As we wind down another year advocating for consumers and workers, it is inspiring to reflect on the two major victories we saw in 2014 for consumers and workers. NCL is America’s only advocacy group with a dual mission to protect both consumers and workers, and we are proud of our work advocating for these changes.

Increased minimum wages

Minimum wage increases are essential for helping get America’s low-income workers—and our economy—back on track.

As of Jan. 1, 2015, 29 states and Washington, DC will have minimum wages above the federal minimum wage. America’s lowest paid workers will see their meager hourly wages increase, and it’s not just happening in the states with the most liberal voters! Four states (Alaska, Arkansas, Nebraska, and South Dakota) approved minimum wage increases through ballot measures in the 2014 general election. In Illinois, voters approved an advisory measure.

NCL and our allies have been beating the drum for increased minimum wages, helping to build momentum in recent years that resulted in these real victories. We are hopeful that this trend will continue across the country to help improve the quality of life for millions of working families.

Health care accessibility advances

For consumers, access to health care under the Affordable Care Act (ACA) will improve the nation’s quality of life. Despite conservatives’ pledge to unwind and repeal the ACA, sign-ups have surged, representing a huge amount of pent-up demand for health care across America.

As of mid-December, total enrollment for 2015 plans in this year’s open-enrollment season is about 7.44 million. Experts are saying the surge was bigger than expected and that the Obama administration will exceed its target of having 9.1 million people enrolled in the ACA by the end of 2015.

NCL was a part of this movement—last year, we hosted events across the country to educate consumers about their options and helped them sign up for the exchanges.

All told, the National Center for Health Statistics says that 11.3 percent of Americans lack health insurance, compared with 14.4 percent in 2013. That is progress! More and more Americans, especially children, are insured today than ever before—a huge victory for consumers and for our nation’s health.

There are still many obstacles to overcome for our country’s working families. With your support, we will continue to fight for livable wages, access to healthcare, and so much more in 2015.  

Sometimes I really hate what lawyers do to parse the plain language of the law. Last week was a case in point. I attended Supreme Court argument in the case of Peggy Young vs. UPS. Young challenged her treatment as a UPS worker expecting a baby and needing to go on light duty but the company refused to reassign her. The statute in question is the Pregnancy Discrimination Act of 1978 (PDA). 

As it happens, I worked on getting that bill passed as a Congressional staffer. In 1978, Congress rushed into action to overturn a blatantly absurd finding by the Supreme Court in a case called Gilbert vs. GE where the Court actually said that not making physical accommodation for pregnant women in the workplace while accommodating all sorts of other disabilities wasn’t sex discrimination under the 1964 Civil Rights Act but simply discrimination against pregnant people.

Ahem. Pregnant people are ALWAYS women so in fact the finding in Gilbert is in fact discrimination against women. So why were we back at the Supreme Court again last week 36 years later re-litigating this case?  The PDA is very simple. It says:

To amend Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to prohibit sex discrimination on the basis of pregnancy.Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, that section 701 of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is amended by adding at the end thereof the following new subsection:

“(k) The terms ‘because of sex’ or ‘on the basis of sex’ include, but are not limited to, because of or on the basis of pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions; and women affected by pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions shall be treated the same for all employment-related purposes, including receipt of benefits under fringe benefit programs, as other persons not so affected but similar in their ability or inability to work, and nothing in section 703(h) of this title shall be interpreted to permit otherwise.

In other words, pregnant women should be treated the same for all employment related persons as those with similar in their ability or non ability to work.

Peggy Young simply wanted light duty at UPS late into her pregnancy, as ordered by her doctor. UPS wouldn’t accommodate her. But men with other similar disabilities, including those with DUIs who couldn’t drive a truck, were accommodated. This doesn’t seem like rocket science. But the Supreme Court seemed to think interpreting the PDA was very complicated. What did each word mean and why was it there? As Lyle Denniston of SCOTUS Blog commented on the case: “ The Justices probed deeply into what that section’s words — and punctuation — convey, even to the point of trying to sort out whether a semi-colon made a difference.  There did not appear to be a consensus on the meaning.”  I mean really! There was a great deal of consensus in Congress when the PDA was enacted.

Peggy Young’s plight is not isolated. Appearing before Congress earlier this year, Armanda Legros testified that she was sent home by her manager at an armored truck company, indefinitely and without pay, when she was six and a half months pregnant and had to avoid heavy lifting. She also testified that a co-worker who injured his back on the job was granted the accommodation that she was denied. UPS claims that the comparisons are between those who are injured on the job and those injured outside of the workplace, in which case UPS claims it has no duty to accommodate them and pregnant women fall into that category. 

I can tell you that when Congress enacted the PDA, it was meant to cover exactly Peggy Young’s case – if men at UPS had disabilities that are accommodated, so should Young. I’m told by Supreme Court scholars pregnant women might lose this case. How sad. In fact, UPS has changed their employee practices to ensure that pregnant workers have a right to light duty when needed. But we have to go thru this slow tortuous process to protect pregnant women’s rights nevertheless.

NCL filed an amicus brief in support of Young, joining the ACLU and many other groups. Among the arguments in the brief is that when women are forced to leave the workplace because of pregnancy-related conditions, while other workers with similar limitations are provided light duty, women suffer the very discrimination that Congress sought to eradicate. They lose income, economic security, and benefits, including health insurance, often with devastating results.

I found that listening to the case – I was in the overflow room at the Court reserved for members of the Supreme Court bar –infuriating. Why are we still debating these basic rights for working women. I only hope that the Supreme Court will look at Congressional intent in passing this bill and finally, 36 years later, give Peggy Young and all pregnant women who work the kind of accommodation Congress intended them to have when it passed the PDA. That’s good for women and good for families.