By Jess Bravin
WASHINGTON--The Supreme Court on Wednesday reinstated a
pregnancy-discrimination claim against United Parcel Service Inc.,
ruling that pregnant workers can sue employers who deny them
accommodations afforded to employees with disabilities.
The decision, by a 6-3 vote, adds to a series of recent moves
expanding protections for pregnant women, including changes to the
Americans with Disabilities Act and recent guidance from the Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission. It also adds force to the 1978
Pregnancy Discrimination Act, which lower courts had found added
only marginally to other laws barring sex discrimination.
"The act requires courts to consider the extent to which an
employer's policy treats pregnant workers less favorably than it
treats nonpregnant workers similar in their ability or inability to
work," Justice Stephen Breyer wrote for the majority. Employers
must show a "legitimate, nondiscriminatory, nonpretextual
justification for these differences in treatment," to avoid
liability, he added.
Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg,
Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan joined the opinion. Justice Samuel
Alito agreed in the outcome, but wrote separately.
"It made clear that employers may not refuse to accommodate
pregnant workers based on considerations of cost or convenience
when they accommodate other workers," said Sam Bagenstos, who
argued the case for former UPS driver Peggy Young.
UPS said it expected ultimately to prevail, as the case
continues in lower courts. The company also noted it recently
changed its policy on pregnant workers. "The new policy that went
into effect January 2015 serves to strengthen UPS's commitments to
supporting women in the workplace and to treating all workers
fairly," the company said.
Ms. Young became pregnant in 2006 while working as a part-time
driver at a UPS facility in Landover, Md. UPS had put her on unpaid
leave because under doctor's orders she could not lift the weights
specified by the company-- parcels up to 70 pounds in weight, or
150 pounds with assistance.
UPS made accommodations that kept others with similar
limitations on the payroll, including drivers who became disabled
on the job, those who had lost their Transportation Department
certifications and those who had permanent disabilities covered by
the Americans with Disabilities Act.
After Ms. Young sued, lower courts dismissed the case. The
Fourth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond, Va. said UPS
policy was equally unaccommodating to others with conditions
disqualifying them from work, such as someone injured through
off-job work as a volunteer firefighter.
In dissent, Justice Antonin Scalia, joined by Justices Anthony
Kennedy and Clarence Thomas, said the pregnancy law only prohibited
bias against pregnant women who are otherwise in the identical
circumstance as other workers.
In 2008 Congress amended the Americans with Disabilities Act to
cover temporary as well as permanent disabilities, several states
have enacted protections for pregnant women and last year the Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission issued guidance requiring
accommodations for pregnant workers in situations like Ms.
Young's.
Write to Jess Bravin at jess.bravin@wsj.com
Subscribe to WSJ: http://online.wsj.com?mod=djnwires