In a 6-3 decision, the United States Supreme Court gave new life yesterday to former UPS driver Peggy Young’s claim of unlawful pregnancy discrimination when it vacated the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals’ decision affirming the dismissal of Ms. Young’s claim against her former employer.
The Pregnancy Discrimination Act extends Title VII’s prohibition against sex discrimination to include pregnancy. It also says that employers must treat “women affected by pregnancy . . . the same for all employment-related purposes . . . as other persons not so affected but similar in their ability or inability to work.”
The U.S. Supreme Court revived a pregnant employee’s discrimination claim against UPS, ruling that the employer’s policy of providing light-duty work only to employees meeting certain specifications (but not necessarily pregnant employees) may violate the Pregnancy Discrimination Act (“PDA”).
U.S. Supreme Court Revives Suit Against UPS, Extending McDonnell-Douglas Burden Shifting Framework to Pregnancy Discrimination Cases
The U.S. Supreme Court vacated a Fourth Circuit decision Wednesday, reviving a pregnancy bias case against the United Parcel Service brought by a former delivery driver who was denied a light-duty work accommodation while pregnant.
In B&B Hardware, Inc. v. Hargis Industries, Inc. (No. 13-352), the U.S. Supreme Court settled the question whether a finding by the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (“TTAB”) can trigger issue preclusion in later federal court litigation.
Yesterday the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral argument in Michigan v. EPA, a Clean Air Act case involving hazardous air pollutant regulations, with implications for fossil fuel-fired power plant owners and operators in California and across the country.
Yesterday the U.S. Supreme Court issued the much anticipated opinion in a pregnancy discrimination claim, Young v . United Parcel Service.
In Young v. UPS, the United States Supreme Court reinstated a UPS worker’s pregnancy discrimination lawsuit under the Pregnancy Discrimination Act, finding that both the District Court and the Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit had applied the wrong standard in upholding UPS’s light-duty-for-injury policy, under which the company refused a light-duty accommodation to a pregnant employee back in 2006.
Wednesday brought a new Supreme Court decision that sided with a pregnant employee, and allows her to have her day in court. In some ways though, it’s surprising that she’d even still need the lawsuit.
All across America this morning, pregnant employees are screaming out in muted shouts of joy and giving each other belly bumps.