Overview: In a 6-3 decision, in the matter of Young v. United Parcel Service, Inc., the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that if an employer accommodates some employees with disabilities, the failure to offer that same accommodation to an employee with a pregnancy related job restriction might be sufficient proof that the failure to accommodate was motivated by discrimination. In other words, employers should carefully consider requests by pregnant employees for accommodation, particularly when they are already providing accommodations to another group of employees.
Effective Dates: Currently in effect.
Action Required: Review requests for accommodation from pregnant employees carefully and contact your HR Business Partner for guidance as needed.
The Details
At issue in this case was a policy that provided temporary light duty (alternative work assignments) for workers injured on the job, those who had lost their Department of Transportation (DOT) certifications, and employees disabled under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The plaintiff in the case, a female delivery driver, was pregnant and her doctor placed lifting restrictions on her for the remainder of her pregnancy. She asked her employer, United Parcel Service (UPS), for an accommodation in the form of light duty. Her employer denied that request citing its policy. The Fourth Circuit court found that UPS did not have to provide the pregnant employee with light duty, as long as the employer treated all pregnant employees the same as non-pregnant employees with respect to job accommodations.
The U.S. Supreme Court reversed the Fourth Circuit’s decision concluding that, by having this policy, and by refusing to accommodate the plaintiff based on the policy alone, the plaintiff might be able to establish that the legitimate reason articulated by the employer for its failure to accommodate her was a pretext for pregnancy discrimination. In other words, that UPS provided more favorable treatment to at least some employees whose situation could not reasonably be distinguished from the plaintiff’s, and the lower court should’ve considered why, when UPS could accommodate so many, it could not accommodate pregnant women as well.
What made this matter so interesting is that many thought the Court would either rule in favor of, or against, the Plaintiff based upon the argument that she proffered. According to the Court, the Plaintiff was contending that whenever an employer accommodates only a subset of workers with disabling conditions a court should find a Title VII violation, if pregnant workers who are similar in the ability to work do not receive the same accommodation, even if still (as in this case) other non-pregnant workers do not receive accommodations. This did not, however occur. Instead, the Court expressed its doubt that Congress intended to “grant pregnant workers an unconditional most-favored status.”
The Court also noted that this case may be overshadowed by the ADAAA’s expansive definition of disability as the plaintiff’s pregnancy preceded the ADAAA (enacted in 2008, effective January 1, 2009).
Important Note: On July 14, 2014, the EEOC released Enforcement Guidance on Pregnancy Discrimination and Related Issues. In consideration of the case before it, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously disregarded the EEOC’s guidance because of its timing, its inconsistency with past positions and the lack of a thorough consideration of the issue. The Court determined that it could not “rely significantly on the EEOC’s determination” contained in its guidance.
Practical Impact
If an employer has an existing policy which explicitly provides accommodation (in the form of light duty or otherwise) to some group of employees, it should also consider providing similar accommodations to pregnant employees who request accommodation. If the employer refuses to provide a similar accommodation to pregnant employees in need of accommodation, it may be that the pregnant employee will be able to rely upon that refusal, and the related policy, in support of a claim that the refusal to accommodate her pregnancy was a pretext for discrimination
In addition, despite the Supreme Court’s disregard for the EEOC’s guidance with respect to its decision in this fact sensitive matter, it remains a best practice for employers to continue to heed the EEOC’s guidance, particularly as it addresses pregnancy related disabilities under the ADA, as doing so will likely only reduce the risk of pregnancy related discrimination claims.
Finally, regardless of how the federal law (and the EEOC’s guidance) develops in the wake of this decision, employers in states and municipalities that have passed pregnancy accommodation laws should adopt policies and practices consistent with those laws – in terms of providing accommodations to pregnant workers.
Read the Court’s opinion.
As always, please contact your HR Business Partner if you have any questions.
|
This content provides practical information concerning the subject matter covered and is provided with the understanding that ADP is not rendering legal advice.
|