It s not often that anti abortion organizations and groups that support abortion rights are on the same side of a legal debate. But both movements are supporting the cause of Peggy Young a United Parcel Service employee who was put on unpaid leave when she became pregnant in 2006. The Supreme Court hears her case a challenge to the UPS policy Wednesday.
A district judge and an appeals court panel have already sided with the shipping company but Young s supporters hope the highest court will see things differently.
READ Supreme Court Considers Speech Rights of Rappers Moody Teens
The case is very significant because pregnant women should never have to choose between their job and their pregnancy and here that is exactly what UPS forced Peggy Young to do says Lenora Lapidus director of Women s Rights Project at the American Civil Liberties Union noting that in 40 percent of families women are the primary breadwinners.
Anti abortion groups also see the policy as pressuring women into abortion. Not enough has been done to respect the choice of life says Clarke Forsythe senior counsel for Americans United for Life.
The case Young v. United Parcel Service revolves around the Pregnancy Discrimination Act passed by Congress in 1978 in response to a Supreme Court ruling that found pregnant women were not guaranteed any special protections under laws that prohibit sex discrimination. The legislation amended Title VII of the Civil Rights Act so that it required that employers treat pregnant women the same way that they treat non pregnant employees with similar abilities or disabilities.
Young worked as an air driver for UPS a job that required her to lift packages that weighed up to 70 pounds though Young said she rarely had to carry things heavier than 20 pounds which was the maximum her midwife recommended she lift while pregnant. But when she informed a manager of the restrictions she was told she could not continue working as an air driver and under UPS policy she did not qualify for the company's so called light duty accommodation which was often clerical work or some other temporary adjustment one's work load.
Take Quiz
U.S. News Quiz Do You Know the U.S. Supreme CourtShe was put on unpaid leave until the end of her pregnancy instead which resulted in the loss of her medical benefits.
UPS had given light duty accommodations to workers who met other criteria those who were injured on the job those with impairments covered by the American Disabilities Act even if incurred off the job and those who were deemed unable to drive including those charged with driving under the influence. However UPS argues since it did not give the accommodation to all employees who faced limitations to their work abilities for instance those who were injured off the job did not qualify it was not required to give it pregnant women.
But Carrie Severino chief counsel of legal advocacy group the Judicial Crisis Network says the issue is pretty straight forward Should pregnant women be treated like other employees with certain needs who are granted the most in terms of benefits or like those who are granted the least The question comes down to who is your comparison Severino says. It's clear from the structure of the statute and the intent of the legislation that the Pregnancy Discrimination Act was not intended to keep pregnant women at the floor of the accommodations a company is willing to give Severino says but to make sure that pregnant women were treated akin to other employees given the most accommodation.
So far courts have disagreed ruling that the policy does not violate the law by discriminating against pregnant women.
By limiting accommodations to those employees injured on the job disabled as defined under the ADA and stripped of their DOT certification UPS has crafted a pregnancy blind policy the Fourth Circuit panel said in its decision.
In October UPS announced it would change its policy so pregnant women would be eligible for light duty assignments though it is still defending the old policy in court.
ALSO Ex UPS Driver's Pregnancy Bias Claim at High Court
We did not choose to bring this case to the Supreme Court Peggy Young did and we will continue to argue our position says UPS spokeswoman Kara Ross in an e mailed statement.
The statement goes on to note that at the time of Young's pregnancy only one state considered pregnancy a disability. Since then eight states have required that special workplace accommodations be made for pregnant women which in part prompted UPS to make the change.
UPS is actually ahead of many companies and government agencies including the U.S. Postal Service in changing its policy to accommodate pregnant workers with special work assignments Ross says.
Suzanne Goldberg director of Columbia Law School's Center for Gender and Sexuality Law says that many companies are voluntarily creating more pregnancy friendly policies perhaps because of the attention brought by this case. Nevertheless a Supreme Court ruling in support of Young could have significant implications.
Even when they change their policies employers often try to block legal mandates and regulations of their conduct she says.
In a brief supporting UPS the U.S. Chamber of Commerce says such mandates would have negative consequences.
Under Petitioner's reading Title VII would prevent businesses from giving unique benefits to employees injured in service of their employer and would prohibit neutral seniority policies the brief said. It also would read Title VII as outlawing scores of other innocuous commonplace pregnancy neutral policies followed by American businesses.
A Supreme Court win for Young would not reward her the lost wages and benefits she initially sued for but rather send her back to a trial court with a jury. Its decision would however give employers and the court system more guidance as to their responsibilities.
More and more will change their policies but we need the Supreme Court to issue a definitive ruling so we know that they are required to do so Lapidus says.
No comments:
Post a Comment