|
Green Crayons posted:Uh, it's the exact opposite of what you're saying: Isn't this a suit regarding worker (labor  ) rights during pregnancy as opposed to some kind of civil/criminal liability?
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2014 23:28
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 07:28 |
|
|
I haven't looked at this particular case, but litigation falls into two camps: civil or criminal. A woman complaining about being wrongly terminated under federal law falls into the civil camp. She may have first gone through some administrative proceedings (including some sort of trial-like proceeding before an administrative tribunal) before hitting federal district court, but it's still a civil case. So: the Federal Rule of Evidence regarding subsequent remedial measures would apply to this woman's case, were it ever to go to trial. edit: Just double checked the opening brief filed with SCOTUS to check the procedural history. The plaintiff (Young) in this case did first go the administrative route (as she was required to do, I'm fairly certainly, by the federal Administrative Procedure Act) by seeking a remedy with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. When that failed, Young filed in federal district court, alleging that UPS violated federal law - The Pregnancy Discrimination Act. I'm not sure what remedy specifically Young requested, but it was probably reinstatement of her employment and, potentially, lost wages for the time that she was unemployed (if that's possible under the federal law; once again, I haven't really looked into this case). All of this is to say, is that this is a civil case. Young is seeking to hold UPS liable under the federal law, because in so doing she will be able to recover whatever remedy she is seeking. To the extent her case may establish employee rights more generally is just a byproduct of this particular civil case that seeks to resolve the issue between one employer and one employee. Green Crayons fucked around with this message at 23:42 on Dec 7, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2014 23:32
|
|
|
Green Crayons posted:Uh, it's the exact opposite of what you're saying: That's products liability and I'm not sure it'd really apply here, but if they did apply 407 they could probably get it in to show feasibility of the measures.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2014 23:38
|
|
|
The Warszawa posted:That's products liability and I'm not sure it'd really apply here, but if they did apply 407 they could probably get it in to show feasibility of the measures. Yeah this isn't directly on point for 407, but the main point is correct - common law generally restricts using evicence of later remedial action to prove the original situation was below the relevant standard (on the theory that if you allow this, people won't make fixes out of fear of admitting liability and everyone's then worse off).
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2014 23:41
|
|
|
Yeah; I didn't realize that FRE 407 was products liability specific. My bad. I thought 407 simply codified the common law rule generally applied in civil actions.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2014 23:43
|
|
|
Green Crayons posted:Yeah; I didn't realize that FRE 407 was products liability specific. My bad. I thought 407 simply codified the common law rule generally applied in civil actions. Well it basically does (just in a specific context), so you're not off-base, and I am pretty sure UPS's lawyers think it can be excluded under the common law rule because they didn't say gently caress no don't do it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2014 23:48
|
|
|
The "feasibility" part is huge, though, given that the standard of reasonable accommodations, at least to my lay opinion e: if FRCP 407 applies at all, that is
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2014 00:38
|
|
|
My bad, it's been a long week.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2014 00:42
|
|
|
actually it seems like courts sometimes apply or consider rule 407 to employment discrimination cases (Hawkins v. Leggett, 955 F. Supp. 2d 474, 493 (D. Md. 2013)) but they might just be dumb
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2014 00:55
|
|
|
Green Crayons posted:Uh, it's the exact opposite of what you're saying: I don't know if this would be considered a remedial measure though, as there was no injury. That rule is more for cases like "I fell at facility X. Facility X subsequently installed a hand rail. I can't use the fact they put in a rail as evidence that they knew there was a hazard." As to Warsawa's point re: the lawyers letting them do it..it wouldn't be excluded on 407 grounds, they probably think it can be excluded on relevancy grounds. If their point is pregnancy is not a disability and their policy complied with federal law in the first place, evidence that they later chose to adopt a more generous policy isn't relevant to the question of whether the old policy was discriminatory. It would only be relevant if they were looking at an undue burden least restrictive means type/reasonably tailored type analysis...which would first require recognizing that it was discriminatory. They seem to be putting all their eggs in the "not a disability. Not discriminatory." camp. Also, it's probably an easy concession from UPS in the good will department because even if they didn't change their policy, it's not like the plaintiffs wouldn't introduce tons of evidence from other similar companies with more favorable policies to show it can be done without the world ending. In a specific negligence or product liability case where knowledge of the hazard is at issue the "hell no! Admit nothing!" approach makes a lot more sense than in a case like this. ActusRhesus fucked around with this message at 13:12 on Dec 8, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2014 12:45
|
|
|
somewhat relevant to earlier snark on the "trigger warning" generation. http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2014/12/not-a-parody.php I'm not going to presume to know how these cases impact a person of color, but if they have left a person so traumatized they can't function, perhaps law is not the right field.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2014 15:33
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:somewhat relevant to earlier snark on the "trigger warning" generation. quote:What is really behind the request for postponement of exams? I suspect it’s the fact that the students in question would rather protest with their friends and perhaps disrupt New York City than read cases, review lecture notes, or whatever it is that students do these days to prepare for exams. In addition, the students in question presumably want the law school to take their side on what they take to be a political question. In other words, this is, in part, a power play. Why is the author so butthurt about someone protesting an obviously hosed up situation? edit: oh wow he links to breitbart on the right hand side, guess that answers my question. quote:College administrators come and go, but for the past 45 years they can usually be counted on to take the path of least resistance when the left agitates. Even when doing so results in behavior and conduct that seem like self-parody.  when the left agitates
esto es malo fucked around with this message at 15:39 on Dec 8, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2014 15:36
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:somewhat relevant to earlier snark on the "trigger warning" generation. It sounds like an excuse to let kids who spent the last week protesting instead of studying postpone without the school making an overt political statement. I mean if they can get it to work good for them, I saw people extend deadlines, postpone exams and get extended time for a lot shittier reasons. The Warszawa fucked around with this message at 15:39 on Dec 8, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2014 15:36
|
|
|
joeburz posted:Why is the author so butthurt about someone protesting an obviously hosed up situation? I don't think he's butthurt over protesting in and of itself.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2014 15:39
|
|
|
The Warszawa posted:It sounds like an excuse to let kids who spent the last week protesting instead of studying postpone without the school making an overt political statement. most likely. though it's not preparing the students for reality. If I took a week off of work to go engage in civil disobedience, I doubt the court would be willing to extend my filing deadline. The Warszawa posted:I mean if they can get it to work good for them, I saw people extend deadlines, postpone exams and get extended time for a lot shittier reasons. That's right, I forgot you nobles in the Ivies don't have to deal with mundane things like deadlines with the rest of us plebs. :P ActusRhesus fucked around with this message at 15:44 on Dec 8, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2014 15:41
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:most likely. Yeah because when I think of an institution dedicated to preparing its charges for reality, I think of law school. Columbia has (or had) a pretty strong protest/political engagement culture so it's unsurprising that this worked.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2014 15:46
|
|
|
The Warszawa posted:It sounds like an excuse to let kids who spent the last week protesting instead of studying postpone without the school making an overt political statement. If you do a Google search you will see that almost every result about this is some right wing rag like ActusRhesus linked going on about how weak and liberal millennials are, but the one that I clicked on that wasn't basically Breitbart said exactly that.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2014 15:46
|
|
|
I guess there was a good reason I had that guy on ignore.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2014 15:51
|
|
|
Maarek posted:If you do a Google search you will see that almost every result about this is some right wing rag like ActusRhesus linked going on about how weak and liberal millennials are, but the one that I clicked on that wasn't basically Breitbart said exactly that. Yeah, I wish there was a better news source for it as well, as I generally don't like posting blogs at all. However, it is pretty weak. You made the choice to protest. Fine. Your choice. I'm not going to question that. But saying the accommodation is for people who are too traumatized to test? Please. And actually a lot of law schools do focus on preparing people for the practice of law. Just not the Ivies... our school had a HUGE emphasis on practical courses, drafting seminars, and clinic placements.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2014 15:52
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:Yeah, I wish there was a better news source for it as well, as I generally don't like posting blogs at all. "Trauma" appears to be the school's cover. Think of it as the students getting extensions to spend more time with their family. As far as I can see, BLSA just asked for "sufficiently impaired" to be the standard, where impairment need not result from trauma but overextension.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2014 15:55
|
|
|
Just some more reverse racism as the pure whites who didn't practice civil disobedience are at a disadvantage in liberal collegia.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2014 15:56
|
|
|
The Warszawa posted:"Trauma" appears to be the school's cover. Think of it as the students getting extensions to spend more time with their family. As far as I can see, BLSA just asked for "sufficiently impaired" to be the standard, where impairment need not result from trauma but overextension. the fact the school feels it needs a cover, in and of itself, is telling.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2014 15:56
|
|
|
joeburz posted:Just some more reverse racism as the pure whites who didn't practice civil disobedience are at a disadvantage in liberal collegia. use the QQ emoticon a few more times. It really helps make your point.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2014 15:57
|
|
|
There is no better news source because no one but right wing 'old man yells at cloud' types give a poo poo about it.ActusRhesus posted:the fact the school feels it needs a cover, in and of itself, is telling. Because of people who think like you do, basically.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2014 16:00
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:the fact the school feels it needs a cover, in and of itself, is telling. Yeah it's telling that Columbia is developing the poo poo out of property it bought up for cheap once the city declared it blighted in Manhattanville and I'll bet not all the permits have cleared and the university doesn't want to be seen as "anti-city", plus the school's relationship with the NYPD has been tense. joeburz posted:Just some more reverse racism as the pure whites who didn't practice civil disobedience are at a disadvantage in liberal collegia. This is dumb because I'll bet you money most of the CLS students protesting were white.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2014 16:01
|
|
|
Look, ActusRhesus, I know it's hard for replicants like you to understand, but humans have these things called duress and right to protest. These combined with violent police and another thing called empathy lead teachers to allow extenuating circumstances for people that were mistreated while protesting.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2014 16:04
|
|
|
An Angry Bug posted:Look, ActusRhesus, I know it's hard for replicants like you to understand, but humans have these things called duress and right to protest. These combined with violent police and another thing called empathy lead teachers to allow extenuating circumstances for people that were mistreated while protesting. Why not just give them all As. It would be like that urban legend about having a roommate die...but no one has to die!
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2014 16:06
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:Why not just give them all As. It would be like that urban legend about having a roommate die...but no one has to die! Um...
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2014 16:07
|
|
|
PTSD by proxy is a thing now?
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2014 16:07
|
|
|
An Angry Bug posted:Look, ActualRhesus, I know it's hard for replicants like you to understand, but humans have these things called duress and right to protest. These combined with violent police and another thing called empathy lead teachers to allow extenuating circumstances for people that were mistreated while protesting. I think that this is unfair though because I'm sure a good number of students weighed the cost of protesting (diminished studying) against the benefits of protesting (expression of political alienation) and came down on the other side because they didn't believe they could get this concession. I can't fault anyone who stayed home to outline civ pro instead of carrying a sign in Midtown. Not in the least because civ pro is goddamn important. Personally, I'm thrilled that these students were able to game the system a bit (assuming they can successfully petition).
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2014 16:07
|
|
|
That's why this should be standard. Make it so students aren't kept from protesting because of uncertainty. Of course, plenty of assholes think it's right preventing those kids today from protesting, what with their rainbow parties and their bleugh liberal president. Don't they know those hoodlums they're supporting are keeping Honest Americans out on the street by bleeding this great country dry with their stolen benefits and their Welfare Queens and their pants on the ground?!
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2014 16:12
|
|
|
Can I just pause for a moment to note the irony that in the police reform thread I am being accused of "dehumanizing the other" because I actually believe that some criminals can't be dealt with through purely rehabilitative means, and retributive sentencing philosophies are also valid...and here I am being called a replicant. Which is literal dehumanization. It really amuses me how often "debate" on D&D boils down to "gently caress you, you're dumb."
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2014 16:14
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:Can I just pause for a moment to note the irony that in the police reform thread I am being accused of "dehumanizing the other" because I actually believe that some criminals can't be dealt with through purely rehabilitative means, and retributive sentencing philosophies are also valid...and here I am being called a replicant. Which is literal dehumanization. No, please don't.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2014 16:14
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:PTSD by proxy is a thing now? Well, law students are kind of delicate. Stultus Maximus fucked around with this message at 16:20 on Dec 8, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2014 16:16
|
|
|
An Angry Bug posted:That's why this should be standard. Make it so students aren't kept from protesting because of uncertainty. Of course, plenty of assholes think it's right preventing those kids today from protesting, what with their rainbow parties and their bleugh liberal president. Don't they know those hoodlums they're supporting are keeping Honest Americans out on the street by bleeding this great country dry with their stolen benefits and their Welfare Queens and their pants on the ground?! Can you please show me where I ever said they shouldn't be able to protest? And your complete non-sequitur about "rainbow parties" is one of the biggest strawmen I have ever seen. As is your not so subtle racism allegation.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2014 16:17
|
|
|
Most of D&D are to your left and they're not going to agree with you. People on SA generally aren't polite when they disagree with you and that is something we have to deal with if we want to post here about politics, unfortunately.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2014 16:18
|
|
|
Maarek posted:Most of D&D are to your left and they're not going to agree with you. People on SA generally aren't polite when they disagree with you and that is something we have to deal with if we want to post here about politics, unfortunately. well, there's impolite, even downright rear end in a top hat, but raising valid points, even ones with which I ultimately disagree, and there's DURRRR HUURRRRR QQ MOAR YOU ARE RACIST DURR HUURRRRRR.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2014 16:25
|
|
|
gently caress law students They're Scalia's phylactery
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2014 16:27
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:well, there's impolite but raising valid points, even ones with which I ultimately disagree, and there's DURRRR HUURRRRR QQ MOAR YOU ARE RACIST DURR HUURRRRRR. ActusRhesus posted:PTSD by proxy is a thing now? ActusRhesus posted:use the QQ emoticon a few more times. It really helps make your point.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2014 16:27
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 07:28 |
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:well, there's impolite, even downright rear end in a top hat, but raising valid points, even ones with which I ultimately disagree, and there's DURRRR HUURRRRR QQ MOAR YOU ARE RACIST DURR HUURRRRRR. I'm sure that if you think very hard you can think of some examples from other forums when people were discussing social or political ideas or events that expressed mean spirited, dumb, or just plain wrong things. It's not so much a D&D thing as an internet (or SA thing) and it's basically the price of discussing important things on this site no matter how much we dislike it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2014 16:28
|
|