By Brent Kendall
WASHINGTON--The Supreme Court on Wednesday struggled with how to
balance workplace rights for pregnant women, in a case brought
against United Parcel Service by a former delivery driver.
The Supreme Court took the case to clarify the meaning of the
Pregnancy Discrimination Act, which requires employers to treat
pregnant women the same as nonpregnant employees who are "similar
in their ability or inability to work." During an hourlong oral
argument, the justices sent no clear signals of how they would
rule.
Peggy Young, the driver, alleged UPS discriminated against her
after she became pregnant in 2006, saying the company wouldn't
accommodate doctor-recommended lifting restrictions, forcing her to
take unpaid leave and lose medical coverage. UPS said its policies
didn't discriminate because they provided across-the-board rules
accommodating workers injured on the job, but not those who faced
lifting restrictions because of off-the-job medical conditions.
"That's a far cry from a policy that singles out pregnant
women," UPS lawyer Caitlin Halligan told the justices Wednesday.
Two lower courts ruled for UPS in the case. UPS has announced plans
to broaden its policies to accommodate pregnant workers beginning
in 2015.
Samuel Bagenstos, a lawyer for Ms. Young, said the UPS policy
discriminated because the company made accommodations for certain
workers, such as for those who lost their Transportation Department
driving certifications or who had qualifying disabilities under the
Americans with Disabilities Act. The company's position "would give
least-favored-nation status to pregnant workers and we know that
that can't be something that Congress intended," Mr. Bagenstos
said.
Congress passed the pregnancy law in 1978, effectively
overruling a 1976 Supreme Court decision that said General Electric
Co. didn't violate civil-rights law by not covering
pregnancy-related disabilities as part of its disability benefits
plan.
Two of the court's female justices, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and
Elena Kagan were vocal Wednesday with skepticism about arguments
made by UPS. The pregnancy-discrimination law "was supposed to be
about removing stereotypes of pregnant women as marginal workers,"
Justice Kagan said. "It was supposed to be about ensuring that they
wouldn't be unfairly excluded from the workplace."
Justice Stephen Breyer and others suggested the case was
difficult because employers "have all kinds of different rules for
different kinds of jobs." He and Justice Antonin Scalia cited
seniority systems in which longer-tenured workers get better
treatment than others. "How do we tell" which distinctions are
reasonable and which ones aren't, Justice Breyer asked.
The court's eventual ruling, expected by the end of June, could
set important rules on protections for pregnant workers, but there
are other developments that could influence employer policies.
UPS said nine states have passed laws that require
accommodations for pregnant workers and others are considering
similar measures. The Obama administration, meanwhile, said in a
court brief that pregnant workers might be able to obtain
protections under the 2008 amendments to the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
The federal government's arguments about the scope of the
pregnancy-discrimination law raised some consternation with the
justices on Wednesday because its legal position has changed over
time. U.S. Solicitor General Donald Verrilli argued in favor of Ms.
Young, but acknowledged the Justice Department previously has
defended employer policies by the U.S. Postal Service similar to
those at UPS.
Since then, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has
issued enforcement guidance expanding protections for workers with
pregnancy-related conditions.
Mr. Verrilli told the court employers shouldn't be allowed to
"treat pregnancy-related medical conditions worse than other
conditions with comparable effects on ability to work."
Write to Brent Kendall at brent.kendall@wsj.com
Subscribe to WSJ: http://online.wsj.com?mod=djnwires