Young V. UPS Case Study

The question before the Supreme Court concerning the Young v. UPS. Does the Pregnancy Discrimination Act require an employer to provide the same work accommodations to an employee with pregnancy-related work limitations as to employees with similar, but non-pregnancy related, work limitation? (http://www.oyez.org/cases) Samuel Bagenstos on behalf of the petitioner argued that UPS violated the second clause of the PDA. To his understanding the second clause means an employee seeking accommodation or benefits due to pregnancy is entitled to the same accommodation the employer would provide to an employee under the same restriction, but is not pregnant (http://www.oyez.org/cases). He contended that the second clause adds nothing to the first
Bagenstos pointed out that UPS in their summary judgment provides accommodations to drivers with off-the-job injuries that result in DOT disqualification. UPS was not able to point to a single driver who’s had a lifting restriction similar to Peggy Young and not pregnant that did not get accommodated. Justice Breyer mention an easy way for Bagenstos to win in theory was to file a disparate impact claim. A Disparate Impact is an anti-discrimination law that holds that practices in employment may be considered discriminatory and illegal if they have an adverse impact on persons in a protected class. Peggy Young fall under this due to her pregnancy. Bagenstos argue that he didn’t file a disparate claim because he felt the second clause of the PDA says that “Women affected by pregnancy, childbirth, or related conditions shall be treated the same as other persons not so affected but similar in their ability or inability to work (http://www.oyez.org/cases). What that says to an employer is don’t consider whether this person is affected by pregnancy or not so affected. This he felt was more of a vehicle to bring forth a claim more than
Interpreting the PDA to required employers to offer the same accommodations to pregnant workers as all others with comparable physical limitations regardless of factors would be too broad. Congress did not intent for the Act to grant pregnancy such as unconditional “most-favored-nation status” however, congress clearly intended the Act to do more than define sex discrimination to include pregnancy discriminations. The Court held that the petitioner Peggy Young showed that she faced disparate treatment from her employer. Justice Alito wrote a concurrence that mention the language of the PDA makes employers liable for discriminatory conduct. He argued that treatment of pregnant employees should be compared to the treatment of non-pregnant employees in similar abilities and inabilities to