Supreme Court to Interpret Pregnancy Discrimination Act

On December 3, the Supreme Court will hear arguments in Young v. UPS, an employment and civil rights case that asks the court to interpret language in the Pregnancy Discrimination Act. The Act says that pregnant women “shall be treated the same for all employment-related purposes…as other persons not so affected but similar in their ability or inability to work.”

Over the years, employers and courts have applied—or not applied—this protection for pregnant women in many different ways.

Background on the Case

Peggy Young was a part-time driver for UPS in 2006, when she became pregnant. She was advised by her midwife not to lift more than 20 pounds for the remainder of her pregnancy. Her job, however, required her to be able to lift 70 pounds. Ms. Young asked for light duty status because that was an option UPS provided disabled and injured workers. But the company said she was ineligible, and put her on unpaid leave.

UPS argues its policy was “pregnancy neutral” because it did not discriminate against Young because she was pregnant. Rather, the only people ever put on light duty were those who were legally disabled, injured on the job, or who had lost their federal driver’s certificate. (UPS’ policy has since changed to provide additional accommodations to pregnant women.)

The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in UPS’ favor, finding the company didn’t single out pregnant workers for worse treatment, and didn’t deny pregnant workers the same rights as others who didn’t meet UPS’ requirements for light duty.

Significance of the Ruling

Since the Pregnancy Discrimination Act became part of the Civil Rights Act in 1978, employers and courts have interpreted the extent of its protection very differently. Some companies believe all that matters is whether a policy is pregnancy neutral. Other companies make a point of giving pregnant and non-pregnant workers the same accommodations based on their physical restrictions.

The Supreme Court’s ruling in Young v. UPS could put an end to the ambiguity that’s arguably thwarted the Act’s purpose.