Presented by the Employment Law Practice Group

Legal Updates for Employment Law

April 8, 2015

The U.S. Supreme Court determines that the Pregnancy Discrimination Act requires a new standard.

by Candace D. Embry, Esq.*

The U.S. Supreme Court issued its opinion in Young v. United Parcel Service, Inc., on March 25, 2015, in which the Court was faced with whether, and in what circumstances, an employer is required to provide the same accommodations to pregnant employees with work limitations as it would to non-pregnant employees who are similar in their ability or inability to work.

The case arose when a pregnant employee requested a light duty accommodation following her doctor's order that she not lift more than 20 pounds. UPS policies, at the time, offered light duty accommodations only to workers who suffered an on-the-job injury, workers with disabilities as defined by the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), or workers otherwise medically unable to drive.

The Pregnancy Discrimination Act requires that women affected by pregnancy be treated the same for all employment purposes. The Supreme Court determined that a pregnant employee can state a claim for disparate treatment under the Act if she can show that she requested an accommodation, the employer did not provide an accommodation, and the employer accommodated others "similar in their ability to work." It is then up to the employer to show a legitimate nondiscriminatory reason for its refusal to provide an accommodation, with the ability of the pregnant employee to counter the employer's position by showing the policies impose a significant burden on pregnant workers.

Interestingly, following this lawsuit, UPS amended its policy to permit light duty accommodations to pregnant employees.

In light of the Supreme Court's decision on this topic, employers should be advised that:

The Pregnancy Discrimination Act requires that women affected by pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions be treated the same for all employment purposes; and
"Pregnancy blind" workplace policies that provide accommodations to employees with temporary disabilities may be interpreted to require the employer to provide the same accommodations to pregnant employees.

Employers must also be mindful of policies that may indirectly exclude pregnant employees from benefits otherwise provided to non-pregnant employees and proactively contemplate updates to those policies in response to the Supreme Court's decision.

*Candace is an associate in our Philadelphia, Pennsylvania office who can be reached at (215) 575-2884 or cdembry@mdwcg.com.

_{The material in this law alert has been prepared for our readers by Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin. It is solely intended to provide information on recent legal developments, and is not intended to provide legal advice for a specific situation or to create an attorney-client relationship. We welcome the opportunity to provide such legal assistance as you require on this and other subjects. To be removed from our list of subscribers who receive these complimentary Legal Updates for Employment Law, please contact rkodonnell@mdwcg.com. If however you continue to receive the alerts in error, please send a note to rkodonnell@mdwcg.com.}