Supreme Court Clarifies Pregnancy Accommodation Requirements
- By Your mom
- •
- 12 Aug, 2015
In July 2014 the EEOC issued guidance on accommodating pregnant employees. Its
focus was centered on a section of the Pregnancy Discrimination Act (“PDA”), which requires
employers to treat pregnant employees in the same manner as non-pregnant employees who are
“similar in their ability or inability to work.” The EEOC basically took the position that under
the PDA any accommodations given to disabled employees must also be made available to
pregnant employees. Therefore, greater accommodations could not be provided to employees
with non-pregnancy related disabilities than were given to pregnant employees. The EEOC also
relied on the 2008 amendments to the ADA, which it argued extended reasonable
accommodation protections to pregnant employees, even though pregnancy is not technically
considered a “disability” under the law. By applying ADA concepts to pregnancies, it stated that
employers could only deny reasonable accommodations to pregnant employees if the
accommodation being sought met the undue hardship standard.
From a practical standpoint, the EEOC’s position meant that pregnant employees would
have to be provided light duty work, if non-pregnant disabled employees were given such work,
and were also eligible for any other accommodations given to employees disabled for reasons
other than pregnancy. In response, many employers disagreed with the EEOC’s position, and
argued pregnant employees are not entitled to reasonable accommodation. The U.S. Supreme
Court recently weighed in on the matter and took a middle position. Young v UPS.
The Court held that the failure to accommodate pregnant employees must be analyzed
under the burden shifting regime set forth in McDonnell Douglas v. Green. Under that standard,
the employee must first show she was intentionally discriminated against by being treated less
favorably than non-pregnant employees with a similar inability to work. Employers can
overcome such allegations by stating a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for the unequal
treatment. For the plaintiff to ultimately prevail, she must prove the employer’s proffered reason
was pre-textual, a lie, or that the employer’s policies impose a significant burden on pregnant
employees, and that the reasons for differing treatment are not sufficiently strong, but are instead
indicative of intentional discrimination.
In Young, the employee worked for UPS as a driver and was required to lift up to 70
pounds. Ms. Young’s doctors provided documentation limiting her lifting to 20 pounds during
her pregnancy. The plaintiff asked for a lifting accommodation, which the company denied,
even though it provided such accommodations to those injured on the job, or those with non-
pregnancy related disabilities covered by the ADA. As a result, Ms. Young was required to take
time off from work until she could return following her delivery, without limitations.
The Court, in its ruling, recognized that not every accommodation given to any non-
pregnant employee must be extended to pregnant employees. However, for an employer to
prove a legitimate reason for the unequal treatment it cannot merely rely on greater cost or
inconvenience. Further, the Court noted that an employer who accommodates a large percentage
of non-pregnancy related disabled persons, but fails to assist a similar percentage of pregnancy
related disabled employees will likely lose.
From a practical standpoint, employers should be prepared to accommodate the
restrictions of pregnant women on the same basis as for non-pregnant disabled employees.
Unless an employer can justify a disparate approach based on legitimate business needs, it likely
will find itself on the losing end of a lawsuit. In addition, Connecticut state law requires
employers to provide pregnant employees with a reasonable leave of absence during their period
of disability, and further requires employers to transfer pregnant employees to a temporary
position if the employee reasonably believes her current position may cause harm to her, or her
fetus. In general, dealing with pregnant employees is a technical area with broad legal exposure.
It makes sense to seek legal counsel when faced with these issues.
focus was centered on a section of the Pregnancy Discrimination Act (“PDA”), which requires
employers to treat pregnant employees in the same manner as non-pregnant employees who are
“similar in their ability or inability to work.” The EEOC basically took the position that under
the PDA any accommodations given to disabled employees must also be made available to
pregnant employees. Therefore, greater accommodations could not be provided to employees
with non-pregnancy related disabilities than were given to pregnant employees. The EEOC also
relied on the 2008 amendments to the ADA, which it argued extended reasonable
accommodation protections to pregnant employees, even though pregnancy is not technically
considered a “disability” under the law. By applying ADA concepts to pregnancies, it stated that
employers could only deny reasonable accommodations to pregnant employees if the
accommodation being sought met the undue hardship standard.
From a practical standpoint, the EEOC’s position meant that pregnant employees would
have to be provided light duty work, if non-pregnant disabled employees were given such work,
and were also eligible for any other accommodations given to employees disabled for reasons
other than pregnancy. In response, many employers disagreed with the EEOC’s position, and
argued pregnant employees are not entitled to reasonable accommodation. The U.S. Supreme
Court recently weighed in on the matter and took a middle position. Young v UPS.
The Court held that the failure to accommodate pregnant employees must be analyzed
under the burden shifting regime set forth in McDonnell Douglas v. Green. Under that standard,
the employee must first show she was intentionally discriminated against by being treated less
favorably than non-pregnant employees with a similar inability to work. Employers can
overcome such allegations by stating a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for the unequal
treatment. For the plaintiff to ultimately prevail, she must prove the employer’s proffered reason
was pre-textual, a lie, or that the employer’s policies impose a significant burden on pregnant
employees, and that the reasons for differing treatment are not sufficiently strong, but are instead
indicative of intentional discrimination.
In Young, the employee worked for UPS as a driver and was required to lift up to 70
pounds. Ms. Young’s doctors provided documentation limiting her lifting to 20 pounds during
her pregnancy. The plaintiff asked for a lifting accommodation, which the company denied,
even though it provided such accommodations to those injured on the job, or those with non-
pregnancy related disabilities covered by the ADA. As a result, Ms. Young was required to take
time off from work until she could return following her delivery, without limitations.
The Court, in its ruling, recognized that not every accommodation given to any non-
pregnant employee must be extended to pregnant employees. However, for an employer to
prove a legitimate reason for the unequal treatment it cannot merely rely on greater cost or
inconvenience. Further, the Court noted that an employer who accommodates a large percentage
of non-pregnancy related disabled persons, but fails to assist a similar percentage of pregnancy
related disabled employees will likely lose.
From a practical standpoint, employers should be prepared to accommodate the
restrictions of pregnant women on the same basis as for non-pregnant disabled employees.
Unless an employer can justify a disparate approach based on legitimate business needs, it likely
will find itself on the losing end of a lawsuit. In addition, Connecticut state law requires
employers to provide pregnant employees with a reasonable leave of absence during their period
of disability, and further requires employers to transfer pregnant employees to a temporary
position if the employee reasonably believes her current position may cause harm to her, or her
fetus. In general, dealing with pregnant employees is a technical area with broad legal exposure.
It makes sense to seek legal counsel when faced with these issues.
