Any parent with young children has probably watched Disney's Frozen at least 20 times. That's why when I heard on the radio this morning that the United States Supreme Court had ruled in favor of an employee in a pregnancy discrimination case, the song "For the First Time in Forever" popped into my head. Not a typical reaction for most lawyers, but it has been quite some time since the conservative Supreme Court ruled in favor of a pregnant employee. That, and I have two young kids.
Today the Supreme Court overturned a lower court's decision to grant summary judgment to United Parcel Service, Inc. (UPS) in a lawsuit brought by a pregnant employee who was denied light duty work. In 2006, after UPS delivery driver Peggy Young became pregnant, the company's nurse asked her to provide a doctor's note. Ms. Young explained to her doctor that her job involved driving the early morning shift at the airport and that almost all of her pickups involved envelopes and small packages. Ms. Young's doctor gave her a note indicating that she should not lift more than 20 pounds during the first 20 weeks of her pregnancy. UPS told Ms. Young that they had no alternative or light duty work for her and that she should take unpaid leave until she was no longer pregnant. Eventually, Ms. Young lost her health insurance and job. Ms. Young sued UPS under the federal Pregnancy Discrimination Act of 1978 (PDA) alleging that UPS failed to treat her the way it treated other employees because she was pregnant. She lost twice in the lower courts in Maryland, which agreed with UPS that Young did not prove the company discriminated against her because of her pregnancy.
The Supreme Court agreed to hear the case. The pivotal issue was whether the PDA requires employers provide work accommodations for pregnant employees on the same basis as those provided to non-pregnant employees who are unable to work. UPS maintained that its denial of Ms. Young's light duty request did not violate the PDA since federal law doesn't require accommodations or special treatment for pregnant employees. In essence, UPS alleged it simply treated Ms. Young the same as other workers with similar lifting restrictions stemming from an "off-the-job injury or condition." In October 2014, UPS indicated to the Supreme Court, starting in January 2015, it was voluntarily changing its procedures and would make temporary light duty work available to pregnant workers with medically certified restrictions.
Notably, while the case was pending, the EEOC issued new guidance on the PDA in July 2014. The enforcement guidance provides that employers treat women affected by pregnancy or related medical conditions the same way they treat non-pregnant applicants or employees who are similar in their ability or inability to work. The full text of the guidance is available here.
In a 6-3 opinion, the Supreme Court vacated the Fourth Circuit opinion and remanded the case back to the lower court. The Court indicated that dismissal of the case on summary judgment was not appropriate because there was a genuine dispute as to whether UPS provided more favorable treatment to at least some employees whose situation could not reasonably be distinguished from Ms. Young's situation. On remand, the Fourth Circuit will have to determine whether Ms. Young created a genuine issue of material fact as to whether UPS' reasons for having treated Ms. Young less favorably than it treated non-pregnant employees were pretextual. In essence, Ms. Young gets another day in court.
The lesson for the rest of us is simple and profound, like most of the songs in Frozen; pregnant employees should not be treated differently at work. If accommodations are available for other employees, then pregnant employees get a shot at them too. Otherwise, the consequences become a long-drawn saga in court and there is no magic in that.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
