The U.S. Supreme Court will consider yet another high-profile women’s health issue next term.
The 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.
The Facts of the Case
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 Prior Court Rulings
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 Issues Before the Supreme Court
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.
Does Your Homeowners Insurance Provide Adequate Coverage?
Your home is likely your greatest asset, which is why it is so important to adequately protect it. Homeowners insurance protects you from the financial costs of unforeseen losses, such as theft, fire, and natural disasters, by helping you rebuild and replace possessions that were lost While the definition of “adequate” coverage depends upon a […]
Understanding the Importance of a Non-Contingent Offer
Making a non-contingent offer can dramatically increase your chances of securing a real estate transaction, particularly in competitive markets like New York City. However, buyers should understand that waiving contingencies, including those related to financing, or appraisals, also comes with significant risks. Determining your best strategy requires careful analysis of the property, the market, and […]
Fred D. Zemel Appointed Chair of Strategic Planning at Scarinci & Hollenbeck, LLC
Business Transactional Attorney Zemel to Spearhead Strategic Initiatives for Continued Growth and Innovation Little Falls, NJ – February 21, 2025 – Scarinci & Hollenbeck, LLC is pleased to announce that Partner Fred D. Zemel has been named Chair of the firm’s Strategic Planning Committee. In this role, Mr. Zemel will lead the committee in identifying, […]
Novation Agreement Process: Step-by-Step Guide for Businesses
Big changes sometimes occur during the life cycle of a contract. Cancelling a contract outright can be bad for your reputation and your bottom line. Businesses need to know how to best address a change in circumstances, while also protecting their legal rights. One option is to transfer the “benefits and the burdens” of a […]
What Is a Trade Secret? Key Elements and Legal Protections Explained
What is a trade secret and why you you protect them? Technology has made trade secret theft even easier and more prevalent. In fact, businesses lose billions of dollars every year due to trade secret theft committed by employees, competitors, and even foreign governments. But what is a trade secret? And how do you protect […]
What Is Title Insurance? Safeguarding Against Title Defects
If you are considering the purchase of a property, you may wonder — what is title insurance, do I need it, and why do I need it? Even seasoned property owners may question if the added expense and extra paperwork is really necessary, especially considering that people and entities insured by title insurance make fewer […]
No Aspect of the advertisement has been approved by the Supreme Court. Results may vary depending on your particular facts and legal circumstances.
Sign up to get the latest from our attorneys!
Explore What Matters Most to You.
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.
U.S. Supreme Court to Address Pregnancy Discrimination
Author: Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC
The U.S. Supreme Court will consider yet another high-profile women’s health issue next term.
The 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.
The Facts of the Case
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 Prior Court Rulings
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 Issues Before the Supreme Court
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.
Let`s get in touch!
Sign up to get the latest from the Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC attorneys!
