Supreme Court to Hear Pregnancy Discrimination Case

In 2006, Peggy Young, a UPS air driver, was forced to take an unpaid leave of absence of more than six months from her job when she became pregnant. As a result, Young lost her wages and medical coverage, and her family was put through significant financial hardship.

The ordeal began when Young’s midwife recommended that she refrain from lifting more than 20 pounds during her pregnancy. Young’s job as an air driver rarely required her to lift more than 20 pounds and when heavy lifting did come up there was always someone nearby the assist. Nevertheless, UPS policy does not allow employees under lifting restrictions to work as air drivers.

If she could not continue to work her current job, Young requested to instead be temporarily placed on a light duty assignment. UPS offers light duty positions to employees who have been injured on the job, have become disabled, or have lost their drivers licenses. Young’s request for light duty was denied. The UPS Division Manager told Young that her pregnancy was a liability and she would not be permitted to return to work until after giving birth.

Young filed a lawsuit against UPS in October 2008 for refusing to provide her the same light duty accommodations as non-pregnant employees equally unable to work.

Pregnancy Discrimination Is an Issue Faced by Many Working Women

While many pregnant women are able to continue working through much of their pregnancies, women working more physically demanding jobs are often at risk for being forced out of work if they become pregnant. Jobs that require physical activity are often low-wage jobs and the families who depend on these jobs are less financially equipped to absorb the costs of unpaid leave, especially with a baby on the way. However, pregnant women who continue to work physically demanding jobs through their pregnancies face increased risk of preterm delivery and low birth weight.

Slight job modifications would often allow pregnant employees to continue working through much of their pregnancies while also mitigating the health risks imposed by physically demanding work. Such modifications include assistance with lifting, more frequent breaks, and the ability to sit while working. However, many employers are inflexible and refuse to provide these accommodations. Peggy Young requested assistance with lifting packages of more than 20 pounds and was instead placed on extended, unpaid leave.

Federal Laws Protect Pregnant Workers

Pregnant women should not have to choose between their jobs and a healthy pregnancy. The following are three federal statutes used to protect the right of pregnant women to maintain their employment. Many states also have laws protecting pregnant workers and prohibiting discrimination on the basis of pregnancy.

1. The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)

The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) is a Federal law, passed in 1990, that provides civil rights protections to individuals with disabilities. Among its provisions, the ADA prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability and requires employers to make reasonable accommodations for disabled employees.

Pregnancy itself is not considered a disability for the purposes of the ADA. However, pregnancy-related impairments, such as pre-term labor, hypertension, severe nausea, sciatica, and gestational diabetes can qualify as disabilities if they substantially limit a major life activity. Sitting, reaching, lifting, or bending are just a few examples of “major life activities” provided by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC).

2. The Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA)

The Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) is a Federal law, passed in 1993, that entitles eligible employees to take up to 12 weeks of job-protected, unpaid medical leave to care for a new child or an ailing family member. FMLA also entitles employees to medical leave when a serious health condition prevents the employee from being able to work. This includes situations where the employee’s inability to work is related to pregnancy or prenatal care.

Unfortunately, many employers use FMLA as an excuse to avoid making reasonable accommodations and simply force pregnant employees to take FMLA leave. As a result, pregnant workers often use up most or all of their 12 weeks of FMLA leave before their babies are even born and are left without job-protected time off for childbirth and infant care.

3. The Pregnancy Discrimination Act (PDA)

The Pregnancy Discrimination Act (PDA) is a Federal law, passed in 1978, that amended the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act (1964) to prohibit discrimination on the basis of pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions. The PDA requires employers to treat pregnant women the same as other employees with a similar ability or inability to work. Peggy Young is suing UPS pursuant to the PDA.

The EEOC Recently Issued Additional Guidelines on Pregnancy Discrimination

On July 14, 2014 the EEOC issued an updated enforcement guidance document, clarifying the requirements of the PDA and other Federal statutes relevant to pregnancy discrimination. Issues covered by the EEOC guidance include:

• Pregnant workers cannot be forced to take leave when they are able to work
• Similarly situated men and women must be grated parental leave on equal terms
• When pregnancy related impairments require accommodations under the ADA
• When employers must provide light duty assignments to pregnant workers

Regarding light duty assignments, the EEOC guidance clarifies that pregnant employees must be granted the same access to light duty as other employees similarly unable to complete their job duties. Disparate treatment may be proven via:

• Pregnancy-related comments, such as, “having a pregnant worker in the workplace creates too much liability,” accompanying a denial of light duty
• Other workers equally unable to work given light duty – the fact that pregnancy is not an injury, illness, or disability is irrelevant if the inability to work is the same
• Disparate impact – where a light duty policy disproportionately denies pregnant workers light duty, the employer must prove the policy was a job-related business necessity

As you can see, the EEOC guidance appears to be directly referencing Peggy Young’s case. The guidelines even use a 20-pound lifting restriction as an example of a pregnancy-related handicap that would require light duty.

The Supreme Court Will Examine Pregnancy Discrimination in the Workplace

Peggy Young cited the PDA as the basis for her 2008 lawsuit against UPS. The Maryland District Court ruled in favor of UPS, holding that a policy that only provides light duty assignments to employees with on-the-job injuries, ADA disabilities, or suspended drivers licenses is gender-neutral and does not suggest an animus against pregnant women. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed this ruling, finding that the policy was “pregnancy-blind” and that to hold otherwise would read a “preferential treatment” mandate into the statute that was not intended by Congress.

As evidenced by the guidelines issued earlier this summer, the EEOC’s interpretation of the PDA is in stark contrast to the Fourth Circuit’s. This places the Supreme Court in the position of choosing between the EEOC and Fourth Circuit’s conflicting interpretations of the PDA. If the Court finds in favor of Peggy Young and upholds the EEOC guidelines, this would be a huge step forward in terms of equal accommodations for pregnant employees.

Sources:

• Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, “Enforcement Guidance: Pregnancy Discrimination and Related Issues,” 2014.
• National Women’s Law Center & A Better Balance, “It Shouldn’t Be a Heavy Lift: Fair Treatment for Pregnant Workers,” 2013.
• Young v. United Parcel Service, “Petition for a Writ of Certiorari,” 2013.