United Parcel Service’s reversal of policy for pregnant employees last month took the public by surprise. The mail carrier is embroiled in a Supreme Court lawsuit against Peggy Young, a former employee who was denied a request to perform light duties during her pregnancy after her doctor advised her not to lift heavy boxes.
Feeling the pressure of public disapproval, UPS announced that light duties will be made available to pregnant employees. But the fight doesn’t end with UPS: Ms. Young is just one of many pregnant women who have reported mistreatment by their employers. Her case points to a glaring need to require employers to accommodate pregnant workers.
At issue is whether UPS’ former policy violated the Pregnancy Discrimination Act, which states that companies are not to treat pregnant employees differently from other employees who are “similar in their ability, or inability, to work.” Because UPS’ former policy offered accommodations to disabled workers and workers with job-related injuries, Ms. Young argues that it was required to do so for pregnant workers.
It’s common for employers to provide accommodations for workers with disabilities or workers injured on the job. But employers don’t always offer the same accommodations to pregnant employees, requiring pregnant women, like workers injured outside of work, to take leave if they cannot fulfill their regular duties.
Pregnant employees should not be forced out of the workplace for what is a normal event in a woman’s lifetime. The PDA says as much when it states that workplace discrimination based on sex includes discrimination based on pregnancy, childbirth and related conditions. But because language in the PDA is broad and confusing, federal courts have disagreed on how to interpret it.
Ms. Young has received support from an unlikely coalition of pro-choice women’s rights groups and conservative pro-life groups. Whether her treatment by UPS was illegal under existing law is unclear and best left to the courts. If the Supreme Court rules in UPS’ favor, however, it would be a clear sign that laws need to be strengthened.
First Published: November 24, 2014, 5:00 a.m.
