US Supreme Court Hears Bias Claim From Pregnant Worker at UPS Inc.

This story appears in the Dec. 8 print edition of Transport Topics.

WASHINGTON — The U.S. Supreme Court last week heard arguments in a high-profile case involving UPS Inc. that may give guidance for employers on whether they must provide “light-duty” jobs or otherwise accommodate pregnant employees unable to perform their normal job duties.

The high court review is of a lawsuit filed by a Maryland-based UPS driver who alleged that in 2006, while she was pregnant, she was discriminated against because UPS would not accommodate her with a job that would not require her to lift packages weighing up to 70 pounds, a driver requirement.

In 2008, Peggy Young filed a complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and sued, saying she had been discriminated against under the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and its companion law, the Pregnancy Discrimination Act of 1978.

Young’s attorney, Samuel Bagenstos, told Supreme Court justices during oral arguments Dec. 3 that Young should have been accommodated in the same manner as any other employee who is disabled or can’t do normal job duties due to a work-related injury.

“If Peggy Young had sought an accommodation for a 20pound lifting restriction that resulted from any number of conditions, whether acquired on or off the job, the [court] record reflects that UPS would have granted that accommodation,” Bagenstos told the court. “But because Peggy Young’s 20-pound lifting restriction resulted from her pregnancy and not from one of those conditions, UPS rejected her request.”

UPS attorney Catlin Halligan said that the company did not discriminate and already has changed its policy. Beginning Jan. 1, UPS will try to accommodate pregnant employees with light-duty work, she said.

The law says that “employers have to treat pregnant employees the same as some distinct group of nonpregnant employees that are similar in their ability or inability to work, and that’s exactly what UPS’s policy is,” Halligan said.

In an Oct. 31 brief, American Trucking Associations supported UPS’ position, saying there would be problems with allowing a pregnant employee to be entitled to any benefit afforded to any class of employee, “even if she were not otherwise a member of that class.”

“The scarcity of non-heavy-lifting jobs means that trucking companies have few options for accommodating any employee with physical restrictions,” ATA said. “They do not have readily available ‘light duty’ jobs to offer.”

It has taken several years for the case to reach the high court, which agreed to hear it on appeal after UPS prevailed twice in the lower courts and in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit in Richmond, Virginia.

U.S. Solicitor General Donald Verrilli Jr., who argued on Young’s behalf, said, “The point of the Pregnancy Discrimination Act is to reduce the number of women who are driven from the workforce or forced to go months without an income as a result of becoming pregnant.”

The Obama administration at first asked the court to reject the appeal, even though it earlier defended a U.S. Postal Service policy similar to the UPS policy.

However, in July the EEOC issued guidance saying that pregnant women ought to be treated the same as other employees who qualify for light-duty work.

“It is correct that the Department of Justice defended the Postal Service practices against charges like those that Ms. Young makes in this case,” Verrilli said in response to a question by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. “Since then, however, the EEOC has issued guidance, and that’s a very significant fact. Congress has charged the EEOC with authority to interpret this statute and with an authority to enforce it.”

During the hourlong oral arguments, several justices attempted to pin down attorneys to help them interpret the meaning of two clauses contained in the Pregnancy Discrimination Act. One of the clauses says sex discrimination includes discrimination on the basis of “pregnancy, childbirth or related medical conditions,” and the other instructs employers to treat pregnant employees the same “as other persons not so affected but similar in their ability or inability to work.”

The Supreme Court is expected to issue its opinion by June.