Supreme Court Decision May Make It Easier To Secure Pregnancy Accommodations

Supreme Court Decision May Make It Easier To Secure Pregnancy Accommodations

Yesterday, in a 6-3 decision, the Supreme Court gave Peggy Young another chance to prove that she was discriminated against when her employer failed to reasonably accommodate her pregnancy. While the decision is complex, it should give pregnant workers a greater chance to secure the accommodations they need, especially when the employer offers similar accommodations to other groups of employees.

Ms. Young was a driver for UPS when she became pregnant. She was advised by her doctor not to lift more than 20 pounds. Her job required her to lift up to 70 pounds. UPS refused to accommodate Ms. Young, and she ended up having to take leave without pay during her pregnancy, losing her employee medical coverage.

Previously, the District Court had granted summary judgment, and the 4^th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed, concluding that Ms. Young could not make a case that UPS violated the Pregnancy Discrimination Act by showing that they providing light duty work to other groups of employees – including drivers who were injured on the job, those who had lost their Department of Transportation certifications, and those who suffered from disabilities covered by the Americans with Disabilities Act – while not providing the same accommodations for pregnant employees.

The Supreme Court disagreed and remanded, sending the case back to the lower courts.

Here’s what employees and employers should take away from this case:

• The fact that an employer accommodates some other worker with a disabling condition, does not necessarily mean that a pregnant worker must receive the same treatment. The Justices state that pregnant workers do not get a “most-favored-nation” status, without considering other criteria.

• An employer can still justify refusing to accommodate a pregnant employee by relying on a “legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason” for denying the accommodation. However, the employee can refute that reasoning by providing sufficient evidence that the employer’s policies impose a significant burden on pregnant workers, and that the ‘legitimate, nondiscriminatory’ reasons are not strong enough to justify that burden.

• An employee “can create a genuine issue of material fact as to whether a significant burden exists by providing evidence that the employer accommodates a large percentage of non-pregnant workers, while failing to accommodate a large percentage of pregnant workers.”

Any employers with policies that currently provide accommodations to some workers, while not providing them to pregnant workers, should have their policies reviewed by an employment lawyer who can explain how this holding my affect them going forward.