Supreme Court Delivers New Life to Pregnancy Discrimination Claims in Young v. United Parcel Service, Inc.

The Pregnancy Discrimination Act (PDA) makes it illegal for employers to discriminate against pregnant women at work. Despite this law, many employees still face discrimination. One common complaint is that employers won’t make accommodations for pregnant workers. In the past, employers tried to comply with the law by giving light-duty work to pregnant employees, but some workers said this was unfair. Now, pregnant employees are challenging their employers to provide accommodations. A recent Supreme Court case has given more power to pregnant workers in discrimination claims. Florida laws have also been changed to provide more protections for pregnant employees. The Pregnancy Discrimination Act (PDA) was passed in 1978 to protect pregnant workers from being treated unfairly at work. It was made because of a Supreme Court case that said it wasn’t discrimination to exclude pregnancy from a disability plan. After the PDA, some employers still tried to make policies that harmed pregnant workers, but in 1991 the Supreme Court said that it was illegal to keep women from certain jobs because of the risk to their pregnancies. In Young v. United Parcel Service, Inc., the Supreme Court made a decision about how pregnant women should be treated at work. They looked at a law that says pregnant women should be treated the same as other workers who can or cannot work. The Court asked whether this means only comparing work limitations or if other similarities and differences should be considered. The justices had different opinions, with some siding with the majority, some writing their own opinions, and others dissenting. A UPS driver, Peggy Young, couldn’t lift heavy packages during her pregnancy. UPS put her on unpaid leave instead of providing lighter work. Peggy sued UPS for discriminating against her because she was pregnant. The Supreme Court agreed with Peggy. They said that employers must accommodate pregnant employees if they accommodate other employees who can’t do their usual job. This decision also affects Florida law, which now protects pregnant workers from discrimination. The Young v. UPS case could have a big impact on pregnancy discrimination claims. More lawsuits might be brought as people figure out what accommodations are required for pregnant employees. There might be disputes over what employees are considered similar in their ability to work. This case could also have a long-term effect on employment and administrative law. The Supreme Court’s decision could mean that employers have to provide pregnant employees with different jobs if their current job might be harmful to the pregnancy. Under the PDA, the accommodation analysis for pregnant employees is different from the ADA. If a pregnant employee needs accommodations, the employer should consider if she can still do her job and what accommodations can be made. The employer should also consider how it has accommodated other employees with similar limitations. It is not clear who will be considered similar to pregnant employees, but the Supreme Court suggested that various types of employees could be considered. The Supreme Court said that pregnant workers don’t get special treatment under the PDA. They also said that not all employees can be compared to pregnant workers when it comes to getting accommodations. They gave examples of employees who may not be similar enough to pregnant workers. When looking at whether an employer is lying about their reasons for not accommodating a pregnant worker, the Court said that evidence should show that the employer accommodates most workers with lifting restrictions, but not pregnant workers. They didn’t talk about how former drivers who lost their certification were considered similar to pregnant workers, even though they were given different jobs. Justice Alito thinks that pregnant and non-pregnant employees are not the same when it comes to their ability to work if they can’t work for different reasons. He said that if an employer has a good reason for treating them differently, then it’s okay. He pointed out that other laws, like the ADA and workers’ compensation laws, require special treatment for certain employees, and those are good reasons. He also said that UPS didn’t have a good reason for treating pregnant drivers differently, so the case should have been decided in favor of the pregnant employee. But the rest of the judges didn’t agree with him, so we have to wait and see if other courts will listen to his opinion. The Young v. UPS decision has big implications for employment law. The Court’s decision blurs the line between two important legal standards for proving discrimination in the workplace. This could make it easier for employees to prove discrimination based on pregnancy, even if their employer didn’t intend to discriminate. It could also mean that companies could be ordered to pay damages for pregnancy discrimination, even if they didn’t mean to discriminate. This could change how companies handle pregnancy in the workplace. In the case Young v. United Parcel Service, the Supreme Court made it easier for employees to win pregnancy discrimination claims. The Court ruled that employers need to provide accommodations for pregnant workers if they provide accommodations to other employees with similar limitations. This means that pregnant employees cannot be treated differently from non-pregnant employees when it comes to accommodations. This decision may make it more challenging for employers to handle pregnancy-related issues in the workplace. As a result, it is important for employers to review their policies and engage in an interactive process with pregnant employees to determine reasonable accommodations. The U.S. Supreme Court made a decision in Young v. UPS that pregnant workers are protected from discrimination under the Pregnancy Discrimination Act. This means that employers cannot treat pregnant employees unfairly because of their pregnancy. The decision was important because it clarified the rights of pregnant workers under the law. It also highlighted the need for pregnant workers to be treated fairly in the workplace. The decision had an impact on laws in Florida, where the state made changes to protect pregnant workers from discrimination in employment. The Supreme Court sent the case back to the Fourth Circuit to decide if Young showed that UPS was lying about their reasons for not accommodating her. The court found that Young did raise doubts about UPS’ reasons for not accommodating her. One unintended consequence of this decision might be that it affects union negotiations. The dissenting opinion disagreed with the majority’s decision. The EEOC has changed its rules because of this case. Nicole Bermel Dunlap is a lawyer in Tampa who works for a law firm. She has been representing employers in legal matters for seven years.

Source: https://www.floridabar.org/the-florida-bar-journal/supreme-court-delivers-new-life-to-pregnancy-discrimination-claims-in-young-v-united-parcel-service-inc/