I'm tapping out. See ya tomorrow.

Both are those emails are disgusting and immature. Tucker's is so condescending, like in a "listen little lady" type of way. They both need to be punched in the dick. Assholes.

I think those bros are totally caught in high school sophomoric mind set. They never grew up.

Radical idea: the pregnant women who can't lift large packages can be the drivers for the people without licenses due to DUIs. Problem solved.

How? Because there are justices that have no business on the Supreme Court. Two in particular that are joined at the hip and one who's jealous and keeps trying to make it at least a threesome.

It was "if she had a DUI and was pregnant then she would have a case for being treated differently but because DUI convictions and pregnancies are different she can't expect to be treated the same".

Thank you for clearing that up for me. And thank YOU Peggy Young for eschewing what would probably be a very healthy payday for the greater good.

Yes, they can but that's not what they were hired for. They were hired as drivers and due to their license revocation, they could not do their jobs. UPS found a way around that though and provided additional drivers to assist the other drivers with their deliveries. UPS told this woman she couldn't do her job and thus…

Thank you for this and I will read it when I have a bit more time. I asked the questions in case somebody else had insight as to their reasoning. In quickly skimming through the dissent though, it seems they said she couldn't do her job and thus was not discriminated against. The drunk drivers couldn't drive the UPS…

Re: Settlement

Oh I know. I am just trying to wrap my head around what verbiage they used to justify their ruling when it is painfully obvious this was blatant discrimination by UPS.

Part of being a driver is having a valid and current license. Many drivers lost theirs due to drunk driving convictions. UPS chose to work around that and make their continued paid employment possible, yet they refused to do so for this woman whose only "crime" was pregnancy. They could have had her lift smaller items…

I can answer that! The answer is Scalia, Thomas, and Kennedy. And lifetime appointments. :-(

Right? I mean, she could be the driver who carts those drunkees around. Seems like a pretty simple solution. But nope, maybe bosses can picture themselves losing a license for drunk driving, but if you're male, maybe you can't quite muster up the empathy for a pregnant person. Glad she's getting another chance.

I realize that UPS has changed their policy. My question was how in the world could three Supreme Court justices not see how blatantly discriminatory this was? UPS went out of their way to accomodate drivers who lost their licenses due to driving drunk yet put this woman in financial and medical straits because she…

Whoa. From the linked article:

— start sarcasm —

The justices ruled in Young's favor 6-3, with Antonin Scalia, Clarence Tomas, and Anthony Kennedy dissenting