Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC
The Firm
201-896-4100 info@sh-law.comFirm News
Author: Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC
Date: August 28, 2014
The Firm
201-896-4100 info@sh-law.comThe U.S. Supreme Court will consider yet another high-profile women’s health issue next term. In Young v. United Parcel Service, Inc., the justices will determine what types of accommodations employers must make for pregnant workers.
As we discussed last week, the Pregnancy Discrimination Act (PDA) provides that “women affected by pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions shall be treated the same for all employment-related purposes…as other persons not so affected but similar in their ability or inability to work.” However, the statute does not specifically address accommodations for pregnant workers.
Peggy Young was employed as a driver for United Parcel Service, Inc. (UPS) when she became pregnant. She subsequently gave her supervisor and UPS’s occupational health manager a note from her midwife recommending that she not lift over twenty pounds during her pregnancy.
Young stated that she was willing to do either light duty or her regular job. However, the manager explained that “UPS offered light duty for those with on-the-job injuries, those accommodated under the ADA, and those who had lost [Department of Transportation] certification, but not for pregnancy,” and that “UPS policy did not permit Young to continue working as an air driver with her twenty-pound lifting restriction.”
UPS’s division manager confirmed that Young could not come back to work until she was no longer pregnant. As a result, she was required to go on an extended, unpaid leave of absence, during which she lost her medical coverage. She returned to work two months after giving birth. After exhausting her remedies at the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”), Young filed suit, alleging that that UPS violated the PDA by failing to provide Young the same accommodations as it provided to nonpregnant employees who were similar in their ability to work.
The district court sided with UPS, holding that the company’s decision to deny Young’s lifting accommodation turned on “gender-neutral criteria,” because UPS accommodates “only drivers (1) who suffered on-the-job injuries; (2) who were disabled under the Americans with Disabilities Act; or (3) [who] lost their DOT certification to drive.” Because this policy was “gender-neutral,” the court further concluded that it did not constitute direct evidence of discrimination. Moreover, it could not support an inference “that the employer has animus directed specifically at pregnant women,” which the court deemed necessary to support a PDA claim.
The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the decision. It held that UPS had crafted a “pregnancy-blind policy” by limiting accommodations to three specific categories. It further held that held that the PDA’s requirement that pregnant women “shall be treated the same” as nonpregnant employees “similar in their ability or inability to work,” does not create a distinct and separate cause of action
The specific question before the U.S. Supreme Court is “[w]hether, and in what circumstances, the Pregnancy Discrimination Act, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e(k), 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 EEOC has already taken the position that an employer may not treat pregnant workers differently from employees who are similar in their ability or inability to work based on the cause of their limitations. It will be interesting to see if the justices agree.
If you have questions about the EEOC pregnancy discrimination guidance or want to ensure that your business is in compliance, please contact me, Ramon Rivera, or the Scarinci Hollenbeck Labor and Employment attorney with whom you work.
No Aspect of the advertisement has been approved by the Supreme Court. Results may vary depending on your particular facts and legal circumstances.
FeedSpot Recognizes Donald Scarinci’s Government & Law Blog One of the Top 20 Public Law Blogs Little Falls, NJ – May 22, 2025 – Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC is honored to share that Managing Partner Donald Scarinci’s Government & Law blog has been listed by FeedSpot.com as one of the “20 Best Public Law Blogs and […]
Author: Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC
SH Partner and 100th Bomb Group Foundation Legal Counsel Discussed The Nuremberg Trials and the Law May 21, 2025 – Little Falls, NJ – Scarinci & Hollenbeck, LLC is proud to share that partner Ronald S. “Ron” Bienstock recently spoke at the 100th Bomb Group Biennial Reunion, held May 15-18, 2025, in New Orleans. The […]
Author: Ronald S. Bienstock
Little Falls, NJ – May 1, 2025 – Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC is proud to share that Managing Partner Donald Scarinci’s Constitutional Law Reporter blog has been listed by FeedSpot.com as one of the “Top 100 Legal Blogs.” No Aspect of the advertisement has been approved by the Supreme Court. Feedspot, a content reader that curates websites of […]
Author: Donald Scarinci
Little Falls, NJ – May 1, 2025 – Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC is proud to share that Managing Partner Donald Scarinci’s Government & Law blog has been listed by FeedSpot.com as one of the “80 Best New Jersey Blogs and Websites in 2025.” *No Aspect of the advertisement has been approved by the Supreme Court of New […]
Author: Donald Scarinci
Scarinci Hollenbeck Partner Nathanya G. Simon named by ROI-NJ to the “ROI Influencers: Women in Business” list for fourth consecutive year Scarinci Hollenbeck Partner Nathanya G. Simon has been named by ROI-NJ to the “ROI Influencers: Women in Business” list for 2025. After four decades of practice, Nathanya’s pioneering influence in the field of special […]
Author: Nathanya G. Simon
Congratulations Angela Turiano on appointment as Director of Legislative Affairs for SHRM Princeton April 17, 2025 – Little Falls, NJ – Scarinci & Hollenbeck, LLC congratulates Partner Angela Turiano on her appointment as Director of Legislative Affairs for SHRM Princeton. Along with serving as a member of SHRM Princeton’s leadership team, Angela will monitor pending legislative, regulatory, […]
Author: Angela A. Turiano
No Aspect of the advertisement has been approved by the Supreme Court. Results may vary depending on your particular facts and legal circumstances.
Consider subscribing to our Firm Insights mailing list by clicking the button below so you can keep up to date with the firm`s latest articles covering various legal topics.
Stay informed and inspired with the latest updates, insights, and events from Scarinci Hollenbeck. Our resource library provides valuable content across a range of categories to keep you connected and ahead of the curve.
Let`s get in touch!
Sign up to get the latest from the Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC attorneys!