By Uche Onyebadi
FROM the outside, you would think that when it comes to all sorts of basic human rights, the United States has it all covered. But, that is not the case. From time to time, some issues arise in the country to expose the underbelly of a country that globally crusades for human rights, but at home has a number of human rights issues which leave you with mouth agape and hands akimbo.

Last week, the U.S. Supreme Court gave a ruling that brought to the fore the issue of basic human rights for women; a right that it taken for granted in almost all developing, not to talk of developed, nations of the world. Put simply, it is the commonsensical issue of pregnant women officially being given lighter duties, especially in jobs that require employees lifting weights or loads in the production process.

If I’ve made it appear that the Supreme Court has definitively ruled that pregnant women be given such lighter duties in their offices, well, that is not the case. The court merely ruled that a pregnant woman who was aggrieved that she was not allowed to do such lighter jobs can go ahead and sue her employer for discrimination on account of her pregnancy status.

Pregnancy status

So, the issue is far from being settled. But, the Supreme Court has set the ball in motion. Here is the story. Peggy Young used to work for UPS, the packaging and delivery company, as a driver. In 2006, she sued UPS for discrimination based on her pregnancy and in contravention of the Americans with Disability Act, when the company refused to exclude her from lifting weights as part of her job. Young has asked to be excluded because her doctor had warned her against lifting any weight beyond 20 pounds in the first 20 weeks of her pregnancy. Her claim was based on temporary disability due to her condition. But, her supervisors rejected her request, essentially claiming that pregnancy did not have any place in the Americans with Disability Act (ADA).

Ms.Young took her case to court but could not manage to convince the judge that her case had merit under the ADA. Eventually, the case wound up at the Supreme Court which sent the litigation back to the lower court for adjudication, an indirect acknowledgment that Young did not get justice in the judicial process.

The ruling was 6-3 in her favor. Writing the majority opinion for five judges (the other one concurred), Justice Stephen Breyer said the case can “create a genuine issue of material fact as to whether a significant burden exists by providing evidence that the employer accommodates a large percentage of nonpregnant workers while failing to accommodate a large percentage of pregnant workers.”

Putting legalisms aside, Justice Breyer asked a simple question in his majority opinion: “Why, when the employer accommodated so many (people with disability), could it not accommodate pregnant women as well?” The implication is that pregnant women should be accommodated under the ADA in their various workplaces.

All along UPS had argued that its decision on Young did not contravene the provisions of the ADA. Even after the Supreme Court ruling, UPS Public Relations director, Susan Rosenberg, declared that the judgement was not an indictment on her company because the court did not uphold Young’s argument that UPS’ workplace policy was “inherently discriminatory.” She predicted that at the end of the day, “the courts will find that UPS did not discriminate against Ms. Young.”

But, Ms. Young’s attorney, Samuel Bagenstos, declared that the ruling was “big win not just for Peggy Young, but also for all women in the workplace.” He contended that “the Court made clear that employers may not accommodate pregnant workers based on considerations of cost or convenience when they accommodate other workers. It’s a big step forward towards enforcing the principle that a woman shouldn’t have to choose between her pregnancy and her job.”

That choice, is what this ruling boils down to in reality. Pregnant women go through a lot in the system. Until President Obama signed the Obamacare act into law, pregnancy was a ground for an insurance company to deny insuring a woman, or hike up her premium beyond tolerable limits. The insurance companies had classified pregnancy as a “pre-existing condition” in the group that has cancer, diabetes and so on.

Here is another interesting twist to the fate of pregnant women in the workforce. Prior to 1993, women practically had to choose between having their babies and losing their jobs, and facing the unpleasant situation of giving birth and getting back to work in a matter of days, not weeks. President Bill Clinton’s administration changed that unpleasantness and inhuman approach to the human issue of having a baby when he signed into law the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993.

Medical related issues

That law protected jobs in the case of someone taking a leave to attend to family and medical related issues. Any person who found himself or herself in a situation of needing such leave could do so for up to twelve weeks, without the added agony of losing a job. But, trust the capitalist nature of the American economy, that leave period is without pay.

In his 2015 State of the Union address, President Obama revisited this issue of pregnant women earning deserved leave when he boldly told his compatriots that “Today, we’re the only advanced country on Earth that doesn’t guarantee paid sick leave or paid maternity leave to our workers.” His audience of largely U.S. Congressmen and Women applauded his remarks. But, the issue has since returned to its back shelf position. Perhaps, the outcome of Ms. Young’s court action will fire up things once more. In fairness the UPS, while it still maintains that it did not discriminate against Young, it has since been practicing what compelled Young to file her suit in the first place.

Final note: two of the three Supreme Court Justices who dissented from the majority opinion on Young’s case are well-known members of the conservative wing of the court. They are Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas.