SCOTUS to decide on Pregnancy Discrimination Case

[LauraC]

Originally Posted by Nick21243

The conservative viewpoint is hilarious:

Don't allow women to get cheap birth control->She gets pregnant->Don't allow her to get abortion because she should've used birth control(that she couldn't afford)->Fire her for being pregnant because it's obviously completely her fault

C'mon. Are you saying a UPS employee couldn't afford birth control if that was an issue?

If you take a job that involves physical labor don't play the sex card. I don't think there are any laws that say you have to be given a job involving light duty for any reason. Do you think there are light duty jobs that grow on trees? Feminists are all for equal this and equal that. They don't get to choose when to go back to whinging about being a woman means that your get special treatment like some stinkin' minority group because they aren't one.

[LauraC]

Originally Posted by juppiter

The question is whether or not UPS allows other employees light duty when they're disabled. UPS contends that only on-the-job injuries qualify for light duty. If that is true, they would be within the law, as morally repugnant as I find it. If other off-the-job injuries have been given light duty, then she should win her case because that would be pregnancy discrimination.

Do you think light duty jobs grow on trees? This happens to be UPS. Maybe they have a lot of "light duty" jobs just sitting around unfilled but a ruling that any pregnant woman gets light duty work if she's pregnant means to me "find some excuse not to hire a woman" if you are a smaller business.

[juppiter]

Originally Posted by LauraC

Do you think light duty jobs grow on trees? This happens to be UPS. Maybe they have a lot of "light duty" jobs just sitting around unfilled but a ruling that any pregnant woman gets light duty work if she's pregnant means to me "find some excuse not to hire a woman" if you are a smaller business.

It's not up to me -- that's the letter of the law. If they offered a light duty job to even one employee with an off-the-job injury, then they were obliged to offer the same to her. If not, then they were not required to make an exception for her. That is what this case hinges on.

[workingclasshero]

Originally Posted by juppiter

It's not up to me -- that's the letter of the law. If they offered a light duty job to even one employee with an off-the-job injury, then they were obliged to offer the same to her. If not, then they were not required to make an exception for her. That is what this case hinges on.

hmmmm

it also depends on the job


what does she do...is she a pencil pusher...then she already is light duty

is she a warehouse hulk....then that's heavy duty

[forestgump99]

Young v. United Parcel Service : SCOTUSblog