On March 25, 2015, the United States Supreme Court (the “Court”) handed down its decision in Young v. United Parcel Service Inc. concerning the Pregnancy Discrimination Act, vacating the lower court’s decision and remanding the matter back to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit (“Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals”). The Court found that if an employee makes out a prima facie case by showing she belongs to a protected class, and the employer accommodated others of similar ability or inability to work, the employer must provide legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for denying accommodation of the pregnant employee.

Back in 2006, Peggy Young (“Young”) asked the United Parcel Service Inc. (“UPS”) for temporary lifting restrictions after she became pregnant. After experiencing several miscarriages, Young was advised by her doctor not to lift anything over 20 pounds during the first 20 weeks and then not to lift anything heavier than 10 pounds for the remainder of her pregnancy. Young was told by UPS that she was not allowed to work during this lifting restriction and was forced to stay home, without pay, which eventually caused her to lose her employee medical coverage.

Young brought an action in the District Court claiming that UPS violated the Pregnancy Discrimination Act (“PDA”). Young stated that UPS had policies that accommodated other employees who were injured on the job, had disabilities covered by the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (“ADA”), or lost their licenses to drive commercial vehicles, but nothing for pregnant workers. The District Court granted UPS’s summary judgment because, among other reasons, Young could not meet her initial burden of establishing a prima facie case of discrimination because those she compared herself to, for example, under the ADA, were too different to qualify as similarly situated comparators. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court’s decision and Young appealed to the United States Supreme Court.

In a 6-3 decision, the Court found that Young met the initial burden of her prima facie case. Once the initial burden is carried, the burden then shifts to UPS to provide a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for its different treatment. Such reasons cannot include that it is more expensive or less convenient to the employer to accommodate a pregnant employee. If UPS carries it burden, then Young should have the ability to prove at trial whether those reasons were a pretext for discrimination. The Court stated, “if the facts are as Young says they are, she can show that UPS accommodates most non-pregnant employees with lifting limitations while categorically failing to accommodate pregnant employees with lifting limitations. “ The Court remanded the case to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals to determine whether Young has a genuine issue of material fact as to UPS’s reasons for treating her different from the other employees with lifting restrictions.

The Supreme Court’s decision will impact upon how employers approach requests for accommodations from pregnant employees. The Young case is a reminder to employers to keep abreast of developments in anti-discrimination law and provides guidance on an employer’s responsibilities to pregnant employees.