The Supreme Court ruled on March 25 that a pregnant UPS employee who was denied a light-duty position is entitled to a new trial. The Court’s framework for pregnancy discrimination cases allows employees who show that an employer policy that creates a “significant burden” for pregnant employees violates the Pregnancy Discrimination Act (PDA).
THE LAW: The PDA amends Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. It requires that “women affected by pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions 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 ….”
The ADA Amendments Act of 2008 (ADAAA) requires employers to accommodate workers whose disabilities are temporary even if they occurred outside the workplace.
WHAT’S NEW: Peggy became pregnant while working as a driver for UPS. Because of previous miscarriages, her doctor imposed a 20-pound lifting restriction on her early in pregnancy. That restriction would later become 10 pounds. UPS requires drivers to be able to lift up to 70 pounds and lift 150 pounds with assistance. Presented with Peggy’s lifting restrictions, UPS placed her on unpaid leave, and she lost her health coverage.
Peggy filed an EEOC complaint alleging that UPS accommodated other workers with lifting restrictions, but specifically excluded pregnant employees from those accommodations. That practice, she asserted, violated the PDA.
After losing rounds in the lower courts, Peggy appealed to the Supreme Court. (Young v. UPS, No. 12–1226, U.S. Supreme Court, 2015)
After the Court agreed to hear the case, but before oral argument, the EEOC issued new guidelines on accommodating pregnant workers that said that pregnant workers were entitled to any accommodation the employer provided other similarly situated workers.
In deciding the case, the Supreme Court dismissed the EEOC guidelines as going too far and creating a “most favored nation” status for pregnant employees. It also disagreed with UPS’ position that the law merely equated pregnancy discrimination with sex discrimination.
Burden-shifting test
Instead it ruled that pregnant employees can establish a prima facie case by showing that they were pregnant, they requested an accommodation that was denied, and that the employer provided similar accommodations to other disabled workers.
The employer must then show that the accommodation was denied for a “legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason.” That reason may not be that accommodating pregnant workers is more expensive than accommodating other groups.
It’s hard to conceive of a reason that would work.
If an employer did, however, then the employee may attempt to show that the employer’s reason is pretextual and discriminatory and show that the rule creates a “significant burden” for pregnant employees. If the employee can show the employer accommodates a large percentage of nonpregnant employees while failing to accommodate a large percentage of pregnant workers, the Court said the case must go before a jury.
HOW TO COMPLY: Although the High Court rejected the “most favored nation” status for pregnant workers, its ruling in Young v. UPS most likely establishes something that is very similar.
Since the ADAAA requires accommodation of short-term disabilities whether they occur on the job or not, employers should probably focus first on the employee’s medical restrictions and their likely duration, not the cause when determining accommodations.
The Supreme Court didn’t rule on the ADAAA’s disability provisions because it wasn’t the law when Peggy was pregnant in 2006. In fact, the court specifically said it was offering no opinion on whether the ADAAA (or the EEOC’s subsequent interpretation that temporary lifting restrictions resulting from on- or off-job activities are disabilities requiring accommodation) would have changed the outcome. It did, however, say that both may “limit the future significance of our interpretation.”
The best approach may therefore be to accept pregnancy restrictions as disabilities and make reasonable accommodations as you would for any other disability.
Moving the issue into the reasonable accommodation realm does offer employers some advantages. For example, the ADA does not require employers to create light-duty jobs. Employers may fill existing light-duty jobs with disabled employees if they so choose. As long as this process does not discriminate against pregnant workers, it should be meet this decision’s requirements.
Unpaid leave, the accommodation provided in this case, could still be an option as long as it was offered to all similarly situated employees regardless of the reason for their disability.
Coordinate leave
Employers can defuse the “significant burden” argument by coordinating time off with paid leave and maternity leave. Once a pregnant employee has medical restrictions that prevent her from performing her job’s essential functions, she is eligible for FMLA leave.
FMLA-covered employers should have policies in place covering paid leave substitution for unpaid leave. To comply with this decision, that policy should treat leave for pregnancy or other serious health conditions similarly.
