Potential Conflict In Accommodating Pregnant Employees

July 16, 2014

By: Shelly R. Pagac , Jennifer R. Russell

On July 1, 2014, the Supreme Court agreed to hear an appeal from the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals in Young v. United Parcel Service, Inc., a case brought by a former UPS delivery driver who claims UPS violated the Pregnancy Discrimination Act (“PDA”) contained in Title VII, when it improperly denied her request for light duty work because of a recommended lifting restriction during her pregnancy.  Young was not given the same accommodation as non-pregnant employees with similar limitations, in that UPS offered light duty only to employees with on-the-job injuries, employees with permanent impairments entitled to accommodation under the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) and employees who lost Department of Transportation certification to drive commercial vehicles.  Pregnant employees (women) were deemed ineligible for light duty work for any limitations arising solely as a result of their pregnancy.

On July 14, 2014, only 13 days after the Court agreed to hear Young’s appeal, the EEOC issued its Enforcement Guidance on Pregnancy Discrimination and Related Issues.  The EEOC sets forth a comprehensive list of questions and answers regarding pregnancy and provides a list of recommended best practices in terms of hiring and other employment decisions.  Most notably, the guidance addresses employers’ duties under the PDA and ADA and provides that employers are to provide reasonable accommodations, and specifically light duty, to pregnant employees with work restrictions, even if the employee does not qualify as an individual with a disability under the ADA.

The guidance discusses matters that relate directly to the facts and issues to be examined and decided by the Supreme Court in Young v. UPS.  However, the guidance does not have the force of law and the Supreme Court’s decision in Young could directly contradict the EEOC guidance.  If this occurs, the EEOC will face vociferous criticism.  This potential for conflict creates some uncertainty for employers regarding their obligations.  In the interim, however, employers should use caution and consider the EEOC’s guidance in making decisions with respect to employees who are covered by the PDA and ADA.  Employers should also consider any state or local laws that offer protection from pregnancy discrimination, such as those recently passed in Maryland, New Jersey, West Virginia and Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.

News & Events

Related News

20 Pietragallo Lawyers Named in 2022 The Best Lawyers in America and Ones to Watch
August 19, 2021
Pietragallo Gordon Alfano Bosick & Raspanti, LLP is pleased to announce that 20 lawyers have been named as 2022 The Best Lawyers in America and 2022 Ones to Watch, including two lawyers who were recognized for Bet-the-Company Litigation. Read More
24 Pietragallo Lawyers Named in 2021 Pennsylvania Super Lawyers and Rising Stars
June 9, 2021
Including Recognition in Top 100 in Pennsylvania and Top 100 In Philadelphia Pietragallo Gordon Alfano Bosick & Raspanti, LLP is pleased to announce that 24 attorneys have been named as 2021 Super Lawyers and 2021 Rising Stars, including two attorneys who were also recognized in the Top 100 in Pennsylvania and Top 100 in Philadelphia. Read More

Upcoming Events

Bitcoin, Cryptocurrency, and Civil Litigation CLE (Webinar)
November 3, 2021
As Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies gain further acceptance in the portfolios held by persons, corporations, trusts, and estates, fiduciaries and civil litigants must be aware of how courts will handle claims when the ownership or stewardship of these assets becomes disputed.
Read More
Privacy, Data and Cyber Security: The Current Legal Landscape CLE (Webinar)
November 11, 2021
Companies and consumers alike are under perpetual assault from bad actors as IoT, work from home, and cloud migration – all intended to improve productivity – have expanded the cyber attack surface.
Read More
View More News & Events