In its decision, the Supreme Court rejected the interpretations of the Pregnancy Discrimination Act argued by both parties. Notably, the Court rejected Young's "most favored nation" status argument, that the Pregnancy Discrimination Act afforded the best accommodations previously afforded to other, non-pregnant employees. Similarly, the Court rejected UPS' argument that the Pregnancy Discrimination Act defines sex discrimination to include pregnancy discrimination.
Instead, the Court held that a claim of pregnancy discrimination should be analyzed under the McDonnell-Douglas framework. According to the Court, a pregnant employee may make out a prima facie case by showing she belongs to a protected class, sought an accommodation from her employer, the employer rejected her request for an accommodation, and the employer accommodated other employees "similar in their ability or inability to work." The employer then has an opportunity to show it did not intend to discriminate against pregnant workers, and instead has legitimate, non-discriminating reasons for denying the employees accommodation request. The employee then must show that, even though it was not intended to be biased, the employer's policies put a significant burden on pregnant workers and the employers proffered reasons were not strong enough to justify the burden.
In the meantime, employers should review their accommodation policies in light of the Court's decision. Additionally, employers faced with a pregnancy accommodation request should carefully consider the Courts decision and assess how a pregnant employees accommodation request is similar to those accommodation requests of other non-pregnant employees.
- Counsel
Tana VanGoethem practices in the areas of higher education, and employment and labor law. She has extensive experience conducting higher education investigations and adjudications on behalf of institutions, including sexual ...
The information contained in this post is provided to alert you to legal developments and should not be considered legal advice. It is not intended to and does not create an attorney-client relationship. Specific questions about how this information affects your particular situation should be addressed to one of the individuals listed. No representations or warranties are made with respect to this information, including, without limitation, as to its completeness, timeliness, or accuracy, and Lathrop GPM shall not be liable for any decision made in connection with the information. The choice of a lawyer is an important decision and should not be based solely on advertisements.