Major civil rights coalition seeks broader accommodations in the workplace for pregnant postal workers
A coalition of civil rights organizations is pushing the U.S. Postal Service (USPS) to provide greater workplace accommodations, such as light duty, for pregnant employees.
In a letter to Postmaster General Megan J. Brennan, the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights and the National Partnership for Women & Families said, “The Postal Service continues to maintain a legally indefensible position that allows for discriminatory treatment against its own employees.”
The Postal Service disagreed.
USPS “policy fully complies with existing law related to the accommodation of employees with workplace limitations, including pregnancy-related limitations,” said Darlene Casey, a Postal Service spokeswoman. “Employees with pregnancy-related limitations may also, if eligible, apply for light-duty assignments under the terms of applicable collective-bargaining agreements and postal policies.”
The organizations backed their position by quoting from a Justice Department brief submitted to the Supreme Court in a recent separate case. Justice said the government no longer supports the Postal Service policy allowing pregnant employees to be treated differently from “employees with similar limitations caused by on-the-job injuries.”
Quoting the Justice Department, the letter said: “ ‘The United States Postal Service continues to offer different treatment to employees with on-the-job injuries than to employees with pregnancy-related limitations and employees with disabilities more generally. . . . The Postal Service is considering its options with respect to those policies.’ ”
Groups seek relief for pregnant postal workers
The groups are quoting documents from the Young vs UPS lawsuit:
In the Department of Justice’s brief on behalf of the EEOC, it said:
The Department of Justice, on behalf of the United States Postal Service, has previously taken the position that pregnant employees with work limitations are not similarly situated to employees with similar limitations caused by on-the-job injuries. See, e.g., Ensley-Gaines v. Runyon, 100 F.3d 1220, 1222 (6th Cir. 1996). That is no longer the position of the United States. The United States Postal Service continues to offer different treatment to employees with on-the-job injuries than to employees with pregnancy-related limitations and employees with disabilities more generally. In light of the EEOC’s new guidance, the enactment of the ADA Amendments Act of 2008, Pub. L. No. 100-325, 122 Stat. 3553, and the pendency of this case, the Postal Service is considering its options with respect to those policies.
UPS throws USPS, APWU under the bus in pregnancy bias case before U.S. Supreme Court
See more articles on the Pregnancy Discrimination case
What if the employee got pregnant at the job while on the clock? Would that be an on-the-job injury?
Granted most cannot figure out how it happened but unlikely happened on the postal job. It is usually the result of an intentional act. They all should know how to take care of the problem………….
It seems to me that pregnancy is an “elective” ailment. As such it is not worthy of any accommodation. On the other hand, old age is not elective but rather it is compulsory unless you die before achieving it. I say that allowances should be made for older employees first before those that choose to acquire a “sickness”. It is like that old saying, “if you can’t do the time, don’t do the crime”.