The Modern Workplace

 

Ms. Young was working for UPS in 2006 when she became pregnant. Her job description required her to haul 70 pounds. On her midwifes recommendation that Ms. Young not lift more than 20 pounds during her pregnancy, Ms. Young requested a temporary lightened load. At the time of her request, UPS had a light duty policy for three groups of employees:  (1) those injured on the job; (2) those with a disability under the Americans with Disabilities Act, or (3) those who had lost their driving credentials. Because Ms. Young's situation did not fall into any of the identified light duty groups, her request was denied, and she was placed on an unpaid leave.

The Young case focuses on the meaning of the PDAs language prohibiting discrimination because of pregnancy. UPS maintains that its light duty policy is pregnancy neutral and not discriminatory, because it excludes both pregnant employees and non-pregnant employees such as non-pregnant employees injured off the job. Ms. Young argues, however, that the PDA requires more than neutrality and mandates the availability of benefits to pregnant employees that are available to other employees. Both the trial court and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit ruled in UPS favor, finding that UPS policy did not treat pregnant women differently given that they could receive a light duty assignment for the same reason as other employees (i.e. an on the job injury) and given that Ms. Young was not similar in her work abilities as compared to others given light duty assignments.