UPS Not Obligated to Provide ‘Light Duty’ to Pregnant Truck Driver, Says Court

Discussion in 'The Latest UPS Headlines' started by cheryl, Jan 24, 2013.

  1. cheryl

    cheryl I started this. Staff Member

    UPS Not Obligated to Provide ‘Light Duty’ to Pregnant Truck Driver, Says Court - Smart HR

    A corporate policy that does not include pregnancy among the conditions making an employee eligible for light duty is a “neutral and legitimate business practice,” not evidence of bias against pregnant workers, according to a recent court ruling that dismissed a UPS truck driver’s claim that she was the victim of pregnancy discrimination.

    Employers may craft a pregnancy-blind policy — even one that others may characterize as “insufficiently charitable,” the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in Young v. United Parcel Service, Inc., 2013 WL 93132 (4th Cir. Jan. 9, 2013). “A lack of charity does not amount to discriminatory animus directed at a protected class of employees,” the court said.

    Under UPS policy and the applicable collective bargaining agreement, a pregnant employee can continue working as long as she can perform the essential functions of her job, but is ineligible for light duty work for any limitations arising solely as a result of her pregnancy.
  2. over9five

    over9five Moderator Staff Member

    It's a sick twist of fate that UPS would go out of their way for a piece of crap drunk driver, but not a pregnant woman.
  3. Dragon

    Dragon Package Center Manager

    I think you might want to blame the Teamsters not UPS...its in the contract we have to go out of our way.
  4. over9five

    over9five Moderator Staff Member

    It's a contract. Both sides agreed to the language.
  5. beentheredonethat

    beentheredonethat Well-Known Member

    Over9five. I agree with you, when it's in the contract both sides agreed to it. So why on your first post didn't you blame both the teamsters and UPS? Remember like her pregnancy, it takes two to tango. In this case neither side wanted this in the past. It's funny their's been a lot of stuff on the boards about retirement and most of the people here again blame the company on how health benefits monthly coinsurance will be determined. Yet as you said BOTH SIDES agreed to this.

    As I've said before, I hope health and welfare for retired do improve for the teamsters since it will maybe possibly help the mgmt to get better HW in retirement, although I think the odds of that are between slim and none. Right now it's none.
  6. brownIEman

    brownIEman Well-Known Member

    and yet in your post, you only place blame on UPS.Is it your belief UPS suggested that particular language and fought for it?
  7. bmwmc

    bmwmc Active Member

    When you can't work anymore couldn't she have gone on disability. Whats the case here?
  8. over9five

    over9five Moderator Staff Member

    I only mentioned UPS because that's who the article referred to.
  9. UnsurePost

    UnsurePost making the unreadable unreadabler

    schills to the rescue.

    I've known at least one pregnant woman (very pregnant) who was harassed by a supervisor for, more or less, not working fast enough. Ironically, after all of the harassment grievances and etc. were settled, the supervisor was promoted last year.

    Way to go, UPS.
  10. InsideUPS

    InsideUPS Active Member

    I find it somewhat hypocritical of UPS to incorporate hiring practices that make it mandatory to include a "culturally and sexually oriented diverse" work force, while they (UPS) themselves do not provide opportunities for pregnant women to work.. I also agree with over9five that it is unfortunate that we (UPS/Teamsters) provide more opportunities for abusers of drugs and alcohol than for pregnant women.

    UPS Cuts Funds to Boy Scouts over Gay Policy - US - CBN News - Christian News 24-7 -

    With that said....I do agree with that disability benefits should have applied to this woman. If this was an "at risk" may be better that this woman avoid even "light duty" work........regardless.....congratulations to this woman and her newborn baby....
  11. Monkey Butt

    Monkey Butt Obscured by Mirrors Staff Member

    Teamster schills?
  12. Integrity

    Integrity Binge Poster


    Can someone please interpret Article 16 Section 4 of the Master Contract?

    Paticularly the first sentence of the 2nd paragraph pertaining to a light duty request.

  13. InsideUPS

    InsideUPS Active Member

    Section 4. Maternity and Paternity Leave

    "It is understood that maternity leave for female employees shall be
    granted with no loss of seniority for such period of time as her doctor
    shall determine that she is physically unable to return to her normal
    duties and maternity leave must comply with applicable state
    and federal laws".
    "A light duty request, certified in writing by a physician, shall be
    granted in compliance with state or federal laws, if applicable".

    nIce try I.... I like your attention to our contract language...

    First, it would be interesting to know if this woman processed her maternity issue through the grievance process before going to the ACLU..etc.. I would hope that she at least filed a grievance based on the contract language you point out... (I can't believe any lawyer would take this case unless she did exhaust her options through the Union first). Considering the the courts have now dismissed this case, it appears on the surface that there is no violation of state or federal laws and therefore her request for light duty was justly denied. our contract often does... the contract language first appears to "give" you something and then "takes" it away... either in the same Section (if applicable for example) or later in a Region Supplement, State Rider, or Letter of Understanding.....

    One thing for sure.....our UPS contract is very poorly written and contains a significant amount of ambiguous information and language which often leaves issues open for interpretation (which is why many issues go to National and are decided by an arbitrator) . UPS has very deep pockets and hires only the best negotiators, lawyers, etc.. The Teamster representatives on the other hand are comprised of inexperienced retired hourly employees with some labor lawyers here and there looking over the contract. (No offense.....just saying how it is..).

    IF this woman was not properly represented by her Local Union.....she could bring a lawsuit against them for "Failure to Properly Represent"....

  14. twoweeled

    twoweeled Well-Known Member

    Because two parties agree on a contract, it's one party's fault??

    I wonder if she's ever heard of Gloria Allred? I don't like her either, but a little light on the companies beliefs might be good! :funny: