The Supreme Court revived a lawsuit brought by a United Parcel Service (UPS) employee who was denied light duty work while pregnant, finding that there was a legitimate dispute over whether UPS provided more favorable treatment to non-pregnant employees requiring workplace accommodations.  This action by the Court means that employers must be especially careful when managing light duty requests of pregnant employees to be sure that any denial of light duty is backed up by legitimate reasons. We explain below.  

Background Information:

In Young v. United Parcel Service, Inc.,  Peggy Young was a part-time driver for UPS.  When she became pregnant, her doctor advised her that she should not lift more than 20 pounds. UPS, however, required drivers like Young to be able to lift up to 70 pounds. UPS told Young that she could not work while under a lifting restriction. Young subsequently filed this federal lawsuit, claiming that UPS acted unlawfully and violated the federal Pregnancy Disability Act by refusing to accommodate her pregnancy-related lifting restriction.

In the lawsuit, Young contended that UPS had treated her differently than it did other persons with lifting restrictions that weren't pregnant. She pointed to the fact that UPS had  accommodated several non-pregnant employees whose disabilities created work restrictions similar to hers. Specifically, she pointed to UPS policies that accommodated workers who fell within the following three categories:

(1) employees who were injured on the job;

(2) employees who had disabilities covered by the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA); or

(3) employees who  had lost Department of Transportation (DOT) certifications.

Young  argued that these accommodation policies showed that UPS discriminated against its pregnant employees because UPS utilized a light-duty-for-injury policy for numerous "other persons," but not for pregnant workers.

The Court's Decision:

The trial Court tossed out the case (by granting  UPS' summary judgment motion), finding that those with whom Young had compared herself-those falling within the on-the-job, DOT, or ADA categories-were too different to qualify as "similarly situated comparator[s]." That decision was affirmed on appeal.   

However, this week, the Supreme Court revived the case because it felt there was a genuine dispute over whether UPS provided more favorable treatment to at least some employees whose situation could not reasonably be distinguished from Young's.  The Court sent the case back to the District Court to review the matter using guidelines from the court designed to ferret out  whether UPS' reasons for treating Young less favorably than these other non-pregnant employees could be justified by legitimate non-discriminatory reasons.

As a would-be-concession to employers, the Court noted that the federal Pregnancy Disability Act does not provide pregnant workers with an unconditional "most-favored-nation" status, such that employers who provide one or two workers with an accommodation must provide similar accommodations to all pregnant workers, irrespective of any other criteria.

However, while the above statement suggests employers have great latitude in providing different types of accommodations to different categories of employees, the Court made it clear that employers may have an uphill battle in defending these types of claims.  In reaching this conclusion, the Court laid out how these cases ought to be analyzed. First, the employee must demonstrate that something happened to her and that she was treated differently than non-pregnant employees. Once the employee does so, the employer must then identify a legitimate non-discriminatory reason for the action taken. If the employer can do so, the employee must then present evidence that the reasons offered by the employer to justify its actions are designed to hide its true intention to disadvantage pregnant employees.

The Supreme Court stated that that an individual pregnant employee can make out an initial case of discrimination simply by showing that the employer did not accommodate her, and that the employer did accommodate others "similar in their ability or inability to work."

However, it went on to say that in seeking to justify its refusal to accommodate the employee, the reason offered by the employer "cannot consist simply of a claim that it is more expensive or less convenient to add pregnant women to the category of those whom the employer accommodates".

Finally, the Court explained that an employee can show the employer's discriminatory intent (and win the case) by providing sufficient evidence that (1) the employer's policies impose a significant burden on pregnant workers, and that (2) the employer accommodates a large percentage of non-pregnant workers while failing to accommodate a large percentage of pregnant workers.

Practical Impact of the Court's Decision:

The Supreme Court's decision makes clear that providing accommodations to certain classifications of employees, and not to others, is strong evidence of illegal discrimination. To ensure compliance with the guidance provided by the Supreme Court, you should:

• Review pregnancy leave/accommodation policies and employee handbooks to ensure that accommodation policies exist to cover pregnant employees;

• Review all accommodation policies to determine whether they have the effect of providing accommodations (or more favorable accommodations) for certain individuals (e.g. those injured on-the-job), but not for pregnant employees;

• If you have different accommodation policies for different classifications of employees, review those with counsel to assess whether those policies can be justified in light of the Court's ruling; and

• Provide training and updates to both supervisors and employees. It's especially important to educate supervisors so they say the right thing when asked about the accommodations offered to pregnant employees.

You may call your Firm contact if you wish to discuss any aspect of this article or wish to review whether your accommodation policies and practices meet the requirements of the law or need any other assistance. We can be reached at (818) 508-3700, or online at www.brgslaw.com.