Insights

Supreme Court Creates New Framework for Deciding Pregnancy Discrimination Claims

What you need to know:

The US Supreme Court recently decided a case where it created a new framework for proving pregnancy-related discrimination, making it easier for cases to reach a jury.

What you need to do:

Employers should exercise care when considering whether to accommodate a pregnant employee. Employers should also review written employment policies, and revisit unwritten practices and procedures, to ensure that they do not impose impermissibly harsh or disparate treatment on employees with pregnancy-related impairments.

Background: Young v. United Parcel Service, Inc.

Peggy Young worked as a part-time driver for UPS. When she became pregnant, her doctor advised her not to lift more than 10 to 20 pounds during pregnancy. Young requested light duty, but UPS denied her request, stating that it only offered light duty to employees with on-the-job injuries and those who were disabled under the Americans with Disabilities Act .

The district court in Young rejected the employee’s claim that she was entitled to the same accommodations as non-pregnant workers. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals agreed. The plaintiff appealed to the US Supreme Court.

The Decision

Reversing the Fourth Circuit’s decision, the US Supreme Court returned the case to the appellate court. The Supreme Court rejected Young’s contention that an employer must provide pregnant workers with the same accommodations that it provides non-pregnant workers. Significantly, however, the high court also rejected UPS’ argument that as long as the accommodation policies were “pregnancy neutral,” they did not run afoul of the Pregnancy Discrimination Act .

As a result, the Supreme Court established a new burden-shifting framework for PDA cases. Under this framework, a plaintiff may prove disparate treatment by showing that

  1. she belongs to a protected class;
  2. she sought accommodation;
  3. the employer did not accommodate her;
  4. the employer did accommodate others similar in their ability or inability to work.

The employer must then show it had a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for denying her accommodation, as is typical in discrimination cases. The plaintiff then has an opportunity to prove that the employer’s justification is pretextual by showing that the employer accommodates a large percentage of non-pregnant workers while failing to accommodate a large percentage of pregnant workers.

EEOC’s Guidance on Pregnancy Discrimination

While the case was pending before the Supreme Court, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (issued guidance on pregnancy discrimination, which included a controversial provision. Specifically, the guidance states that if an employer provides an accommodation to an employee with disability-related limitations, it must provide the same accommodations to a pregnant employee who has similar limitations regardless of whether the employee is disabled for ADA purposes.  The Supreme Court expressly declined to follow the EEOC guidance, noting the timing of the guidance and that it was inconsistent with the agency’s past position taken in other litigation. The EEOC has indicated that it plans to update its guidance on pregnancy discrimination in light of the Supreme Court’s decision.

What This Decision Means for Employers

Although the Supreme Court remanded the case back to the Fourth Circuit, the new framework established by the Court lowers the burden for plaintiffs and makes it easier for cases to reach a jury. Policies that tend to negatively impact pregnant employees, especially where there is evidence that non-pregnant employees received the requested accommodation, are likely to be deemed discriminatory.

Conclusion

Young v. UPS represents an expansion of rights for employees under the PDA, though the parameters of that expansion have yet to be fully defined. It is likely that subsequent case law and new EEOC guidance will resolve the ambiguities inherent in Young in the coming months. In the meantime, employers should work closely with their employment counsel to formulate policies and make employment decisions that fully comply with current federal, state, and local law, including the ADA’s expanded definition of disability to cover temporary conditions, which was not at issue in Young.