The US Supreme Court is considering the extent of protections that pregnant workers are entitled to in a case brought against United Parcel Services (UPS). While the court has not yet reached a decision on the matter briefs have been file, oral argument has been conducted and we have a sound idea of the positions of each party. In light of the questions asked by the Justices, this matter can be instructive for employers in order to avoid potential financial liability due to a employment discrimination claim.
The Jayson Law Group is dedicated to providing straight-forward, and thoroughly considered legal advice regarding employment issues and regulatory concerns. Our experienced business and commercial attorneys guide an array of established corporations and emerging start-up companies.
What occurred to bring about the discrimination claim?
Peggy Young, the plaintiff, worked as an air driver, or delivery truck driver, for UPS. She was an employee of the company when she, in 2006, asked for a leave of absence due to a scheduled in vitro fertilization procedure. The procedure was a success and Young tested pregnant. As is common for pregnant woman, Young was advised to refrain from lifting heavy objects which generally restricted her from lifting and carrying any item weighing more than 20 pounds for the first 20 weeks of her pregnancy. Thereafter she would be limited to lifting no more than 10 pounds. This medical restriction was in contradiction to company policy that requires employees to be able to lift and carry items weighing up to 70 pounds. Because Young could not meet this requirement and had already used all allotted medical and family leave, the company required her to take an unpaid leave of absence which resulted in the loss of her health insurance and pension.
After giving birth to her child, Young returned to work at UPS and sue the company for discrimination under the Pregnancy Discrimination Act. At the trial court level UPS moved for summary judgment on three grounds:
- UPS’ actions were not based on her pregnancy.
- She had not been treated any differently from a similarly situated worker.
- Reasonable accommodations, as required by the Americans with Disabilities Act, were not appropriate in this matter because pregnancy should not be considered a disability.
Summary judgment for the defendants was granted at the federal district court level. The district court’s decision was affirmed by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. The US Supreme Court granted certiorari. The court is expected to address whether the Pregnancy Discrimination Act requires an employer to provide reasonable work accommodations to a worker with pregnancy-based limitations as it would to a worker with similar, but non-pregnancy-based, limitations.
What does the Pregnancy Discrimination Act of 1978 require?
The Pregnancy Discrimination Act reads, in part, “shall be treated the same for all employment-related purpose … as other persons not so affected but similar in their ability or inability to work.” 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.”
While this language appears to be clear, the fact is that companies have interpreted this language in wildly different ways. UPS believed that its then-current policy was pregnancy neutral because it only provided light work accommodations for certain defined reasons. Other companies have policies that provide accommodations based on the actual limitations experienced rather than the limiting injury or medical condition. Other companies have chartered other divergent policies regarding this law.
The Court has struggled to grapple with the case, chiefly because it is rare for a matter decided on summary judgment and without a fully developed record to reach the Court. But, perhaps the typically conservative Justice Alito offered a window into the court’s thinking when he asked the defendant’s counsel, “You really think that you could prove at trial that if somebody is injured in a recreational activity over the weekend, that they get light duty but a pregnant women does not, maybe?” This skepticism may foreshadow necessary changes for companies with policies similar to those in effect at UPS.
Rely on the experience of the Jayson Law Group for employment law concerns
The attorneys of the Jayson Law Group are experienced in addressing the legal concerns of established corporations and emerging start-ups. We provide dependable and thoroughly considered advice regarding a broad array of employment law concerns and commercial matters. For a confidential legal consultation, call the Jayson Law Group at (908)768-3633 or contact us online.
Source: