2024
2023
- Attorney Courtney Presthus to Serve on Stark County Park Board
- Congratulations to ESL Attorneys Selected to the 2024 Edition of "Best Lawyers" and "Ones to Watch"
- Congratulations Attorney Shea Miller
- We have a winner!!
2022
- Lawyer Cerkoney is a Certified Farm Succession Coordinator
- Lawyers featured in Fall 2022 Gavel publication
- Ebeltoft . Sickler . Lawyers summer hours
- Ebeltoft . Sickler . Lawyers has a new associate attorney
- Ebeltoft Sickler's New Partner
- Young Lawyer Showcase
2021
2020
- Ebeltoft . Sickler sponsors CHI St. Alexius Health Dickinson Foundation's Golf Sports Classic
- Ebeltoft . Sickler sponsors Blue Hawk Booster Rendezvous
- Ebeltoft . Sickler sponsors DPS Foundation's Mystery Dinner
2019
- Ebeltoft . Sickler sponsors Empty Bowls Project distributed by the United Way
- Ebeltoft . Sickler sponsors Hill Top Heritage Foundation
- Ebeltoft . Sickler sponsors CHI St. Alexius Health Dickinson Foundation's Charity Ball
- Ebeltoft . Sickler sponsors the TEARS Foundation Rock & Walk for Babies
- Ebeltoft . Sickler sponsors CHI St. Alexius Health Dickinson and Sanford Health Dickinson’s Glow Run 5K
- Ebeltoft . Sickler sponsors 3rd Annual Hoedown for Hospice
- Ebeltoft . Sickler . Lawyers sponsor 6th Annual Players Sports Bar & Grill Scramble
- Ebeltoft . Sickler sponsors Run for Reason
- Ebeltoft . Sickler sponsors Dickinson Fire Department’s Safety Pup Program
- Ebeltoft . Sickler sponsors CHI St. Alexius Health Dickinson Foundation's Golf Sports Classic
- Ebeltoft . Sickler sponsors Raise the Woof's Microchip Event
- Ebeltoft . Sickler sponsors Badlands Big Sticks Summer Baseball League
- Ebeltoft . Sickler sponsors Relay for Life, Stark County Event
- Ebeltoft . Sickler sponsors DDA Inaugural Golf Scramble
- Ebeltoft . Sickler . Lawyers sponsor Imagination Library's Pizza & Pals
- Ebeltoft . Sickler . Lawyers sponsor 8th Annual Blue Hawk Booster Rendezvous
- Ebeltoft . Sickler Lawyers congratulates Attorney Courtney Presthus
- Ebeltoft . Sickler Lawyers sponsor the Dickinson Dream program
- Ebeltoft . Sickler sponsors DPS Foundation's Mystery Dinner
- North Dakota Supreme Court Success
- Ebeltoft . Sickler . Lawyers adds new Lawyer
2018
- Ebeltoft . Sickler sponsors Dickinson State University Department of Fine & Performing Arts.
- Ebeltoft . Sickler supports the Susan G. Komen Foundation
- Ebeltoft . Sickler supports Leadership Dickinson
- Ebeltoft . Sickler sponsors the Empty Bowls Project distributed by the United Way
- Ebeltoft . Sickler sponsors CHI St. Alexius Health Dickinson Foundation's Annual Charity Ball
- Ebeltoft . Sickler sponsors Rock and Walk for Babies
- Ebeltoft . Sickler sponsors the Dickinson Lions Club Summer Benefit Concert, “Tribute to Cold Hard Cash”.
- Ebeltoft . Sickler sponsors 6th Annual Players Sports Bar & Grill Scramble.
- Ebeltoft . Sickler sponsors CHI St. Alexius Health Dickinson and Sanford Health Dickinson’s Glow Run 5K
- Ebeltoft . Sickler sponsors St. Charles Catholic Church’s 5th Annual 5K Color Run
- Ebeltoft . Sickler sponsors 27th Annual CHI St. Alexius Heath Dickinson Foundation Golf Sports Classic
- Ebeltoft . Sickler . Lawyers sponsor First on First
- Ebeltoft . Sickler sponsors Dickinson Fire Department’s Safety Pup Program
- Ebeltoft . Sickler . Lawyers sponsors 5th Annual Fishn' for the Cure
- Ebeltoft . Sickler . Lawyers sponsor the Badlands Bigsticks
- Ebeltoft . Sickler Summer Hours
- Ebeltoft . Sickler . hires Summer Law Clerk
- Ebeltoft . Sickler . Lawyers sponsors the Bakken Paws Bake-Off
- Dickinson Press' "30 Under 30."
- North Dakota Supreme Court Success
- North Dakota Supreme Court Success
- Ebeltoft . Sickler . Lawyers sponsor 7th Annual Blue Hawk Booster Rendezvous
- Support of Dickinson Noon Lions Club Make-A-Wish Benefit
- Ebeltoft . Sickler sponsors DPS Foundation's Mystery Dinner Theater.
2017
- Ebeltoft . Sickler sponsors Dickinson State University’s Department of Fine & Performing Arts
- Ebeltoft . Sickler sponsors CHI St. Alexius Health Charity Ball
- Ebeltoft . Sickler sponsors 2017 Trinity Fall Gala
- Ebeltoft . Sickler . Lawyers sponsors Rock and Walk for Babies
- Ebeltoft . Sickler . Lawyers sponsors Downtown Fall Into Blues Festival
- Ebeltoft . Sickler . Lawyers supports Leadership Dickinson
- Ebeltoft . Sickler . Lawyers sponsors Lions Club Summer Benefit Concert
- Ebeltoft . Sickler Laywers sponsors Ukranian Festival
- Ebeltoft . Sickler . Lawyers sponsors American Cancer Society Relay for Life Stark County event
- Special Counsel Paul Ebeltoft's son's "Here Alone" on Netflix
- Ebeltoft . Sickler . Lawyers sponsors Shawn Stoltz in Lions All-Star Game
- Ebeltoft . Sickler . Lawyers sponsors 26th Annual CHI Golf Sports Classic
- Ebeltoft . Sickler . Lawyers a sponsor for First on First
- Ebeltoft . Sickler . hires summer law clerk
- Ebeltoft . Sickler . Lawyers donates to Belfield Theatre
- Ebeltoft . Sickler . Lawyers sponsors Dickinson Baseball Club
- Ebeltoft . Sickler . Lawyers sponsor of 6th Annual Blue Hawk Booster Rendezvous
- Ebeltoft . Sickler . Lawyers donates to Domestic Violence and Rape Crisis Center event
2016
- Ebeltoft . Sickler . Lawyers sponsors Empty Bowls Project
- Ebeltoft . Sickler . Lawyers sponsors 46th Annual Art Show
- Paul Ebeltoft elected Chairman of the Board of Directors of Prairie Public Broadcasting
- Sponsorship of Dickinson Catholic Schools
- Support of Local Girl Scout’s Project
- Sponsorship of Leadership Dickinson 2016-2017
- Sponsorship of 8th Annual Walk/Run for Diabetes Glow Run
- David Ebeltoft Recognized at Tribeca Film Festival
- Ebeltoft . Sickler Hires Summer Law Clerk
- New Associate
- Olivia Krebs Returns as Summer Law Clerk
- Attorney Presthus receives Theodore Roosevelt Honors Dickinson State University Leadership Program “Bully Pulpit Award”
- Donation to Camp ReCreation
- Dickinson Baseball Club, Inc. Sponsorship
- Support of Dickinson Area Chamber of Commerce 3 on 3 Hoopfest
- Support of Dickinson Noon Lions Club Make-A-Wish Benefit
- Blue Hawk Club Sponsorship
- Support of American Cancer Society Relay For Life
- Dickinson CommUniversity Sponsorship
2015
- Ebeltoft. Sickler obtains successful Montana Supreme Court Opinion
- Ebeltoft . Sickler . Lawyers sponsors Dickinson State University’s Fine and Performing Arts Society
- Sponsorship of Dickinson Catholic Schools
- Sponsorship of Dickinson Lions Club
- Lawyer Paul Ebeltoft has a new grandson
- Lawyer Randall Sickler receives Martindale Hubbell's "AV Preeminent" rating
- Donation to “Celebrate the West” Event
- Ebeltoft Sickler Lawyers Proud to Support Local Youth
- Attorney Grosz Recognized as Great Plains Rising Star
- Courtney Presthus Accepted into Association of Defense Trial Attorneys
- Ebeltoft . Sickler hires summer law clerk
- Ebeltoft . Sickler sponsors 2015 3-on-3 Hoopfest
- Ebeltoft . Sickler sponsor of Dickinson Baseball Club
- Attorney Nick Grant speaks to high school students during Roughrider Education Service Program's Career Expo
- Attorneys Nicholas Grant and Paul Ebeltoft successful in summary judgment
- Defense Research Institute confirms Attorney Courtney Presthus as State Representative for North Dakota
- Ebeltoft . Sickler . Lawyers celebrates 6th Anniversary
- Ebeltoft . Sickler . Lawyers sponsor of Annual Blue Hawk Rendezvous
- Ebeltoft . Sickler . Lawyers sponsors DIckinson Public School Foundation's Mystery Dinner Theater
- Attorney Nicholas Grant apointed Vice-Chair of DRI Trucking Law Committee Special Litigation Group
- Ebeltoft . Sickler . Lawyers included in U.S. News – Best Lawyers® “Best Law Firms” for 2015
- Ebeltoft . Sickler . Lawyers hosting Dickinson’s P.E.O. Chapter AD meeting
Apr 06, 2015
It is not often that I can follow an article that I wrote only three months ago with a United States Supreme Court decision. In an article published in the SAHRA newsletter for January 2015 entitled “UPS or OOPS” I told of the travails of Peggy Young’s battle with her employer, United Parcel Service. Here is the short story:
Ms. Young started working as a driver for UPS in 2006. In 2007, Young underwent in vitro fertilization and became pregnant. Her doctor recommended that she not lift packages heavier than 20 pounds while working. Even though Young claimed that her UPS job dealt almost exclusively with overnight letters, UPS said that its drivers must be able to lift packages weighing up to 70 pounds. Young was unable to fulfill this work requirement and, since she had used all of her available FMLA leave, she was forced to take unpaid leave during which time she lost her medical coverage.
Young sued UPS claiming that UPS violated the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Pregnancy Discrimination Act.
Who won?
In my January 2015 article, I challenged you to answer the question, “How would you decide?” I hope that you didn’t make any big bets – one way or the other.
While mostly touted as a victory for Peggy Young (and it was for her personally as it re-instated her lawsuit against UPS that had previously been thrown out), the Supreme Court actually did what Solomon threatened: it split the baby in two. It rejected going as far as either Ms. Young or UPS wanted. UPS argued that its policy on lifting restrictions was “pregnancy neutral”. UPS said, and the lower court agreed, that a neutral policy could not violate the law. Peggy Young insisted that she be given the same accommodation as granted to other workers with injury-related lifting restrictions.
The Court told Ms. Young that she could not demand an accommodation the same as offered to any other worker, in effect creating a special status under law for pregnant women. The Court told UPS that merely being pregnancy neutral did not save its policy. To rule otherwise, the court argues, would effectively repeal the Pregnancy Discrimination Act.
What the Supreme Court Said
A divided court set down a new standard for gauging the fairness of employer policies when tested in a pregnancy case. The key issues: Does an employer’s policy impose a “significant burden on pregnant workers”? And are “the employer’s legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons … sufficiently strong to justify the burden…”? If the answer to the former question is “yes” and the latter is “no”, the pregnant worker, like Ms. Young has a claim. The claim can be proven, among other ways, by showing that “the employer accommodates a large percentage of nonpregnant workers while failing to accommodate a large percentage of pregnant workers.”
Is it all over now?
No. HR Professionals will still have their hands full. Removing some obstacles to successful litigation that unfairly treated pregnant women could not previously overcome, the decision is far from clear about what women must actually show by evidence in court to succeed. For example, does a pregnant worker claiming that your company’s policy is discriminatory need to identify those fellow-employees who were accommodated while she was not? If she can, how many such is enough to prove her case?
On the other hand, what kind of evidence must an employer produce to establish a legitimate non-discriminatory reason for the difference if the employer treats other workers differently than it treats a pregnant employee? The opinion gave precious little guidance about what employers can do to be safe, short of the very thing that the Court said was not required; provide an identical accommodation to the pregnant worker as it provides to the injured and the disabled.
These and many other questions remain unresolved by the Court’s decision.
The lesson learned
Charles Dickens had it right in 1840 when, in The Old Curiosity Shop, he described the law as “an edged tool of uncertain application.”
Our interest in serving you
My law firm’s goal is to give understandable information and to foster discussion about real-life issues facing human resource professionals. If we are not achieving that goal or if you would like us to address other employment law issues, please email me at pebeltoft@ndlaw.com We promise to take your comments and ideas to heart.
Disclaimers
(Otherwise known as “the fine print”)
I make a serious effort to be accurate in my writings. These articles are not exhaustive treatises, though, so do not consider them complete or authoritative. Providing this information to you does not create an attorney-client relationship with my firm or me. Do not act upon the contents of this or of any article on our homepage or consider it a replacement for professional advice.
Reprinted with permission from an article submitted for publication in the April, 2015 Southwest Area Human Resource Association newsletter.
Pregnancy in the workplace
By: Paul EbeltoftIt is not often that I can follow an article that I wrote only three months ago with a United States Supreme Court decision. In an article published in the SAHRA newsletter for January 2015 entitled “UPS or OOPS” I told of the travails of Peggy Young’s battle with her employer, United Parcel Service. Here is the short story:
Ms. Young started working as a driver for UPS in 2006. In 2007, Young underwent in vitro fertilization and became pregnant. Her doctor recommended that she not lift packages heavier than 20 pounds while working. Even though Young claimed that her UPS job dealt almost exclusively with overnight letters, UPS said that its drivers must be able to lift packages weighing up to 70 pounds. Young was unable to fulfill this work requirement and, since she had used all of her available FMLA leave, she was forced to take unpaid leave during which time she lost her medical coverage.
Young sued UPS claiming that UPS violated the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Pregnancy Discrimination Act.
Who won?
In my January 2015 article, I challenged you to answer the question, “How would you decide?” I hope that you didn’t make any big bets – one way or the other.
While mostly touted as a victory for Peggy Young (and it was for her personally as it re-instated her lawsuit against UPS that had previously been thrown out), the Supreme Court actually did what Solomon threatened: it split the baby in two. It rejected going as far as either Ms. Young or UPS wanted. UPS argued that its policy on lifting restrictions was “pregnancy neutral”. UPS said, and the lower court agreed, that a neutral policy could not violate the law. Peggy Young insisted that she be given the same accommodation as granted to other workers with injury-related lifting restrictions.
The Court told Ms. Young that she could not demand an accommodation the same as offered to any other worker, in effect creating a special status under law for pregnant women. The Court told UPS that merely being pregnancy neutral did not save its policy. To rule otherwise, the court argues, would effectively repeal the Pregnancy Discrimination Act.
What the Supreme Court Said
A divided court set down a new standard for gauging the fairness of employer policies when tested in a pregnancy case. The key issues: Does an employer’s policy impose a “significant burden on pregnant workers”? And are “the employer’s legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons … sufficiently strong to justify the burden…”? If the answer to the former question is “yes” and the latter is “no”, the pregnant worker, like Ms. Young has a claim. The claim can be proven, among other ways, by showing that “the employer accommodates a large percentage of nonpregnant workers while failing to accommodate a large percentage of pregnant workers.”
Is it all over now?
No. HR Professionals will still have their hands full. Removing some obstacles to successful litigation that unfairly treated pregnant women could not previously overcome, the decision is far from clear about what women must actually show by evidence in court to succeed. For example, does a pregnant worker claiming that your company’s policy is discriminatory need to identify those fellow-employees who were accommodated while she was not? If she can, how many such is enough to prove her case?
On the other hand, what kind of evidence must an employer produce to establish a legitimate non-discriminatory reason for the difference if the employer treats other workers differently than it treats a pregnant employee? The opinion gave precious little guidance about what employers can do to be safe, short of the very thing that the Court said was not required; provide an identical accommodation to the pregnant worker as it provides to the injured and the disabled.
These and many other questions remain unresolved by the Court’s decision.
The lesson learned
Charles Dickens had it right in 1840 when, in The Old Curiosity Shop, he described the law as “an edged tool of uncertain application.”
Our interest in serving you
My law firm’s goal is to give understandable information and to foster discussion about real-life issues facing human resource professionals. If we are not achieving that goal or if you would like us to address other employment law issues, please email me at pebeltoft@ndlaw.com We promise to take your comments and ideas to heart.
Disclaimers
(Otherwise known as “the fine print”)
I make a serious effort to be accurate in my writings. These articles are not exhaustive treatises, though, so do not consider them complete or authoritative. Providing this information to you does not create an attorney-client relationship with my firm or me. Do not act upon the contents of this or of any article on our homepage or consider it a replacement for professional advice.
Reprinted with permission from an article submitted for publication in the April, 2015 Southwest Area Human Resource Association newsletter.