General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsThe Supreme Court takes a (small) stand in favor of pregnant women, and it's (real) news
"The U.S. Supreme Court sided with a woman who was faced with the choice to either work her labor-intensive job during pregnancy at the United Parcel Service or go on unpaid leave without benefits. In an opinion issued Wednesday morning, the justices ruled 6-3 that Young should at least be given a full opportunity to make her case in court that she was not given the same accommodation as other employees considered injured or disabled."
-- ThinkProgress's Nicole Flatow, in "U.S. Supreme Court Sides With Pregnant Worker In Major Discrimination Case"
They didn't do all that much for the petitioner. In fact, you could describe it as what most observers would have considered the very least they could, in good conscience, have done. Be that as it may, though, it counts for something that the Roberts Court -- with, in fact, Chief Justice "Smirkin' John" Roberts voting in the minority -- ruled today, in Young v. United Parcel Service, Inc., that the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals erred in refusing to allow Peggy Young to present her case to the court that UPS had violated the federal Pregnancy Discrimination Act by refusing to allow her to go on "light duty" during her pregnancy.
Still, the High Court at least did that much. As Justice Stephen Breyer wrote in an opinion joined by the three other moderate justices and Chief Justice Roberts, "Ultimately the court must determine whether the nature of the employer's policy and the way in which it burdens pregnant women shows that the employer has engaged in intentional discrimination." (Kind of amazingly, Justice "Sammy the Hammer" Alito also sided with the plaintiff, accounting for the 6-3 vote, but had to offer a concurring opinion to explain how you get to that point in Hammerland. I assume you don't need to be told who the left-behind "3" are.)
Let's let ThinkProgress's Nicole Flatow summarize the case:
It shouldn't come as a titanic shock that the Fourth Circuit said "F.U." to the plaintiff. There's been personnel movement since the late Sen. Jesse Helms was forced to give up his guardianship of Big No. 4, but his spirit still hovers over it. And the mighty Fourth decided, as Nicole puts it, "that granting 'light duty' to Young would give pregnant employees an advantage over other other employees and that Young didn't suffer pregnancy discrimination," and couldn't for the life of it think why the bitch {sorry, that was DWT's language, not mine} plaintiff should be allowed "to go to trial and prove all the elements of her claim."
That's the "oops" the High Court today declared on the Fourth Circuit.
"The Pregnancy Discrimination Act," Nicole explains (links onsite),
In fact, complaints to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission alleging pregnancy discrimination have only increased, prompting the Commission to remind employers recently that they still cant discriminate against pregnant women.
As a group of womens advocacy groups and law professors pointed out in their brief, a ruling against Young would have harmed the women most in need of pregnancy discrimination protection those in low-wage jobs and traditionally male-dominated occupations who are most likely to experience temporary conflicts between the physical effects of pregnancy and job requirements, and who already experience disproportionate discrimination, according to recent statistics.
Read more: http://downwithtyranny.blogspot.com/2015/03/the-supreme-court-takes-small-stand-in.html
Cha
(297,154 posts)LiberalLoner
(9,761 posts)muriel_volestrangler
(101,307 posts)The blogger seems confused, and said Roberts voted 'in the minority'. From ThinkProgress (and as the blogger says later, contradicting himself) he joined the 4 liberal judges in their opinion; Alito voted that way, but issued a separate opinion.
http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2015/03/25/3638779/us-supreme-court-sides-pregnant-worker-major-discrimination-case/