Supreme Court ruling in suit against UPS empowers advocates for state Pregnant Workers Fairness Act

peggyyoung.jpg

In this Dec. 3, 2014 file photo, Peggy Young, a Virginia woman who lost her UPS job because she became pregnant, speaks to reporters outside the Supreme Court in Washington. The Supreme Court is giving the former UPS driver another chance to prove her claim of discrimination after the company did not offer her lighter duty when she was pregnant. The justices on Wednesday sided with former driver Peggy Young in throwing out lower court rulings that rejected Young's lawsuit.

(ASSOCIATED PRESS FILE)

A U.S. Supreme Court ruling this week that opens the door for further legal action in a pregnancy discrimination lawsuit against UPS has empowered advocates for a state accommodation act for pregnant workers.

"The Massachusetts Pregnant Workers Fairness Act would further strengthen this win for pregnant workers by providing a clear standard to ensure that providing reasonable accommodations is business as usual for employers when a pregnant worker needs it," said Liz Friedman, program director for MotherWoman. The Hadley-based non-profit advocates on family policy issues, and has worked with other organizations, like the state chapter of the ACLU, for the act's passage.

Liz Friedman, program director for MotherWorld, one of the organization's advocating for passage of the Massachusetts Pregnant Workers Fairness Act.

In her release, Friedman added that the act "would ensure that all workers with medical needs arising out of pregnancy have a right to accommodations, just as workers with disabilities do."

In a 6 to 3 ruling on Wednesday, Justice Stephen A. Breyer delivered the opinion of the court in Young v. United Parcel Service. His opinion vacating a lower court ruling states in part: "We believe that the plaintiff may reach a jury on this issue by providing sufficient evidence that the employer's policies impose a significant burden on pregnant workers, and that the employer's 'legitimate, nondiscriminatory' reasons are not sufficiently strong to justify the burden, but rather - - when considered along with the burden imposed - - give rise to an inference of intentional discrimination."

In writing the dissent opinion, Justice Antonin Scalia was joined by Justices Anthony Kennedy and Clarence Thomas,

The case involves Peggy Young, a former UPS driver in Maryland, who was denied a request for light duty, based on a doctor's recommendation, when she was pregnant. Young eventually sued the company under the Pregnancy Discrimination Act. The act is an amendment to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 that bars discrimination on the basis of basis of pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions constitutes unlawful sex discrimination. UPS refused Young's request, saying her pregnancy did not qualify as a disability. In 2013, a U.S. appellate court in 2013 affirmed a lower-court ruling in favor of UPS. The Supreme Court ruling sends the case back to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, in Richmond, Va., for a possible retrial. Prior to the Supreme Court hearing the case, UPS reportedly changed its policy to allow for pregnant workers, with restrictions, to be assigned light duty, similar to those injured on the job.

Michigan Law Professor Sam Bagenstos.argued the case before the Supreme Court on Dec. 3, 2014. He is quoted as saying on the Michigan Law website, "the Court made clear that employers may not refuse to accommodate pregnant workers based on considerations of cost or convenience when they accommodate other workers>

The ruling is not being seen as complete victory for advocates seeking certain accommodations for pregnant workers, highlighting the need advocates see for state laws.

The Massachusetts act was introduced into the House and the Senate on Jan. 15 by Rep. Ellen Story, D-Amherst and by Sen. Joan B. Lovely, D-Salem. It is currently before the Joint Committee on Labor and Workforce Development.

The bill mirrors the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act, introduced into the U.S. Senate in May 2103 by Sen. Robert P. Casey Jr, D-Penn. It is currently before the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions. Co-sponsors include Massachusetts Senators Elizabeth Warren and Edward J. Markey. A similar bill was introduced in the U.S. House in July 2013 by Rep. Jerrold Nadler, D-Nadler. It was referred to the Subcommittee on Workforce Protections. Original co-sponsors include Rep. James P. McGovern, D-Mass.

Its amendments to Section 4 of chapter 151B of the General Laws include insertion of the following, making it unlawful for "an employer to deny reasonable accommodations for any condition of a job applicant or employee related to pregnancy, childbirth, or related conditions if the employee or applicant so requests, unless the employer can demonstrate that the accommodation would impose an undue hardship on the employer's program, enterprise, or business."

Workers in all states are covered by federal employment laws. Some states have pregnancy discrimination laws regarding employment and accommodation, and/or laws protecting breastfeeding in the workplace.

According to the Women's Legal Defense and Education Fund, the Massachusetts Supreme Court has held that exclusion of pregnancy-related disabilities constitutes sex discrimination. It is courts' interpretation of how existing laws apply to disabilities that has led to more state and federal legislation.

If you purchase a product or register for an account through a link on our site, we may receive compensation. By using this site, you consent to our User Agreement and agree that your clicks, interactions, and personal information may be collected, recorded, and/or stored by us and social media and other third-party partners in accordance with our Privacy Policy.