Posted: January 31st, 2023

. Case name: Young v. United Parcel Service

1. Case name: Young v. United Parcel Service, Inc.
2. The name of the court deciding the case: The U.S. Supreme Court
3. Case citation: 575 U.S. ___ (2015 – Research Paper Writing Help Service)
4. Key facts: Petitioner Peggy Young worked as a part-time driver for the respondent United Parcel Service (UPS). Her responsibilities include pickup and delivery of packages arriving by air carrier. After suffering from several miscarriages, she became pregnant again in 2006 – Write a paper; Professional research paper writing service – Best essay writers. The doctors advised her that she should not lift more than 20lbs. In her company, the nature of her work requires her to lift up to 70lbs of packages. Because of the restriction, UPS advised her that she could not work. Young was made to stay at home without pay during the pregnancy and lost her employee medical coverage. Thus, she brought a lawsuit at the trial court alleging that UPS unlawfully refused to accommodate her pregnancy-related lifting restriction. She chose to bring a disparate-treatment claim of discrimination which she alleged she can prove by direct evidence that UPS accommodated other drivers who were also unable to work. She cited the case of drivers who were disabled on the job but accommodated by UPS. She concludes that she should have been accommodated as well. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of UPS which was affirmed by the appellate court. Hence, the petition before the Supreme Court.
5. Issue: The issue is whether or not the Pregnancy Discrimination Act requires the employer to accommodate a pregnant employee who is unable to work similar to the accommodations provided to the employees with other non-pregnancy work limitations
6. Rule: Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 19674 makes it unlawful for an employer to discriminate any individual with respect to the terms and conditions of employment on account of sex. The Pregnancy Discrimination Act states that women who are affected by pregnancy, or childbirth shall be treated similarly to other employees who also have non-pregnancy related inability to work.
7. Decision: The Supreme Court vacated the judgment of the appellate court and remanded the case back to the trial court for further consideration.
8. Reasoning: It is erroneous for Young to conclude that employers which provide accommodation to one or two employees should similarly provide accommodation to its pregnant employees. The Supreme Court argued that such interpretation reads too much in the law since an employer is not required to treat all pregnant employees the same as any other persons who are unable to work. However, the Supreme Court ruled that an individual pregnant worker may establish disparate treatment by showing that she belongs to a protected class, that she asked for accommodation but the employer intentionally refused to accommodate her though the same employer accommodated others who are similar in their inability to work. Once the pregnant employee is able to establish her case, the burden of proof then shifts to the employer. The employer is now entitled to present evidence that the refusal to accommodate the pregnant employee is justified because it has legitimate and nondiscriminatory reasons. If the employer fails to present evidence, then the employer loses the case. However, if the employer is able to provide a legitimate and nondiscriminatory reason then the burden of proof shifts back to the employee. To meet the burden of proof and establish its case, the employee will be required to submit proof that the policy either imposes a burden on the pregnant employee or that the reasons of the employer are not strong enough to overcome the burden imposed on the pregnant employee. Once this burden is met, the pregnant employee wins the case.
9. Critical Analysis: I believe that the Supreme Court’s decision is a victory for the pregnant employees. It is beyond doubt that there are many female employees are discriminated in the workplace. They are either given lower pay or denied opportunities for promotion and training. The situation is worse for pregnant employees who are denied the medical coverage or terminated from work simply because of their condition. In this case, the Supreme Court clarified that providing accommodation to pregnant employees is not automatic. This means that employers which provide accommodations to 1 or 2 employees are not required to automatically provide the same accommodations to their pregnant employees. Thus, it is possible that accommodation given to other employees who are unable to work may not be provided to the pregnant employees who are also unable to work.
The question is when are the employers allowed and when they are not allowed. The Supreme Court used a test to determine whether the employer has a legitimate and non-discriminatory reason. In order to settle this double, the Supreme Court came up with a test for the courts to determine whether pregnant employees have a cause of action to sue their employers. However, the test is so strict that it is relatively easier for the pregnant employees to establish that the employer did not have legitimate and nondiscriminatory justification for accommodating the pregnant employees. If the employee is able to present sufficient evidence then they win the case. In this sense, it can be considered as a victory for pregnant employees who are denied pay during their pregnancy. For the pregnant employee, the key is to establish by sufficient evidence that the employer internationally discriminated against them.

Order | Check Discount