Supreme Court decision a 'victory for pregnant women' in workplace

Norwalk Reflector ^ | 3-27-2015

[Citizen Zed]

Peggy Young, a pregnant mother, was a driver for UPS. Though other workers received a “lighter duty” accommodation for conditions like sprained ankles, Ms. Young was denied an accommodation during her pregnancy, in violation of the federal PDA. Ms. Young lost in the two lower courts, and today the United States Supreme Court reversed their decisions in favor of Ms. Young. Ironically, during the course of the legal action, UPS changed its policy to grant “light-duty” to pregnant employees. The case drew widespread attention as pro-life advocates agreed with abortion supporters that pregnant women deserved protection in the workplace.

[Citizen Zed]

I did not know this was a concern of Pro Life groups. Or that UPS would do this to pregnant women.

[Arm_Bears]

I thought there was no difference between men and women.

Isn’t that what feminists have been saying since the 1970’s?

[laweeks]

Hey, don’t the feminazis consider the unborn baby an “obligate parasite”? So why would they consider any leniency for a woman who let a man impregnate her?

[LambSlave]

That gender “pay gap” is going to increase another notch, and men everywhere will be blamed.

[SkyDancer]

So now we can call feminazis “obligate parasites”? Or just plain parasite.

[stremba]

I would think pro-life groups would be in favor of granting “light duty” to pregnant workers for the simple reason that it could be argued by the other side that an inability to maintain employment is a valid reason for a woman to choose to kill her unborn child. While the other side will ALWAYS come up with reasons to kill unborn children, why should we help them? It’s reasonable for pro-life supporters to try to make pregnancy as easy to handle as possible. We abhor it, but the fact is that killing an unborn child is legal in the USA; we should be encouraging pregnant women to not do so, not supporting policies that place unnecessary hardships or inconveniences on pregnant women.

[wolfman23601]

I agree and support the decision. Light duty for high risk pregnancies should be accomodated. Light duty is to protect the unborn from miscarriage and stillbirth.

[rottndog]

So does lighter duty mean a lighter paycheck?

It should....

[nascarnation]

Not sure, UPS is Teamsters so that stuff is all spec’d in the union contract.

[Boogieman]

“So does lighter duty mean a lighter paycheck?

It should....”

Of course not, that’s why the courts have to enforce this. It’s also illegal to fire them if they keep getting pregnant and asking for light duty (at full pay) every year.

[Amendment10]

Thank you for referencing that article Arm_Bears. Please bear in mind that the following critique is directed at the article and not at you.

”… in violation of the federal PDA."

FR: Never Accept the Premise of Your Opponent’s Argument

This is arguably another 17th Amendment (17A) issue, state lawmakers foolishly giving up the voices of state lawmakers in Congress when state lawmakers ratified that amendment.

While I empathize with pregnant women concerning workplace discrimination, activist justices are wrongly ignoring the following. The states have not only never delegated to corrupt Congress, expressly via the Constitution, the specific power to regulate how employeers manage employees, but also no specific power to regulate workplace discrimination issues.

In other words, activist justices have just wrongly politically amended this “right” to the Constitution from the bench, doing so outside the framework of the Constitution.

So if it weren’t for 17A, not only should the Senate have killed the vote-winning legislation that established PDA, but there would probably be different faces on the Supreme Court at this time who would basically say what I just said about the issue. A child could probably make this argument.

The 17th Amendment needs to disappear.

[gtwizard]

Did the Supreme Court just verify the sanctity of life and give an unborn fetus “Status?” If as the pro choice lobby says, its just tissue ... why would protecting it by granting light duty to the one carrying it be an issue at all?? At what point in the process can on request light duty? Two weeks, 4 weeks, 3 days?

Inert tissue doesn’t need protection from hard work. An unborn child might very well. Hmmmmm

[eyeamok]

I guess Equal Rights for women was always a scam

[BuckeyeTexan]

FReepmail me to subscribe to or unsubscribe from the SCOTUS ping list.