Feature Article
ANTICIPATING YOUNG V. UPS
What to Expect When Your Employee’s Expecting
By John Malutinok
J.D. Candidate 2016, University of Georgia School of Law
[email protected]
O
n the heels of Hobby Lobby, in which the United States
Supreme Court ruled that closely held corporations
are not required to provide no-cost birth control to
employees when objecting on religious grounds, the Court is
set to hear another case involving employer obligations and
reproductive rights. Young v. UPS is highly anticipated by
employers, counsel, and civil rights groups, among others.
Peggy Young was a UPS driver who sought modified work
accommodations when she was put on lifting restrictions
as a result of her pregnancy. UPS regularly provides work
accommodations to employees who are injured on the job,
or who possess a qualifying disability under ADA, called
“modified light duty.” The company’s denial of Young’s
request for accommodations led to her inability to work, and
eventual job loss.
Young claims the company discriminated against her in
violation of the Pregnancy Discrimination Act, since it provides
reasonable accommodations to non-pregnant employees
with similar lifting restrictions. The central argument of UPS
is that the matter is not about discrimination, but boils down
to contract law: individuals seeking accommodations must
qualify for modified light duty under the company’s collective
bargaining agreement with its employees. As Young was
neither injured on the job, nor possesses a disability under
ADA, she does not meet the qualifications for modified light
duty, says UPS.
The Court’s decision to take the case is well timed,
considering upcoming votes on the Pregnant Workers
Fairness Act currently in Congress (but not likely to pass out
of the Senate), and the recently issued EEOC guidance in
the wake of several lawsuits it has filed. One of those, EEOC
v. Horizon/CMS Healthcare Corp., was a Tenth Circuit case
in which the court overturned a summary judgment ruling,
holding that the company cannot dismantle a plaintiff’s
prima facie discrimination case under PDA by showing that
the pregnant employee did not meet qualifications for its
modified duty accommodations. An earlier Sixth Circuit case
in 1996 held similarly. Needless to say, the circuit courts are
split on the issue, and the Court’s will likely attempt to settle
some of the controversy.
The Official News Publication of the Atlanta Bar Association
The EEOC’s guidance is itself controversial. Though its
issuance was expected, especially in light of the increasing
numbers of pregnancy-related complaints it has seen
(46% from 1997-2011, according to Associated Press),
its language relating directly to the Young case was seen
by many as an expansion of the statute’s protections. In
pertinent part, the guidance states that an employer must
provide the same work accommodations to pregnant
employees that it provides to those with a similar inability
to work. This expands the rights of a pregnant employee
beyond the PDA’s traditional interpretation by entitling her to
“reasonable accommodations” as that term is set out in the
ADA. The expansion has been widely viewed as premature
because of its issuance in anticipation of, not in response to,
the Supreme Court’s decisions on the matter. In fact, two of
the five EEOC commissioners dissented on the document’s
strong language. Departmental guidance is of course, not
law, but canons of statutory construction generally hold that
courts should interpret statutes in a way that is deferential to
agency interpretation, and a Federal agency’s guidance is
considered a direct statement of its interpretation.
While civil rights groups are highly anticipating Young’s
outcome, its impact will also be widely felt by private
sector employers, from large corporations like UPS, to
small businesses dealing with how best to accommodate
pregnant employees without suffering production loss and
inefficiencies due to decreased personnel capacity. Many
businesses are still reeling from changes in the regulatory
landscape wrought by the Affordable Care Act, and optimism
about the recovering economy remains cautious. Expansions
on interpretations of existing discrimination law, while lauded
by some as progressive protections for employees, also put
pressure on businesses already feeling heavy regulatory
burdens. The Young case is an exhibition of this tension, and
its effects should be closely followed by counsel advising all
manner of businesses on personnel matters.
November 2014
THE ATLANTA LAWYER
7