The petitioner in Peggy Young vs. United Parcel Service Inc. was Peggy Young, while United Parcel Service Inc. (UPS) was the respondent. Peggy worked for the respondent as a part-time driver; her role involved picking up packages from the airport and delivering them to the company’s premises. Consequently, Peggy’s doctor warned her against lifting loads exceeding 20 pounds within the first five months of pregnancy; she was also cautioned not to lift loads exceeding 10 pounds thereafter. Unfortunately, UPS expected drivers such as Peggy to lift parcels weighing up to 70 pounds without assistance, and up to 150 pounds when assisted; therefore, they informed Peggy that she could not work under the lifting restrictions (Legal Information Institute). The company argued that Peggy’s situation was an “off-work” incident. Peggy had to go onto unpaid leave for most of her gestation period, and later lost her UPS medical insurance cover. In 2007, Peggy launched a federal lawsuit with the Equal …show more content…
The majority group, whose ruling settled matters, included Breyer, Roberts, Ginsburg, Sotomayor, Kagan, and Alito. The minority dissenting group included Scalia, Kennedy, and Thomas. The majority held that Peggy Young was right, and gave a sufficient explanation of her claim of pregnancy discrimination. The court overturned the District Court and the Court of Appeal Fourth Circuit, indicating that both erred in their decisions. Justice Breyer read out the opinion held by the court that Title VII of the Pregnancy Discrimination Act is clear on the prohibition of sex discrimination, which applies to pregnancy-based discrimination. The law states that: “employers must treat women affected by pregnancy... the same for all employment-related purposes… as other persons not so affected but similar in their ability or inability to work” (Legal Information
...e terms and conditions the job entailed. I believe that Wal-Mart did accommodate Pam Huber’s disability needs by suggesting to her a different position to work in due to her downfall. If the company caused for her accident then they should accommodate for her disability and keep Pam Huber in her position but due to the fact that the accident happened on her own terms I do not think the company should be reliable for her disability and therefore Pam Huber should either accept and make the most out of her situation or leave the company. Based on all these factors I am defiantly in agreement with Wal-Mart and the district courts decision on ruling summery judgment in favor of Pam Huber.
Legal Case Brief: Bland v. Roberts (4th Cir. 2013). Olivia Johnson JOUR/SPCH 3060 April 1, 2014. Bland v. Roberts, No. 12-1671, Order & Opinion (4th Cir., Sept. 18, 2013), available at:http://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/Opinions/Published/121671.pdf (last visited Apr. 4, 2014). Nature of the Case: First Amendment lawsuit on appeal from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Newport News, seeking compensation for lost front/back pay or reinstatement of former positions. Facts: Sheriff B.J. Roberts ran for reelection against opponent, Jim Adams, in 2009.
The decision was a 6-3 decision. The Justices that agreed with the ruling of the court were Brennan, Marshall, Blackmun, White, Stevens, and O’Connor. The Justices that did not agree were Powell, Berger, and Rehnquist.
Facts: The petitioners, the leaders of the Communist Political Association (CPA), reorganized the Association into the Communist Party through changing its policies of peaceful cooperation with the United States and its economic and political structure to into the Marxist-Leninist doctrine of the Communist Party. The Communist Party set itself apart from other political parties by disregarding the normal process of change set forth by the constitution. From the literature, statements, and activities of the petitioners, the Communist Party leaders, it is clear that their goal was to achieve a successful overthrow of the government of the United States through the use of force and violence.
The supporters of the Equal Rights Amendment seem to feel sex discrimination laws are simply not enough. The federal laws and regulations contain many loopholes, are inconsistently interpreted and may be repealed outright (NOW 1). Many supporters claim the Equal Rights Amendment is needed "to clarify law for the lower courts, whose decisions still reflect confusion and inconsistency about how to deal with sex discrimination claims (Francis 2). There is a supporting theory argument that "an amendment of equality would absolutely shift the burden away ...
They considered her a wasted nomination and suspected her position on abortion. Liberals, on the other hand, could not deny their satisfaction at seeing a woman on the High Court, but they were disappointed in O'Connor's apparent lack of strong support for feminist issues. In time, however, O'Connor has come to answer all these criticisms. O'Connor has emerged from the shadow of Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist and the Court's conservative bloc with her own brand of pragmatic and centrist-oriented conservatism. Even those liberals who branded her a "traitor" in her early years for compromising on abortion rights, now appreciate her efforts to keep the "pro-choice" message of Roe v. Wade in 1973.
In March of 1970 Jane Roe filed suit against the state of Texas. She declared that the Texas Criminal Abortion Statues were unconstitutional. Jane Roe claimed that the Texas statue was vague and took away her right of personal privacy. These rights were protected by the first, fourth, fifth, ninth and fourteenth amendments as far as Jane Roe was concerned. Roe claimed that she was not suing for herself alone but for all women.
Overall, the ruling in this case was a perfect interpretation of the Constitution. Despite opposition claiming that it is not addressed in the Constitution, too few rights are ever addressed in the Constitution of the United States. That is why there is a thing called Judicial Review. By utilizing judicial review, the interpreters of the law –Supreme Court, may make changes to policies and laws. Abortion, medicinal marijuana, and marriage fall under the umbrella of Equal Protection since they correspond to the rights and liberties of US citizens.
Many cases are being brought to the Supreme Court because many companies and employers are not cooperating with the Pregnancy Discrimination Act. Just recently a young women working with UPS was forced into unpaid time off because she was pregnant and was told by her doctor she could not lift more than 20 pounds. She felt that she had been unfairly treated because UPS made accommodations for other workers with disabilities but didn’t offer to make accommodations for her. I think that even though the Pregnancy Discrimination Act is there, many companies and employers are not following it. It is not fair for women who become pregnant to be treated any differently than another worker who has a temporary disability. I think that congress should strengthen this act so that women are not forced to choose between their job and the health of their pregnancy and baby. I think that companies and employers who are not following the rules of this act should be punished in some way. One way could be that if they are not obeying this act, they could be fined. It would make them more likely to follow through and follow the Pregnancy Discrimination Act. With more and more women in the work force, it is obvious at some point a majority of these women will be
On January 22, 1973 the court issued its opinion with a 7-2 majority voting to strike down the Texas law. State laws outlawing abortion were set aside by the court, permitting abortions during the first three months of pregnancy and setting standards for regulations after that time to safeguard the women's health. The Supreme Court declared all but the least restrictive state statues unconstitutional. Noting that early abortions had become safer than childbirth and reasoning that the word "person" in the constitution "does not include the unborn." The Court
In 1971, Norma McCorvey or Jane Roe, filled a case against the district attorney of Dallas County, Henry Wade, because he enforced a Texas law that prohibited abortion unless the abortion was needed medically, to save the mother’s life. Being a single, pregnant woman , Roe did not have the choice to have an abortion because the pregnancy was not endangering her life. Plus, Roe could not afford to travel to have the operation done safely. As a result, Linda Coffee and Sarah Weddington, two lawyers that graduated from the University of Texas Law School, claimed a lawsuit against the abortion laws in Texas because they violated Roe’s constitutional rights. Besides Roe’s two laywers, Hallford, a licensed physician, and a childless married couple known as the Does supported Roe’s case. The lawsuit against Wade was filed in a Texas Federal Court. The Texas Federal Court heard the case on December 13th, 1971 and again, on October 11th, 1972. After the examination of Weddington and Coffee’s argument against Jay Floyd’s, the lawyer for Wade during the first argument, and Robert C. Flower’s, the lawyer for Texas in the second argument, the court ruled in Roe’s favor by claiming that the law did violate the Constitution. Consequently, Wade appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Women have the wonderful ability to bring a new life into this world and are granted maternity leave, a certain amount of time after birth to be away from the labor force. However, maternity leave was not always available to women because of the low levels of employed and educated females. In 1978 changing gender norms and increased female labor involvement influenced the passing of the Pregnancy Discrimination Act prohibiting employment discrimination of women due to pregnancy (Smith, Downs, and O’Connell 3). After this legislation, a higher percentage of women in the United States were not only educated but also employed. In 1987, a critical Supreme Court case (California Federal Savings and Loan Association v. Guerra) in California defined
The alias "Jane Roe" was used for Norma McCorvey, on whose behalf the suit was originally filed, alleging that the abortion law in Texas violated her constitutional rights and the rights of other women. The defendant was the district attorney of Dallas County, Texas, Henry B. Wade. Sarah Weddington and Linda Coffee were the plaintiff's lawyers. John Tolle, Jay Floyd and Robert Flowers were the defendant's lawyers. Those on the Supreme Court in support of the Roe vs. Wade decision were: Harry Blackmun, William J. Brennan, Chief Justice Warren Burger, William O. Douglas, Thurgood Marshall, Lewis Powell and Potter Stewart. Those in the dissent were William Rehnquist and Byron White.
...ade decided that a woman’s privacy, entailed in the fourteenth amendment, made it acceptable for woman to have more discretion on the status of their pregnancy and whether or not to have an abortion. However, abortions were only acceptable when it involved “defending prenatal life and protecting the health of the mother” (Roe v. Wade, Morality and Moral Controversies, 209). Although this case took a step in the right direction by giving women some direction with abortion, I feel it could have done a better job by making abortion legal under all circumstances seeing how it is morally justifiable from every aspect from the motivations to the process itself.
...d October 31, 1978 by Congress. It was an amended addition to the Civil Rights Act of 1964 stating women who are pregnant are to be treated equally to others. “on the basis of pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions shall be treated the same for all employment-related purposes” (EEOC, 2013).