After Young v. United Parcel Service, Inc., must employers provide accommodations for pregnant employees?

Peggy Young, a pregnant employee, informs her employer that she has a lifting restriction of 20 pounds and needs an accommodation because she cannot do her job. In Young v. United Parcel Service Inc (UPS), the US Supreme Court faced this issue and was tasked with deciding whether the Pregnancy Discr...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Employee Benefit Plan Review 2015-08, Vol.70 (2), p.14
Main Authors: Willis, Katy, Scully, Matthew
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Americans with Disabilities Act 1990-US
Delivery services
Disability
Employees
Employers
Employment discrimination
Evidence
Express delivery services
Family & Medical Leave Act 1993-US
Federal court decisions
Female employees
Labor law
Personnel policies
Pregnancy
Pregnant women
Sex discrimination
Sex discrimination against women
State court decisions
Supreme Court decisions
Working conditions
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Peggy Young, a pregnant employee, informs her employer that she has a lifting restriction of 20 pounds and needs an accommodation because she cannot do her job. In Young v. United Parcel Service Inc (UPS), the US Supreme Court faced this issue and was tasked with deciding whether the Pregnancy Discrimination Act requires an employer to provide work accommodations to pregnant employees with work limitations. Young requested an accommodation, but did not qualify for light-duty work assignment under UPS's policies and, therefore, her request was denied. Young filed suit under the Pregnancy Discrimination Act alleging, among other things, that if UPS made accommodations for other workers it should have made accommodations for her. Both the district court and the US Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit found in favor of UPS, concluding that UPS's policy was "pregnancy-blind" and that Young was different from the employees UPS was accommodating, but the Supreme Court disagreed, vacating the Fourth Circuit's decision and remanding for further consideration.
ISSN:0013-6808