Young v. United Parcel Service, Inc.

135 S.Ct. 1338 (2015)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

The Pregnancy Discrimination Act says that employers must treat “women affected by pregnancy . . . the same for all employment-related purposes . . . as other persons not so affected but similar in their ability or inability to work. P worked as a part-time driver for D doing pickup and delivery of packages that had arrived by air carrier the previous night. P became pregnant. Her doctor told her that she should not lift more than 20 pounds during the first 20 weeks of her pregnancy or more than 10 pounds thereafter. D required drivers to be able to lift parcels weighing up to 70 pounds (and up to 150 pounds with assistance). D told P she could not work while under a lifting restriction. P stayed home without pay during most of the time she was pregnant and eventually lost her employee medical coverage. P brought this federal lawsuit. P claimed that her co-workers were willing to help her with heavy packages. She also said that D accommodated other drivers who were “similar in their . . . inability to work.” P relied on evidence showing that D would accommodate workers injured on the job, those suffering from ADA disabilities, and those who had lost their DOT certifications. P claimed this showed that D had a light-duty-for-injury policy with respect to numerous “other persons,” but not with respect to pregnant workers. Further evidence indicated that D had accommodated several individuals when they suffered disabilities that created work restrictions similar to hers. D moved for summary judgment. The District Court concluded that P could not show intentional discrimination through direct evidence. It also held that D had offered a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for failing to accommodate pregnant women. The Fourth Circuit affirmed. It wrote that “D has crafted a pregnancy-blind policy” that is “at least facially a ‘neutral and legitimate business practice,’ and not evidence of D’s discriminatory animus toward pregnant workers.” The Supreme Court granted certiorari.