Vol. 79/No. 13      April 13, 2015

Young, who worked for UPS in Landover, Maryland, was denied light duty in 2006, despite her doctor’s recommendation that she not lift more than 20 pounds because of a history of miscarriages. “We’re not making an accommodation for her because she is not disabled,” the company said. Young took unpaid leave and lost her medical coverage.

A district court ruled in favor of UPS and the Fourth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals agreed, saying the company’s policy was “pregnancy-blind.”

Young had filed her case based on the Pregnancy Discrimination Act of 1978. The act prohibits sex discrimination on the basis of “pregnancy, childbirth or related medical conditions,” and directs employers to treat pregnant workers the same “as other persons not so affected but similar in their ability or inability to work.”

Speaking for the Supreme Court majority, Justice Stephen Breyer wrote that the Pregnancy Discrimination Act makes clear that the prohibition against sex discrimination in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 “applies to discrimination based on pregnancy.”

Breyer said that the appeals court and UPS were right that the Pregnancy Discrimination Act did not justify a “most favored nation” status for women. But, he wrote, this did not settle the key factual question — “whether UPS provided more favorable treatment to at least some employees whose situation cannot reasonably be distinguished from Young’s.”

During the deliberations, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg accused UPS of having a “least favored nation” approach to pregnant workers. She challenged UPS lawyer Caitlin Halligan to provide “a single instance of anyone who needed a lifting dispensation who didn’t get it except for pregnant people.”

Meanwhile, UPS has changed its policy. Starting Jan. 1 this year pregnant employees became eligible for light duty.
 
 
Related articles:
New Zealand protesters defend abortion rights
 
 
 
Front page (for this issue) | Home | Text-version home