In a 6-3 decision, the Supreme Court of the United States issued an opinion on March 25, 2015, reviving a former UPS driver’s pregnancy discrimination suit against her former employer, UPS. In Young v. United Parcel Services, the Court vacated the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals’ decision granting judgment to UPS, and has potentially made it easier for all plaintiffs to prevail on pregnancy discrimination claims against their employers going forward.

In 2006, UPS denied light duty accommodations to a pregnant employee, Peggy Young, citing their policy of only extending light duty or reassignments to employees who were injured on the job or to employees qualifying as disabled within the meaning of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Young brought suit, alleging the policy resulted in disparate treatment for pregnant workers compared to other employees who were similarly situated in their inability to work. Young alleged that UPS’ actions were in violation of the Pregnancy Discrimination Act, which prohibits employers from discriminating against individuals based on an employees’ pregnancy. The Fourth Circuit had affirmed judgment in favor of UPS, and held that the employee was not entitled to an accommodation based on the language of UPS’ light duty policy because she was not disabled under the Americans with Disabilities Act, nor was she regarded as disabled under the Act.

In its decision, however, the Supreme Court held that individual pregnant workers bringing these types of disparate treatment claims may show disparate treatment through indirect evidence, and may do so using a modified McDonnell-Douglas analysis. Under this analysis, the individual pregnant worker can make out a prima facie case of discrimination by showing:

  1. The worker belongs to a protected class (i.e. she is or was pregnant);
  2. She sought accommodations from her employer;
  3. The employer did not accommodate her; and
  4. The employer accommodated other employees similar in their ability or inability to work.

Once the worker has met these four elements, the employer can then show that it did not accommodate the employee based on legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons. The Court made it clear that those reasons cannot include that it is more expensive or less convenient to accommodate pregnant workers. Once the employer has offered a legitimate reason, the worker can then show that these reasons are pretextual. Workers can take the case to a jury on the “pretextual” issue if the worker shows enough evidence that, “the employer’s policies impose a significant burden on pregnant workers,” and the employer’s reasons “do not justify the burden on pregnant workers.” This showing of pretext can be shown through evidence that the employer accommodates a large percentage of non-pregnant workers, but fails to accommodate a large percentage of pregnant workers. The Court did not seem to consider the glaring fact that most employers limit light duty assignments to on-the-job injuries only. Therefore, such policies will, by their very nature, not accommodate large percentages of pregnant workers since pregnancy is not an on-the-job injury. Hence, this statistical hurdle will be easy for pregnant employees to meet in such circumstances.

Nonetheless, the Court applied this analysis to Young’s case, and to UPS’ policy, and determined that Young presented genuine disputes of fact, “… as to whether UPS provided more favorable treatment to at least some employees whose situation cannot reasonably be distinguished from hers.” The Court then remanded the case to the Fourth Circuit to determine whether Young had created as issue of fact regarding whether UPS’ reasons for treating Young less favorably than non-pregnant employees were pretext for discrimination.

This new, modified prima facie case will make it easier for employees to assert a pregnancy discrimination case based upon an employer’s denial of a light duty assignment even if light duty has been reserved solely for on-the-job injuries. Employers are encouraged to immediately conduct an in-depth review of their light duty policies and practices in light of the Supreme Court’s ruling.

Click here to read the full opinion of the Court.

To read the newsletter in its entirety, please click here.