The U.S. Supreme Court has asked the federal government to provide an opinion on whether the Pregnancy Discrimination Act requires employers to accommodate pregnant employees.
The Court received a petition to hear Young v. United Parcel Service, Inc., a case from earlier this year in which the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that a corporate policy that does not include pregnancy among the conditions making an employee eligible for light duty is a “neutral and legitimate business practice.” That petition is still pending, as the Court evaluates briefs from both parties. It was as part of that process that the Court recently asked the Solicitor General to file a brief expressing the views of the United States.
In Young, the 4th Circuit held that UPS did not violate PDA by limiting light-duty accommodations to employees: (1) injured on the job; (2) disabled as defined by the Americans with Disabilities Act; or (3) legally unable to work as truck drivers due to a loss of their U.S. Department of Transportation certification, the court held. (Note: Kathryn McGovern contributed to this story.)
In appealing to the Supreme Court, Peggy Young alleged that the 4th Circuit disregarded PDA’s statutory text in holding that UPS is not required to provide workplace accommodations to a pregnant employee. The law states that “women affected by pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions shall be treated the same for all employment-related purposes, including receipt of benefits under fringe benefit programs, as other persons not so affected but similar in their ability or inability to work.” (42 U.S.C. §2000e(k)) Although the 4th Circuit noted that the three categories of workers UPS accommodates are different from pregnant workers in other respects, they are similar in the only respect the statutory text makes relevant: their “ability or inability to work,” Young’s petition argues.
The 4th Circuit also ignored the law’s legislative history, she alleged. Holding that “‘pregnancy-blind’ rules can insulate an employer from PDA liability would render ineffective Congress’s acknowledged effort to overturn General Electric Co. v. Gilbert, 429 U.S. 125 (1976), for the disability insurance plan at issue in Gilbert was ‘pregnancy-blind’ in the same way UPS’s accommodations policies are ‘pregnancy-blind’ here,” she said.
This case is ripe for Supreme Court consideration because the circuit courts are split on the issue, Young’s petition argues. The 4th Circuit’s decision is in line with the 5th, 7th and 11th Circuits, but conflicts with the positions of the 6th and 10th, according to the petition.
For more on workplace accommodations, visit Thompson’s HR Compliance Expert.