Of Course

[Content Note: Pregnancy discrimination.]

Today, the US Supreme Court will be looking at the case Young vs. United Parcel Service, which will decide "whether, and in what circumstances, the Pregnancy Discrimination Act requires an employer that provides work accommodations to non-pregnant employees with work limitations to provide work accommodations to pregnant employees who are 'similar in their ability or inability to work.'"

The case arose after UPS employee Peggy Young requested "a temporary assignment to avoid lifting heavy packages after she became pregnant in 2006." She provided a note from her physician "recommending that she not lift packages heavier than 20 pounds." UPS refused to accommodate her request.

This seems like it should be an easy decision: The answer appears to be so clear that "the Obama administration and an unusual array of liberal and conservative interest groups are backing Young." Who would disagree that reasonable accommodations should be made for pregnant people?

The US Chamber of Commerce is among those on UPS's side. The chamber says many of its members do provide additional benefits to pregnant workers, but says policies at thousands of companies would be upended if the court were to rule for Young.

Policies at thousands of companies would be upended! Oh the horror!

Only in a country with a corporate culture where virtually always are profits prioritized over people would "companies with discriminatory and/or non-accommodative policies might have to change their policies and this is a terrible thing" be suggested as the reasonable argument, and "it is wrong to continue to risk the health and well-being of thousands of people at thousands of companies, even if fixing that might cause some temporary inconvenience and marginally reduced profits" be received as an unreasonable argument.

Let us hope that SCOTUS does the right thing here, even in spite of their tendency to concede anything corporations want ever.