US Supreme Court Recognizes Limited Federal Right to Accommodation for Pregnant Workers

April 13, 2015 by Peter McEntee

The U.S Supreme Court in March issued a decision about the right of pregnant women to a job accommodation under federal law that raises as many questions as it answers. The case arose in the context of UPS’s former policy of not providing accommodations for pregnant workers. (UPS has since reversed course and now provides accommodations). The federal Pregnancy Discrimination Act (PDA) only requires that employers not discriminate against pregnant workers and not treat them any differently than it does other “similarly situated” employees. The PDA does not explicitly require employer accommodations for pregnant workers. In this case, however, the Court held that in some circumstances an employer may be compelled under the PDA to provide an accommodation for a pregnant employee.

In Young v. United Parcel Service, Inc., the plaintiff, a delivery driver, requested an accommodation when her doctor advised that she should not lift more than twenty pounds during her pregnancy. UPS told her that she could not work with a lifting restriction and refused to accommodate her. The plaintiff filed a lawsuit under the PDA alleging UPS discriminated against her by refusing to accommodate her when it accommodates other employees. UPS responded by asserting that its policy only requires accommodations for employees who are injured on the job, have a right to accommodation under the ADA, or lose their DOT certification. The lower courts ruled in favor of UPS, stating that Young could not make a claim because the other employees UPS accommodates are not “similarly situated” to a pregnant employee.

The Supreme Court reversed, finding that an employee may successfully sue under the PDA for failure to accommodate where the employer has provided accommodations to others who, like pregnant workers, are temporarily unable to perform their duties. An employer can still refuse to provide an accommodation, even where these facts are shown, if the employer can prove that its refusal to accommodate was not because of intentional bias but instead was based on a neutral, unbiased business reason. If the employer can accomplish this, the burden shifts back to the employee to prove that the employer’s policy is a pretext and that it places a “significant burden” on women workers that is not justified by the employer’s business reasons.

The decision will have little impact in states such as California that already requires accommodations for pregnant workers. But most states do not have such laws, and in such states – New York, for example – this decision sets up a framework by which pregnant employees may be successful in suing under federal law if an employer refuses to accommodate them. The framework is cumbersome and vague, but at a minimum it provides an incentive for employers to do what UPS ultimately did, adopt a policy of providing accommodations for pregnant workers. Beeson, Tayer and Bodine has offices in California and New York and can answer questions and provide representation in workplace accommodation and other job rights and employment law situations.

Categories:

Newsletter Signup

US Supreme Court Recognizes Limited Federal Right to Accommodation for Pregnant Workers