By Larry Hayman
Pre-Law Specialist
Ohio University Center for Law, Justice & Culture
In a case that brings together unlikely allies, the United States Supreme Court on Dec. 3 heard oral arguments in a case that seeks to determine whether, and in what circumstances, the federal Pregnancy Discrimination Act requires an employer that provides work accommodations to non-pregnant employees with work limitations to provide work accommodations to pregnant employees who are similar in their ability or inability to work.
In this case, Peggy Young was a part-time UPS driver. She became pregnant in 2006 and was advised by her midwife not to lift more than 20 pounds for the duration of her pregnancy. Because her job at UPS required her to be able to lift up to 70 pounds, she requested an accommodation—to be placed on light duty. UPS refused, noting it provided these accommodations only to certain workers, including those who sustained injuries on the job or who were covered by the Americans with Disabilities Act.
According to UPS’s argument, its policy was “pregnancy neutral.” That is, its policy only provided light duty accommodations to people who were injured on the job, covered by the ADA, or had lost their driver’s license. Because Young did not fit into these categories, it had no duty to accommodate her. The lower courts sided in favor of UPS, finding that UPS did not single out pregnant workers for worse treatment and did not deny pregnant workers who met UPS requirements for light duty that accommodation.
On Young’s side, women’s rights groups and anti-abortion groups have joined together, though for different reasons. The Women’s Law Project and Legal Momentum have filed briefs supporting Young. In their opinion, the lower courts erred and “misconceive[d] the gender stereotyping behind pregnancy discrimination.” Americans United for Life also support Young, but argue that the legislative purpose behind the Pregnancy Discrimination Act was to “protect women from economic pressure to abort their children because of pregnancy discrimination.”
Young may face a number of historical hurdles. Indeed, gender discrimination cases have not always fared well before the high court. In 1976, for example, the justices ruled that unfavorable treatment against pregnant women did not constitute sex discrimination. Similarly, in 2009, the justices found that Lilly Ledbetter had not brought a timely case though she made significantly less than all similarly situated male employees at her place of employment. More to the point, just this year, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, only the second woman appointed to the Court, suggested that the male justices on the Supreme Court may have a “blind spot” when it comes to women’s issues. Moreover, both of the cases required an act of Congress to remedy the harm complained about by the plaintiffs.
A decision is expected by June 2015.
Comments