ERISA §4062(e) permits PBGC to protect pensions when a company ceases operations at a facility through a shut down or sale and 20 percent of workers in a pension plan lose their jobs. Its goal is to prevent workers who have been laid off from losing their pensions, too. Typically, PBGC asks the company to increase the plan's funding, so it's less likely to fail. In the past seven years, PBGC has used ERISA §4062(e) to protect pensions covering 180,000 people in 35 states.  

"PBGC's mission is to preserve pensions and jobs," said PBGC Director Josh Gotbaum. "We have targeted our enforcement efforts to be mindful of both. This latest action will give PBGC time to be more thoughtful and more effective."

During the moratorium, from July 8 to December 31, 2014, PBGC will cease enforcement efforts on open and new cases. Companies should continue to report new ERISA §4062(e) events, but PBGC will take no action on those events during the moratorium.

For more information contact Marc Hopkins of the PBGC at (202) 326-4149.

Supreme Court Reviews the Pregnancy Discrimination Act

The Supreme Court is currently reviewing a case from 2007 that involved a pregnant woman who sued her company on the basis that they discriminated against her because of her condition. She asserted that her job should be protected under an amendment to the Civil Rights Act of 1964 however, her employer disagreed. The Pregnancy Discrimination Act of 1978 (PDA) is an amendment to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act which prohibits sex discrimination on the basis of pregnancy. Arguably, the amendment requires an employer to accommodate pregnant women in the same manner they would a disabled employee with similar work limitations. In the case Young v. UPS Inc. the Supreme Court will decide whether or not this is to be the interpretation of the amendment, which could have serious implications on women in the workforce.

Young v. UPS Inc.

Peggy Young, a driver for the United Parcel Service (UPS) became pregnant but wanted to continue her regular work on the condition that she not have to lift packages over twenty pounds. UPS denied this request and Young sued the company on the allegation that it violated the PDA by failing to provide her with the same treatment as it did nonpregnant employees with similar physical limitations. UPS's terms of employment outline three groups of workers the company must accommodate: people with disabilities covered by the Americans with Disabilities Act, people who have experienced on-the-job injuries, and those who had lost their Department of Transportation certification. The company does not include a statement regarding pregnancy, so it feels it is not violating the PDA. The district court sided with UPS, affirming that Young's pregnancy did not fall within the boundaries of the company's policy and that the policy was "pregnancy-blind." In Young's brief asking the Supreme Court to review the case, she stated that UPS was discriminating against pregnant women by not providing accommodations for them in the company's collective bargaining agreement. The case is being reexamined and will be decided in October, 2014.

Implications

Depending on the Supreme Court's decision, women, especially those in low-wage jobs, could be adversely affected if the Court rules in favor of UPS. Women working in traditionally male-dominated occupations could very likely experience conflicts due to the physical limitations of pregnancy. Companies that do not have specific policies regarding employee pregnancy may have issues depending on the Supreme Court's decision.