In another interesting case going before the supreme court the question is this, should your employer be required to accommodate your choices ? The central issue that lead this question to the court is this. A woman that worked for UPS as a driver and delivery person became pregnant. At some point she brought a note for her doctor saying she could not lift more than twenty five pounds. UPS requires it's driver to be able to lift seventy pounds. Subsequently UPS then places the woman on unpaid leave. There reasoning being she is unable to perform the job she was hired to do. They will hold her position until she is able to return to work. She is suing the company on the basis of discrimination. It is her feeling that UPS violated the 1978 ruling that pregnant women can not be discriminated against.
So, that is the issue as I see it. Her lawyer has stated if we don't " win " in the supreme court congress will have to change the law. Well first thing we need to understand is that the supreme court only issues opinions. In reality her lawyer is just asking the court to agree with their opinion. Irregardless of what the court says, the law doesn't change unless congress changes it ! We must remember lawyers make their living off what what is written and not written. The law is this case does not address directly the idea of choice. Becoming pregnant is a choice. I know that isn't always the case, " accidents " happen but the choice to perform the act leading to that accident was still a choice. But that is not the issue here anyway. She, by her own admission said she wanted to get pregnant and have another child. Now she feels that her choice to do so should not result in the consequences that they have. She feels that her employer should have to make accommodations and/or provisions for that. It is her feeling she should continue to receive full pay and benefits.
I believe that employers should,as a matter of morality, try their best to accommodate these things as far as practical. Still, it is a choice and choices have consequences. I certainly haven't read the UPS employees handbook and do not know what it says about this. That is where the lawyer steps in. Is it addressed in the handbook ? Was she aware of the consequence of making that choice ? If the answer is no, my retort as the opposing lawyer is , does it say that they will accommodate this ? Do we have to spell out the reasoning that if you can no longer perform your job, as a result of your own choices, outside of the work environment, the employer has the right to terminate your employment ? And, I would add, in this situation the employer placed her in a leave status.
The issue centers around this ladys' desire to start a family. I can understand that. She also wants her career. It is her feeling that her career is being affected by her choice to do so. She says, it isn't fair. In her opinion childbearing should give her executive privilege. Is that fair ? What of her male counterparts ? If a male should injure himself training for a bodybuilding competition, and become unable to perform his job, should they have to accommodate his choice as well ?
I think this whole thing is another attempt to legislate morality and common sense. It can't be done. I would hope that any employer would try to support their employees in any way possible. That is just as I would hope that all humans treat each other kindly and with respect. Can you legislate that ? Don't think you can. Also it is a matter of choice. And so the original question remains, should your employer be required to accommodate the choices you make in your private life ? It is easy to become mired in this topic. There are so many other issues involved. Although the other aspects involved are certainly important and worthy of discussion that can be a distraction. The real question remains, just who is accountable for your actions ? The decision was hers.
So, that is the issue as I see it. Her lawyer has stated if we don't " win " in the supreme court congress will have to change the law. Well first thing we need to understand is that the supreme court only issues opinions. In reality her lawyer is just asking the court to agree with their opinion. Irregardless of what the court says, the law doesn't change unless congress changes it ! We must remember lawyers make their living off what what is written and not written. The law is this case does not address directly the idea of choice. Becoming pregnant is a choice. I know that isn't always the case, " accidents " happen but the choice to perform the act leading to that accident was still a choice. But that is not the issue here anyway. She, by her own admission said she wanted to get pregnant and have another child. Now she feels that her choice to do so should not result in the consequences that they have. She feels that her employer should have to make accommodations and/or provisions for that. It is her feeling she should continue to receive full pay and benefits.
I believe that employers should,as a matter of morality, try their best to accommodate these things as far as practical. Still, it is a choice and choices have consequences. I certainly haven't read the UPS employees handbook and do not know what it says about this. That is where the lawyer steps in. Is it addressed in the handbook ? Was she aware of the consequence of making that choice ? If the answer is no, my retort as the opposing lawyer is , does it say that they will accommodate this ? Do we have to spell out the reasoning that if you can no longer perform your job, as a result of your own choices, outside of the work environment, the employer has the right to terminate your employment ? And, I would add, in this situation the employer placed her in a leave status.
The issue centers around this ladys' desire to start a family. I can understand that. She also wants her career. It is her feeling that her career is being affected by her choice to do so. She says, it isn't fair. In her opinion childbearing should give her executive privilege. Is that fair ? What of her male counterparts ? If a male should injure himself training for a bodybuilding competition, and become unable to perform his job, should they have to accommodate his choice as well ?
I think this whole thing is another attempt to legislate morality and common sense. It can't be done. I would hope that any employer would try to support their employees in any way possible. That is just as I would hope that all humans treat each other kindly and with respect. Can you legislate that ? Don't think you can. Also it is a matter of choice. And so the original question remains, should your employer be required to accommodate the choices you make in your private life ? It is easy to become mired in this topic. There are so many other issues involved. Although the other aspects involved are certainly important and worthy of discussion that can be a distraction. The real question remains, just who is accountable for your actions ? The decision was hers.
No comments:
Post a Comment