Supreme Court Hears Key Pregnancy Discrimination Case

Author: David B. Weisenfeld, XpertHR Legal Editor

December 4, 2014

The Supreme Court heard arguments yesterday in a pregnancy discrimination case that could have implications for millions of working women and their employers. In Young v. United Parcel Service, the Court is being asked to decide whether an employer that provides work accommodations to nonpregnant employees with work limitations must also do so for pregnant employees.

Former UPS driver Peggy Young claims UPS offered light-duty work assignments to other drivers injured on the job, but refused to make a similar accommodation for her after she became pregnant. Her doctor had recommended that she not lift parcels of more than 20 pounds. UPS denied the lifting restriction, defending that an essential function of a driver's job was the ability to lift packages weighing up to 70 pounds.

UPS attorney Caitlin Halligan told the justices that the company's policy was neutral and did not violate the Pregnancy Discrimination Act (PDA), the law directly at issue in the case. "The policy here distinguishes between on-the-job injuries and off-the-job," Halligan said. "That's a far cry from singling out pregnancy."

But Justice Stephen Breyer responded, "The employer will always have a facially neutral policy. It just turns out that this facially-neutral policy happens to hit pregnant women first. That's the kind of thing that we're trying to stop in this statute."

Young's attorney Samuel Bagenstos argued that was exactly the point. "An employer is required to treat pregnancy the same as other conditions," Bagenstos said. In this case, however, he claims pregnancy is the only condition where light-duty work was not available.

The Obama administration is siding with the employee. Solicitor General Donald Verrilli, Jr. noted, "The point of the Pregnancy Discrimination Act was to reduce the number of women being driven from the workforce." Verrilli also cited the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission's July 2014 guidance advising employers that the PDA requires them to provide the same benefits and leave to women affected by pregnancy as they provide to other workers.

But Justice Antonin Scalia seemed unimpressed in responding, "I thought we've held that we don't give deference to the EEOC." Meanwhile, UPS attorney Caitlin Halligan said the employee's reading of the PDA would mandate special treatment for pregnancy.

UPS has announced it will change its policy effective January 1, 2015, to offer temporary light-duty assignments to pregnant workers. However, Young's attorneys noted that change will not provide back pay or other recourse to pregnant women whose requests have been denied, nor will it affect pregnant women elsewhere.

A decision in the case is expected within the next few months. Both Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Anthony Kennedy were uncharacteristically quiet during the arguments, leaving predictions of the ultimate outcome very much unclear.