SCOTUS sends UPS discrimination case back to lower court

The Supreme Court sent a case that could have determined the type of pregnancy accommodations employers must provide workers back to the lower court on Tuesday.

In a 6-3 decision, the Supreme Court vacated the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals ruling giving Peggy Young another chance to prove that her employer ­– the United Parcel Service of America Inc. ­­– discriminated against her under the Pregnancy Discrimination Act.

The high court was tasked with determining whether and in what circumstances employers are required to accommodate pregnant employees if they provide accommodations to non-pregnant employees with similar work limitations.  

Because Young’s doctors ordered her to lift no more than 20 pounds when she became pregnant, she argued that UPS acted unlawfully when it refused to accommodate those pregnancy-related restrictions.

UPS, which requires drivers, like Young, to lift up to 70 pounds, argued that because Young’s limitation was not the result of an on-the-job injury or a disability covered by the American with Disabilities Act, they were to treat her like any other non-pregnant employee. The lower court agreed – the people Young compared herself to were not “similar.”

In it’s opinion, written by Justice Stephen Breyer, the high court said ruling in favor of Young would mean the court interprets the Pregnancy Discrimination Act to mean that a pregnant woman should be considered a “most favored employee.”

“When comparing pregnant employees to non-pregnant employees in similar jobs, which characteristics of the pregnant and non-pregnant employees must be taken into account?” Alito asked in his concurring judgment.

“The answer, I believe, must be found in the reference to “other employees who are similar in their inability to work.”

Justices Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy and Clarence Thomas dissented. 

In a statement on its website, UPS it was pleased the Supreme Court rejected the argument that UPS’s pregnancy-neutral policy was inherently discriminatory.

“We are confident that those courts will find that UPS did not discriminate against Ms. Young under this newly announced standard,” the company said.