In 2008, Peggy Young worked for UPS as a pickup and delivery driver. When she became pregnant, her..

In 2008, Peggy Young worked for UPS as a pickup and delivery
driver. When she became pregnant, her doctor restricted her from lifting more
than 20 pounds during her first 20 weeks of pregnancy and 10 pounds for the
remainder. UPS placed Young on leave without pay because her job required her
to be able to lift parcels weighing up to 70 pounds. UPS said they followed a
“pregnancy-blind” policy that is nondiscriminatory by nature when they put her
on leave. Young filed suit, claiming that her co-workers were willing to help
her, and that UPS had a policy of accommodating other, non-pregnant
»

In 2008, Peggy Young worked for UPS as a pickup and delivery
driver. When she became pregnant, her doctor restricted her from lifting more
than 20 pounds during her first 20 weeks of pregnancy and 10 pounds for the
remainder. UPS placed Young on leave without pay because her job required her
to be able to lift parcels weighing up to 70 pounds. UPS said they followed a
“pregnancy-blind” policy that is nondiscriminatory by nature when they put her
on leave. Young filed suit, claiming that her co-workers were willing to help
her, and that UPS had a policy of accommodating other, non-pregnant drivers who
suffered from disabilities, or who lost their Department of Transportation
certifications. She brought suit against UPS under the Pregnancy Discrimination
Act of 1987 and the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990. The U.S. Supreme
Court found in Young’s favor after two lower courts had taken UPS’s side;
however, they did not completely agree with her logic. Young said that
employers are required to accommodate pregnant women when they provide an
accommodation to any other non-pregnant employee who is similar in ability to
work. The Court, however, said that under a “disparate treatment” theory of
liability, the employee must show that she was intentionally discriminated
against. They said that Young must demonstrate that the employer’s policies
impose a “significant burden” on pregnant workers, and that the employer has
not raised a “sufficiently strong” reason to justify that burden. In Young’s
case, she had to show that UPS accommodates most non-pregnant employees with
lifting limitations while categorically failing to accommodate pregnant
employees with lifting limitations. The Court clarified, however, that there is
a high legal burden employers will have to meet in order to justify their
policies or practices that provide accommodations to some categories of
employees, but not to pregnant women. While the Supreme Court remanded the case
to the lower court to determine whether UPS can meet this burden, the
ramifications from the case have already changed EEOC guidelines for applying
the Pregnancy Discrimination Act. What this means for businesses is that
employers will have to be very careful if they accommodate some groups of
employees without also accommodating pregnant employees.

 1. Why do you think some employers are still refusing to
comply with pregnant workers’ requests for temporary accommodations?

2. How is this an example of the integration of ethics and
the law? What ethical principles are at stake here?

 3. What would you have done if you were Peggy Young?

»