Supreme Court Rules Against UPS in Pregnancy Discrimination Case

Author: David B. Weisenfeld, XpertHR Legal Editor

March 26, 2015

The Supreme Court has reinstated a former UPS driver's pregnancy discrimination case against the company, finding that she raised a genuine jury issue about whether the employer's policies imposed a significant burden on pregnant workers.

The 6-3 ruling in Young v. United Parcel Service found lower courts never considered why UPS could not accommodate pregnant women seeking light-duty work at the same time the employer was accommodating other nonpregnant employees. However, the justices did not decide whether discrimination actually had occurred.

Peggy Young claimed that UPS offered light-duty work assignments to other drivers injured on and off the job, but refused to provide her with a similar accommodation after she became pregnant. Her doctor had recommended that Young not lift parcels of more than 20 pounds. UPS defended that an essential function of a driver's job was to lift packages of up to 70 pounds.

Writing for the Court, Justice Stephen Breyer said, "If the facts are as Young says they are, she can show that UPS accommodates most nonpregnant employees with lifting limitations while categorically failing to accommodate pregnant employees."

The Court's opinion appears to carve out a middle ground as it pointedly refused to rely on the EEOC's 2014 Enforcement Guidance advising employers that the Pregnancy Discrimination Act requires employers to provide the same benefits and leave to women affected by pregnancy as they provide to other workers.

The majority also said it agreed with UPS in doubting that Congress intended to grant pregnant workers "an unconditional most-favored-nation status." The Court explained that just because an employer provides one or two workers with an accommodation does not mean it must provide similar accommodations to all pregnant workers, regardless of the nature of their jobs.

Effective January 1, 2015, UPS had changed its policy to offer temporary light-duty assignments to pregnant workers. However, that change does not provide back pay or other recourse to pregnant women whose past accommodation requests had been denied.