Pregnancy Accommodations

[PreachersWife2004]

Here's a pretty decent example of what I think are differing ways to follow policy.

At Home Depot, if a restriction is put on someone, supervisors and managers will do their best to make sure the restriction can work. Oftentimes, this results in a lot of teamwork. So when one of my paint associates was put on a lifting restriction, we worked with the associates in our sister department and they helped in lifting things that the paint associate could not lift. If the sister department associate was unavailable, management would do it.

When one of my paint associates could only walk with crutches, we co-opted with the lot associates and management to do the lifting, and they still were able to do shelf maintenance and other departmental duties.

However, I had a lot associate who broke his foot. He couldn't walk on it without crutches. He requested light duty and had a note from his doctor. Management mulled this over, involved District Management and the guys down in Atlanta, because there was literally NO JOB this kid could do while he was on restriction. There were no openings in the departments they could fill. There wasn't even training he could sit in front of a computer and do. They could only give him unpaid time off while his injury healed (he could take sick time if he wanted to) and then he'd have his job back when his restrictions were lifted.

So there are going to be times when certain accommodations just cannot be made.

 

[kermit]

Here's a pretty decent example of what I think are differing ways to follow policy.

At Home Depot, if a restriction is put on someone, supervisors and managers will do their best to make sure the restriction can work. Oftentimes, this results in a lot of teamwork. So when one of my paint associates was put on a lifting restriction, we worked with the associates in our sister department and they helped in lifting things that the paint associate could not lift. If the sister department associate was unavailable, management would do it.

When one of my paint associates could only walk with crutches, we co-opted with the lot associates and management to do the lifting, and they still were able to do shelf maintenance and other departmental duties.

However, I had a lot associate who broke his foot. He couldn't walk on it without crutches. He requested light duty and had a note from his doctor. Management mulled this over, involved District Management and the guys down in Atlanta, because there was literally NO JOB this kid could do while he was on restriction. There were no openings in the departments they could fill. There wasn't even training he could sit in front of a computer and do. They could only give him unpaid time off while his injury healed (he could take sick time if he wanted to) and then he'd have his job back when his restrictions were lifted.

So there are going to be times when certain accommodations just cannot be made.

Those are different restrictions so can rightfully be handled different. In this case, UPS has established that they will offer light duty to those with lifting restrictions.

 

[A2SG]

Many on this forum appear to believe that employers only owe their employees a paycheck and that by virtue of getting paid that the employees should be content. But on any study about employee satisfaction pay is pretty low on list. In fact, treating people as merely compensated cogs is a sure way to get very low productivity.

Recently here in Massachusetts, we saw this principle in action. A local, family owned grocery chain, Market Basket, had been run for years by a man, Arthur T. Demoulas, who treated his employees with respect and paid wages that were better than average. The rest of his family weren't content with the regular profits they'd been getting for years, and decided to vote him out to flood the company with debt so they could make more short-term profits. Employees protested, publicly, and the public boycotted the store to the point where stores were empty of customers, and were unable to get any fresh produce at all.

Eventually, Arthur T. was reinstated, and Market Basket is back on track. It should be noted that the employees never demanded anything from management other than that Arthur T. return to his job.

All of which proves that when you respect your employees, they'll return that respect.

Yes, I've worked at plenty of jobs where they went over and beyond the call of duty. This is good.

It is NOT something the government should be regulating. Otherwise it no longer is companies doing it because they want to.

But the lack of it can be regulated to a degree. And should be.

-- A2SG, because there aren't enough companies out there who do the right thing because it's the right thing.....

 

[PreachersWife2004]

But the lack of it can be regulated to a degree. And should be.

-- A2SG, because there aren't enough companies out there who do the right thing because it's the right thing.....

No.

There's a difference between doing the right thing, and then going above and beyond the right thing.

Yes, we should always expect business to do the right thing. It would be nice for all businesses to go above and beyond the right thing. But FORCING them to go above and beyond is just wrong.

Imagine the elders in church telling its members "it's nice that you put your weekly offering in the plate, but we're gonna make you put $10 more a week because that's what we need to keep the place running".

That's the same principle. Forced "niceness" isn't niceness at all, and by doing so, you take away the recognition that businesses who DO go above and beyond deserve.

 

[AztecSDSU]

Absolutely incorrect. If an employer establishes that X is a reasonable accommodation then it's a reasonable accommodation. You can't say that it's reasonable in one circumstance but not another.

Absolutely incorrect. If something is established as a reasonable accommodation, denying it to some is inherently discriminatory and grounds to be sued and lose.

If you have two cases that are exactly the same and treated in different ways you might have a point. But then again, even in that case the needs of the business and the availability of light duty work can shift accommodations from reasonable to unreasonable. This is no brainer fairly simple legalese, the word "reasonable" is 100% there to say case by case. A 50 pound lifting restriction is different than a 10 pound lifting restriction.

You clearly have no experience is this matter yet you are rejected the experience and fighting with people who do. The #1 rule of managing people is that you need to equitable. Even the appearance of playing favorites will can you fired.

1. I really don't care about your appeal to authority logical fallacy. Claiming personal experience as the source of your information (and it magically happens to fit your ideology) pretty much makes it bogus from the get go.
2. You don't really have to have vast experience to understand simple boiler plate legalese.
3. Equitable means treating like circumstances in an equal fashion. It does not mean you need to treat wildly different cases in the same way because they may share a single common element. You may have taken some classes that told you that you do because some companies are so paranoid about the possibility of lawsuits they'd rather go well beyond the scope than risk being sued. Going into a court and claiming discrimination because your very different case was treated differently isn't going to be a winner. If that were the the case this wouldn't be going before the supreme court.

 

[kermit]

If you have two cases that are exactly the same and treated in different ways you might have a point. But then again, even in that case the needs of the business and the availability of light duty work can shift accommodations from reasonable to unreasonable. This is no brainer fairly simple legalese, the word "reasonable" is 100% there to say case by case. A 50 pound lifting restriction is different than a 10 pound lifting restriction.

You keep focusing on the nature of the incident rather than the nature of the restriction. That is your fallacy. The restriction is all that matters. A reasonable accommodation for a lifting restriction is equally applies regardless of the cause of the need for the lifting restriction.

1. I really don't care about your appeal to authority logical fallacy. Claiming personal experience as the source of your information (and it magically happens to fit your ideology) pretty much makes it bogus from the get go.
2. You don't really have to have vast experience to understand simple boiler plate legalese.

I work for a multi-billion dollar company. They set up training on HR issues to make sure that managers company-wide receive proper training and understanding on labor laws. They work closely with our legal department. But I'm sure that a 20-something person with no legal or management background knows more.

3. Equitable means treating like circumstances in an equal fashion. It does not mean you need to treat wildly different cases in the same way because they may share a single common element.

Factoring in those circumstances is the exact opposite of equitable. What matters is how those circumstance affect the workplace; this is the point you don't seem to grasp. If two very different set of circumstance affect the workplace in a very similar way they need to be treated the same.

If one person can't lift because they hurt their back and another because they are pregnant, the affect on the workplace for both is that they can't lift and therefore need to have the same reasonable accommodations offered.

 

[A2SG]

No.

There's a difference between doing the right thing, and then going above and beyond the right thing.

True. There are also many who don't do the right thing because they don't have to.

Yes, we should always expect business to do the right thing. It would be nice for all businesses to go above and beyond the right thing. But FORCING them to go above and beyond is just wrong.

No, but forcing them to do the right thing isn't. And if the current bare minimum isn't enough (and in many cases, it isn't), then those standards need to be raised.

Imagine the elders in church telling its members "it's nice that you put your weekly offering in the plate, but we're gonna make you put $10 more a week because that's what we need to keep the place running".

I've heard some churches insist on tithes, so that might be happening.

That's the same principle. Forced "niceness" isn't niceness at all, and by doing so, you take away the recognition that businesses who DO go above and beyond deserve.

Too few employers go above and beyond, and it's the worst of the lot that make it harder for everyone.

What it boils down to is, someone has to look out for working people. If it isn't unions any more, and it sure as hell won't be employers (especially larger companies), then someone has to. If not the government....who?

-- A2SG, the only strength working people have is in their numbers....and lacking some form of organization to use those numbers to workers' advantage....what's left?

 

[AztecSDSU]

You keep focusing on the nature of the incident rather than the nature of the restriction. That is your fallacy. The restriction is all that matters. A reasonable accommodation for a lifting restriction is equally applies regardless of the cause of the need for the lifting restriction.

Then why has the woman in the case that sparked this discussion LOST at every turn in the lower courts?

I work for a multi-billion dollar company. They set up training on HR issues to make sure that managers company-wide receive proper training and understanding on labor laws. They work closely with our legal department. But I'm sure that a 20-something person with no legal or management background knows more.

Then why has the woman in the case that sparked this discussion LOST at every turn in the lower courts?

Factoring in those circumstances is the exact opposite of equitable. What matters is how those circumstance affect the workplace; this is the point you don't seem to grasp. If two very different set of circumstance affect the workplace in a very similar way they need to be treated the same.

Then why has the woman in the case that sparked this discussion LOST at every turn in the lower courts?

If one person can't lift because they hurt their back and another because they are pregnant, the affect on the workplace for both is that they can't lift and therefore need to have the same reasonable accommodations offered.

Then why has the woman in the case that sparked this discussion LOST at every turn in the lower courts?

The plain fact of the matter is not every lifting restriction is the same. I don't see why this is so hard to grasp, other than you took a class a paranoid company offered and are running with it like it's gospel. The reality here is this woman has lost at every level of the federal court system, because the reality is not every lifting restriction is the same. A company might have a job that someone with a 50 pound lifting restriction can do, they may not have one that someone with a 20 pound lifting restriction can do. A company might have some work available that someone with a short term lifting restriction can do, they might not have something for someone with a long term problem. Accommodations must be reasonable, not absolute. Factors like the severity of the restriction, the term of the restriction, and so on go into determining what is and isn't reasonable.

This is exactly why the federal courts rule against her, and why all her appeals have failed. It's highly unlikely the supreme court is going to issue a different decision.

 

[kermit]

Then why has the woman in the case that sparked this discussion LOST at every turn in the lower courts?

Because those lower courts made summary judgments and took very narrow interpretations of the law. Namely, that pregnancy wasn't covered by the ADA at the time. Testimony and evidence that other non-ADA restrictions were given accommodation was never considered by lower courts. Don't act like this case was presented fully and rejected by the lower courts.

It's wasn't until SCOTUS that that oral arguments were presented to a court.

 

[AztecSDSU]

Because those lower courts made summary judgments and took very narrow interpretations of the law. Namely, that pregnancy wasn't covered by the ADA at the time. Testimony and evidence that other non-ADA restrictions were given accommodation was never considered by lower courts. Don't act like this case was presented fully and rejected by the lower courts.

It's wasn't until SCOTUS that that oral arguments were presented to a court.

LOL, what color is the sky in the world you live in?

 

[Vylo]

This brings up the old problem of genders. Created equal does not mean created the same. What of a woman who works a physically demanding job? That forces an employer to either cope what comes with hiring a woman who may become pregnant, or try to shun away from hiring women.

I think this is one of those cases where the government actually does have to step in for support, namely they (in turn we, as a society pay) for the woman on leave, so the employer does not take a hit. This keeps the employer on level ground with other companies that have more or less women at their workplace getting pregnant.

 

[PreachersWife2004]

This brings up the old problem of genders. Created equal does not mean created the same. What of a woman who works a physically demanding job? That forces an employer to either cope what comes with hiring a woman who may become pregnant, or try to shun away from hiring women.

I think this is one of those cases where the government actually does have to step in for support, namely they (in turn we, as a society pay) for the woman on leave, so the employer does not take a hit. This keeps the employer on level ground with other companies that have more or less women at their workplace getting pregnant.

I'm all for government regulation to a point.

But forcing a company to go above and beyond that just because we think it's right is just...wrong.

 

[kermit]

LOL, what color is the sky in the world you live in?

Young v. UPS pregnancy discrimination arguments: Supreme Court justices argue over a semicolon.

Young lost on summary judgment (meaning there was no trial) at the district court and again at the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond, Virginia

Darn those pesky facts

 

[AztecSDSU]

You either didn't read the article you posted, or you don't comprehend the arguments either side of this case are trying to make.

 

[kermit]

You either didn't read the article you posted, or you don't comprehend the arguments either side of this case are trying to make.

I was addressing the single point that up until SCOTUS this case has not be heard by any court.

BTW, SCOTUS is not in the business of taking cases if they are very likely to agree with lower courts. They are far to busy for that. In this case, they may agree, but there was clearly enough doubt for them to hear the case. Usually, SCOTUS will take a case if they are going to overrule a lower court or to settle conflicting ruling between lower courts. The later doesn't exist here, so the fact that this got to SCOTUS undoubtedly worried the UPS lawyers.

 

[PreachersWife2004]

I was addressing the single point that up until SCOTUS this case has not be heard by any court.

BTW, SCOTUS is not in the business of taking cases if they are very likely to agree with lower courts. They are far to busy for that. In this case, they may agree, but there was clearly enough doubt for them to hear the case. Usually, SCOTUS will take a case if they are going to overrule a lower court or to settle conflicting ruling between lower courts. The later doesn't exist here, so the fact that this got to SCOTUS undoubtedly worried the UPS lawyers.

Got anything to cite that?

 

[kermit]

Got anything to cite that?

History. Just recently a number of gay marriage cases came to SCOTUS. By refusing to hear them the ruling of the lower courts stood and the appeal process was over. Given that SCOTUS has ruled against Prop8 it was likely that they would have ruled in favor of gay marriage in those cases as well. Given the very limited time available to hear and rule on cases, SCOTUS taking cases only to agree with the lower courts is a waste of time.

 

[PreachersWife2004]

History. Just recently a number of gay marriage cases came to SCOTUS. By refusing to hear them the ruling of the lower courts stood and the appeal process was over. Given that SCOTUS has ruled against Prop8 it was likely that they would have ruled in favor of gay marriage in those cases as well. Given the very limited time available to hear and rule on cases, SCOTUS taking cases only to agree with the lower courts is a waste of time.

So it's just your opinion then.

Thank you.

 

[kermit]

So it's just your opinion then.

Thank you.

There's no official rules about the cases they take, but generally they cases they take are ones in which they likely overrule the lower courts (but may not), or cases to settle disputes among the lower courts. If they are likely to rule with the lower court refusing to hear the case has the same net result as SCOTUS ruling.

 

[PreachersWife2004]

There's no official rules about the cases they take, but generally they cases they take are ones in which they likely overrule the lower courts (but may not), or cases to settle disputes among the lower courts. If they are likely to rule with the lower court refusing to hear the case has the same net result as SCOTUS ruling.

I'd need a chart of cases where SCOTUS took on the case and then overruled the lower courts, and there would need to be quite a majority before I would believe that they only take cases where they're going to overrule the courts.

If you can give me that, great. If not, it's still your opinion.