SCOTUS considers UPS worker's pregnancy bias suit; were accommodations required?
The United Parcel Service defended its refusal to offer light duty to a pregnant woman on Wednesday, even though it has agreed to change its policy beginning in January.
UPS lawyer Caitlin Halligan told the U.S. Supreme Court that the company complied with the Pregnancy Discrimination Act of 1978 when it refused to assign driver Peggy Young to light duty during her pregnancy, report the New York Times and the Washington Post. Young ended up taking unpaid leave.
The federal law requires employers to treat pregnant women the same as “other persons not so affected but similar in their ability or inability to work.”
UPS accommodates workers injured on the job but not those injured outside of work. Halligan said the company’s treatment of those workers is comparable to its treatment of pregnant women, and so the law is satisfied. The company also accommodates disabilities under the Americans with Disabilities Act and those who temporarily lose certification from the U.S. Department of Transportation.
Solicitor General Donald Verrilli Jr., on the other hand, argued pregnant workers should be accommodated when an employer offers an accommodation to “a significant class of employees.”
The case is Young v. United Parcel Service.
Prior coverage:
ABA Journal: “Court to weigh whether employers must accommodate pregnant workers with the same limits as others”
ABAJournal.com: “UPS driver’s pregnancy-bias case to get SCOTUS review”
