1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Young vs UPS

Discussion in 'Society and Culture' started by ethics, Jul 14, 2014.

  1. ethics

    ethics Pomp-Dumpster Staff Member

    If you think Hobby Lobby was contentious, wait for the next session’s cases. For example: Young vs UPS.
    Instead of relying on the media, ScotusBlog has all the original documents.

    http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/young-v-united-parcel-service/?wpmp_switcher=desktop

    Original petition
    http://sblog.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-co...ARATE-YOUNG-CERT-PETITION-13-04.03-2-copy.pdf

    ..States that Young was an “air” delivery driver. Meaning lighter packages usually, but the work manual did stipulate that the air driver are responsible up to 150 lbs (via handtruck).



    5a, 31a–32a, these lifting

    requirements were not a significant part of Young’s

    day-to-day job: “[P]ackages heavier than 20 pounds

    were infrequent, she was able to use a hand truck,

    and other employees could and sometimes did take

    heavy packages for her.” Id. at 32a (citations

    omitted).[i/]




    Here’s another interesting tidbit:



    In July 2006, Young sought, and UPS granted,

    a leave of absence so that she could undergo a round

    of in vitro fertilization. App., infra, at 5a. The round

    was successful, and Young became pregnant. Id. at

    5a, 39a. In October 2006, Young gave her supervisor

    and UPS’s occupational health manager a note from

    her midwife recommending that she not lift over

    twenty pounds during her pregnancy.



    Young explained that she wanted to return to

    work, and “that she was willing to do either light

    duty or her regular job.” App., infra, at 5a. The

    manager explained that “UPS offered light duty for

    those with on-the-job injuries, those accommodated

    under the ADA, and those who had lost [Department

    of Transportation] certification, but not for

    pregnancy,” and that “UPS policy did not permit

    Young to continue working as an air driver with her

    twenty-pound lifting restriction.”



    Young spoke to UPS’s division manager,

    who “told her she was ‘too much of a liability’ while

    pregnant and that she ‘could not come back into the

    [facility in which she worked] until [she] was no

    longer pregnant.’

    ” Id. at 8a. As a result, Young was

    required to go on an extended, unpaid leave of

    absence, during which she lost her medical coverage.


    =================



    From UPS perspective:



    By its own admission, UPS offers work

    accommodations to three categories of employees.

    First, the collective bargaining agreement that

    covered Young “provides temporary alternative work

    (‘TAW’) [also referred to as “light-duty” work] to

    employees ‘unable to perform their normal work

    assignments due to an on-the-job-injury.’” App., infra,

    at 3a–4a (emphasis in Court of Appeals’ opinion)

    (quoting the Collective Bargaining Agreement

    (“CBA”)). But UPS also accommodates employees

    who acquire injuries and medical conditions off the

    job. Thus, the second category of employees that

    UPS accommodates consists of workers with “a

    permanent impairment cognizable under the

    [Americans with Disabilities Act].” Id. at 4a. And

    the third category consists of drivers who are

    ineligible for Department of Transportation (“DOT”)

    certification to drive a commercial motor vehicle. Id.

    at 4a, 34a. An employee might lose DOT eligibility

    for any number of reasons, including vision

    impairments, high blood pressure, diabetes, sleep

    apnea, and impairments of the arm or legs.


    ….

    UPS accommodates “only drivers

    (1) who suffered on-the-job injuries; (2) who were

    disabled under the Americans with Disabilities Act;

    or (3) [who] lost their DOT certification to drive.


    ….

    Finally, the Fourth Circuit concluded that “a

    pregnant worker subject to a temporary lifting

    restriction is not similar in her ‘ability or inability to

    work’ to an employee disabled within the meaning of

    the ADA or an employee either prevented from

    operating a vehicle as a result of losing her DO1T

    certification or injured on the job.”




    You can read the rest of the petition starting from page 13 on your own to get to the details.
     

Share This Page