3rd Circuit Rejects Certification in UPS Discrimination Case

Discussion in 'The Latest UPS Headlines' started by cheryl, Jul 25, 2009.

  1. cheryl

    cheryl I started this. Staff Member

    3rd Circuit Rejects Certification in UPS Discrimination Case - Law.com

    The 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has reversed a district court's certification of a nationwide class of employees alleging unlawful discrimination by United Parcel Service.

    Remanding the case for proceedings consistent with its opinion, the 3rd Circuit said the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania improperly certified the class to bring a pattern-or-practice discrimination suit under Title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 because it failed to consider whether the class members were qualified under the ADA.
  2. altstewie

    altstewie Combo Hopeful

    This is pretty bad because UPS has always gotten around people with disabilities by putting them on disability 60% pay rather then creating or putting them in an easy area.

    I read on the naber ups site that the judge had UPS connections. This smells bad. I hope they appeal and it goes higher because UPS gets away with so much. I heard that the CEO is also on the federal reserve board in atlanta. More fishiness.
  3. dannyboy

    dannyboy From the promised LAND

    With the rest of the post being hearsay, let me respond to this.

    As you well know, job creation at UPS falls under union jurisdiction.

    Take a driver that becomes a diabetic after 15 years at UPS. Because of the type and medication, there are rules that prohibit him from driving. In many cases, UPS could and would create a job for that driver. Problem is, after 30 days, that job becomes a permanent full time position, and must be bid on building wide. So in less than one year, the driver is again without a job, and the job now takes on a life of its own.

    One of the two edged sword issues of being union.

    There are situations where the person could bid on a 22.5 job, but would have to take a steep pay cut to do so. They would also have to have the seniority to take the job.

    But what this article addresses is that the what they proposed as members of the class action suit, might not actually be qualified under the ADA. In other words, a diabetic might not be able to have a driving job, but he is not qualified under the law as a member of the class under this suit.

    So all they are saying is that they need to go back and make sure all the members of the class actually fall under the ADA rules for disability, and can be part of the class action.

    I do find it interesting that there are so many thoughts of bedswapping theorists when it comes to this type of thing.

  4. H_E_Pennypacker

    H_E_Pennypacker Large Member

    What does being a member of the Federal Reserve Board in Atlanta have to do with a Judge in the 3rd US District (in Pittsburgh)? How is that fishy?