your bases covered if you don't hire them.

I interviewed a gentleman with a disfigured left arm. He was perfectly capable of doing the job with mild accommodations. I just didn't like him. He was abrasive and arrogant. He had no sense of humility that I could find. Good communication skills was one of the job requirements, and I felt that he was so sorely lacking in that area that I felt perfectly comfortable not hiring him.

When I was on the hiring side I felt the same way.

Unfortunately many employers don't. I worked for two companies that hired pregnant women because they were afraid they would sue if they weren't hired. One had the right qualifications but there WAS a more qualified candidate. The other company, she was the first interview. Ugh.

Both went on their maternity leave as planned, both failed to come back to work.

I guess it's a risk for both the woman and the company.

 

[MachZer0]

Once again this is not for time off, it's for a lifting restriction.

From the employer's standpoint restrictions due to injury or pregnancy may be identical.

• Person A: Can't lift more than 20lbs for several months due to an occurrence outside the work place
• Person B: Can't lift more than 20lbs for several months due to an occurrence outside the work place

Which one is a sports injury and which is due to pregnancy? Either person could have either a injury sustained outside work or be pregnant.

As I said, the cases of the UPS apply their policy to cases not covered under the ADA in 2007 is going to be an issue unless they have concrete documentation explaining why it was done in some cases but not others.

If there's no guarantee that a woman can get light duty, she needs to plan ahead

 

[PreachersWife2004]

If there's no guarantee that a woman can get light duty, she needs to plan ahead

Okay, here's the thing. Try applying that to any other non-work injury that gets special compensation.

 

[MachZer0]

Okay, here's the thing. Try applying that to any other non-work injury that gets special compensation.

Compensation should be up to the employer and the employee should know ahead of time what the situation will be under those circumstances