SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
Peggy Young, who filed suit against UPS, with her daughter Triniti, 7, in Washington. (Photo: AP)
In Fight Against UPS Discrimination, Pregnant Workers Get Boost From Top Court
Supreme Court decision overturns prior dismissal of Peggy Young's complaint, reviving a case with broad implications for workers across the country
Mar 25, 2015
A former United Parcel Service delivery driver demanding restitution for discrimination she allegedly faced while pregnant just won a favorable ruling from the U.S. Supreme Court.
In a 6-3 decision on Wednesday, the justices tossed out a lower court ruling that had dismissed the case of the plaintiff, Peggy Young. The decision effectively sends the complaint back to the lower courts, giving new life to a case that has broad implications for pregnant workers across country.
When Young became pregnant in 2006, she requested a temporary change in job duties to avoid lifting heavy packages--at the recommendation of her doctor. UPS said no and forced her to take unpaid leave. As a result, Young lost her health benefits, in addition her income.
As Lenora Lapidus pointed out in ACLU Blog of Rights, this was despite the fact that "the world's largest shipping and logistics company routinely provides such accommodations to other workers temporarily unable to perform their regular tasks because of on-the-job injuries, disabilities covered by the Americans with Disabilities Act, or loss of their commercial drivers' licenses."
On behalf of the majority opinion, Justice Stephen Breyer wrote Wednesday, "Why, when the employer accommodated so many, could it not accommodate pregnant workers as well?"
And so it begins...
Political revenge. Mass deportations. Project 2025. Unfathomable corruption. Attacks on Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. Pardons for insurrectionists. An all-out assault on democracy. Republicans in Congress are scrambling to give Trump broad new powers to strip the tax-exempt status of any nonprofit he doesn’t like by declaring it a “terrorist-supporting organization.” Trump has already begun filing lawsuits against news outlets that criticize him. At Common Dreams, we won’t back down, but we must get ready for whatever Trump and his thugs throw at us. As a people-powered nonprofit news outlet, we cover issues the corporate media never will, but we can only continue with our readers’ support. By donating today, please help us fight the dangers of a second Trump presidency. |
Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.
Sarah Lazare
Sarah Lazare was a staff writer for Common Dreams from 2013-2016. She is currently web editor and reporter for In These Times.
A former United Parcel Service delivery driver demanding restitution for discrimination she allegedly faced while pregnant just won a favorable ruling from the U.S. Supreme Court.
In a 6-3 decision on Wednesday, the justices tossed out a lower court ruling that had dismissed the case of the plaintiff, Peggy Young. The decision effectively sends the complaint back to the lower courts, giving new life to a case that has broad implications for pregnant workers across country.
When Young became pregnant in 2006, she requested a temporary change in job duties to avoid lifting heavy packages--at the recommendation of her doctor. UPS said no and forced her to take unpaid leave. As a result, Young lost her health benefits, in addition her income.
As Lenora Lapidus pointed out in ACLU Blog of Rights, this was despite the fact that "the world's largest shipping and logistics company routinely provides such accommodations to other workers temporarily unable to perform their regular tasks because of on-the-job injuries, disabilities covered by the Americans with Disabilities Act, or loss of their commercial drivers' licenses."
On behalf of the majority opinion, Justice Stephen Breyer wrote Wednesday, "Why, when the employer accommodated so many, could it not accommodate pregnant workers as well?"
Sarah Lazare
Sarah Lazare was a staff writer for Common Dreams from 2013-2016. She is currently web editor and reporter for In These Times.
A former United Parcel Service delivery driver demanding restitution for discrimination she allegedly faced while pregnant just won a favorable ruling from the U.S. Supreme Court.
In a 6-3 decision on Wednesday, the justices tossed out a lower court ruling that had dismissed the case of the plaintiff, Peggy Young. The decision effectively sends the complaint back to the lower courts, giving new life to a case that has broad implications for pregnant workers across country.
When Young became pregnant in 2006, she requested a temporary change in job duties to avoid lifting heavy packages--at the recommendation of her doctor. UPS said no and forced her to take unpaid leave. As a result, Young lost her health benefits, in addition her income.
As Lenora Lapidus pointed out in ACLU Blog of Rights, this was despite the fact that "the world's largest shipping and logistics company routinely provides such accommodations to other workers temporarily unable to perform their regular tasks because of on-the-job injuries, disabilities covered by the Americans with Disabilities Act, or loss of their commercial drivers' licenses."
On behalf of the majority opinion, Justice Stephen Breyer wrote Wednesday, "Why, when the employer accommodated so many, could it not accommodate pregnant workers as well?"
We've had enough. The 1% own and operate the corporate media. They are doing everything they can to defend the status quo, squash dissent and protect the wealthy and the powerful. The Common Dreams media model is different. We cover the news that matters to the 99%. Our mission? To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. How? Nonprofit. Independent. Reader-supported. Free to read. Free to republish. Free to share. With no advertising. No paywalls. No selling of your data. Thousands of small donations fund our newsroom and allow us to continue publishing. Can you chip in? We can't do it without you. Thank you.