• Home
  • Our People
    • Christine Burns
    • David T. Barton
    • Alison Pulaski Carter
    • Alexandra Miller
    • Cecilia N. Nieto
  • Practice Areas
    • Employment Litigation
    • Employment Law Advice
    • Restrictive Covenants
    • Employment Contracts
    • Compliance
  • BurnsBarton Blog
  • Get Started
  • Contact and Directions

The Supreme Court in Young v. UPS Establishes New Approach to Pregnancy Discrimination and Balks at Ruling for Either Party

March 30, 2015
by Christine Burns
0 Comment

On March 25, 2015, the Supreme Court of the United States in Young v. United Parcel Service, Inc. refused to rule in favor for either Plaintiff, Peggy Young, or Defendant, United Parcel Service, Inc. (“UPS”), and instead, vacated the Fourth Circuit’s ruling and remanded the case back to the Fourth Circuit to apply the Pregnancy Discrimination Act (“Act”) in accordance with a new approach set forth in its opinion.

Ms. Young worked as a part-time package car driver for UPS, a position that required her to lift packages weighing up to 70 pounds.  After becoming pregnant in 2006, Ms. Young’s doctor informed her that she could not lift more than 20 pounds while pregnant.  Because Ms. Young was no longer able to perform the essential functions of her job, UPS required her to go on unpaid leave.  Ms. Young then filed suit, alleging she was subjected to disparate treatment on the basis of pregnancy, in violation of the Pregnancy Discrimination Act.

After rejecting both parties’ interpretations of the Pregnancy Discrimination Act, as well as the EEOC’s recently-published guidelines on pregnancy discrimination, the Court set forth a new approach to the burden-shifting framework set forth in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 that is limited to the pregnancy discrimination context.

Specifically, a plaintiff must prove she belongs to the protected class of pregnant employees, that she sought accommodation, that her employer did not accommodate her, and that the employer did accommodate other employees “similar in their ability or inability to work.”  If the employee can establish these facts, the burden then shifts to the employer to articulate a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for its refusal to accommodate the employee.  If the employer can accomplish this, the burden then shifts back to the employee to prove the reasons articulated by the employer were in fact pretextual.

In this case, UPS met its burden of articulating a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for refusing to accommodate Young by demonstrating that it had a facially-neutral policy of providing temporary light-duty work to drivers who: (1) had suffered an on-the-job injury; (2) had temporarily lost their DOT certification; or (3) suffered from a disability covered by the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”).  The Court did not argue with the legitimacy of UPS’s reasoning, but instead remanded the case to the Fourth Circuit for a determination of whether UPS’s policy was, in fact, a pretext for intentional discrimination.

The Court held that plaintiffs such as Ms. Young can reach a jury on this issue of whether an employer’s policy is pretextual if the employee can show the policy “imposed a significant burden” on pregnant employees and that the employer’s legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason is not sufficiently strong to justify such a burden.  The Court further explained that an employee can reach a jury on the issue of whether a “significant burden” exists if the employee can show the employer accommodates a “large percentage” of non-pregnant employees, yet does not accommodate a “large percentage” of pregnant employees.

The Court refused to grant pregnant employees a “most favored nation” status by requiring that pregnant workers receive the best accommodations made for any employee under any circumstance.  However, the Young decision makes it clear that when employers make accommodations for certain groups of employees, they must be able to articulate a very good reason if they choose to deny similar accommodations to pregnant employees.  Indeed, in some ways, UPS was a victim of its own good deeds.  UPS’s facially-neutral policy accommodated three groups of employees, which left the court to ask this question: “[W]hy, when the employer accommodated so many, could it not accommodate pregnant women as well?”

 

 

About the Author
Christine Burns is the managing partner of BurnsBarton PLC, a firm she started with her partners after practicing for over sixteen years as an associate and partner at Quarles & Brady LLP. Christine’s practice includes a broad spectrum of litigation, specifically focusing on labor and employment. She represents employers in all employment areas, with a special emphasis on providing front-end employment solutions, and on defending employers from civil rights, wrongful discharge, and class action litigation. Christine has tried a wide variety of cases before state and federal courts and juries.
Social Share
  • google-share

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

*
*

Contact BurnsBarton Attorneys

Please call or email any of our attorneys. We’ll talk with you about your needs and design a plan to accomplish your goals. Initial consultations are generally free and we offer flat-fee and alternative billing options for interested clients. Our rates are lower than the large firms we left, but it is our billing policies and practices that make us the most cost-efficient solution for employers in the Southwest.  
 
    Call 602-753-4500

About BurnsBarton PLC

BurnsBarton is a woman-owned business made up of big firm attorneys who have gone small to provide better client service at a lower cost. Our team has the horsepower necessary to handle big cases, while remaining committed to excellent client service. We focus on what we do best: advising and defending employers efficiently, effectively, and successfully. In short, we have “Big Law” experience, with better, more economical service.

Mission Statement

We protect good employers from all types of employment claims. We win cases, and we do so in the most cost-efficient manner possible. We work with the best people on the planet.  

certified-womens-business-enterprise-logo-small

Disclaimer

The information on this web site is not, nor is it intended to be, legal advice. You should contact an attorney for advice on your individual situation. Contacting BurnsBarton PLC does not create an attorney-client relationship.

 

Address: 2201 E. Camelback Road Suite 360 Phoenix, AZ 85016 Phone: 602-753-4500
© 2012 - 2023 BurnsBarton PLC