In a 6-3 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court has handed a victory to Peggy Young and pregnant workers in Young v. United Parcel Service. Now it’s back to the Fourth Circuit to hash out the case.
“The Court has put employers on notice: pregnancy is not a reason to discriminate. The Court said that if you accommodate most non-pregnant workers who need it but not most pregnant workers who need it, you may be found guilty of violating the Pregnancy Discrimination Act,” said Marcia D. Greenberger, Co-President of the National Women’s Law Center in a statement in response to the ruling.
Young, whose boss at UPS told her to take unpaid leave when she asked for a break from heavy lifting on her job because of her pregnancy, sued UPS for discrimination. A district court ruled in favor of UPS on a summary judgment motion, and the Fourth Circuit affirmed, saying that UPS had created a “pregnancy-blind policy.”
Savvy employers accommodate pregnant workers. (Credit: Pacific Images/Getty Images)
Young had asked for “light duty” and pointed out that UPS gave “light duty” to other non-pregnant employees, including those injured on the job and employees with a disability as defined under the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Court asks: “Why, when the employer accommodated so many, could it not accommodate pregnant women as well?”
That’s a question a lot of pregnant women have been asking lately. The EEOC has identified accommodating pregnancy-related limitations under the Americans with Disabilities Act Amendments Act and the Pregnancy Discrimination Act as a national enforcement priority through 2016.
The Court found that Young created a genuine dispute as to whether UPS provided more favorable treatment to at least some employees whose situation cannot reasonably be distinguished from hers. So it has left it to the Fourth Circuit to determine “whether Young also created a genuine issue of material fact as to whether UPS’ reasons for having treated Young less favorably than these other nonpregnant employees were pretextual.”
The Court rebuked the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, which issued guidelines in July of 2014 granting broad protections to pregnant workers under the Americans With Disabilities Act, after the Supreme Court agreed to hear Young’s case. “The EEOC clearly will have to go back to the drawing board based on the Court’s decision,” says Barry Hartstein, an employment lawyer with Littler Mendelson.
Meanwhile states and cities are enacting their own laws requiring employers to accommodate pregnant workers. A Better Balance has a list here.
The Court did give a nod to UPS: “We agree with UPS to this extent: We doubt that Congress intended to grant pregnant workers an unconditional most-favored-nation status.” So if an employer provides one or two workers with an accommodation, that doesn’t mean an employer has to provide similar accommodations to all pregnant workers.
Justice Antonin Scalia, who wrote the dissent, scoffed at the majority, saying that under the Court’s reasoning, “If Boeing offered chauffeurs to injured directors, it would have to offer chauffeurs to pregnant mechanics. And if Disney paid pensions to workers who can no longer work because of old age, it would have to pay pensions to workers who can no longer work because of childbirth.”
Justice Stephen Breyer delivered the opinion, joined by Justices John Roberts, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan. Justice Samuel Ailito filed an opinion joining. Justices Anthony Kennedy and Clarence Thomas joined in the dissent.
