In an important ruling for employers, the Fourth Circuit
recently underscored that the Pregnancy Discrimination Act (PDA)
does not require employers to provide pregnant workers with special
accommodations. Young v. United Parcel Service, Inc., No. 11-2078
(4th Cir. Jan. 9, 2013). When Peggy Young became unable to lift
heavy packages due to her pregnancy, she asked UPS, her employer,
to accommodate her by putting her on the light work duty that it
offered to disabled workers and those injured on the job. Young
filed suit after UPS refused.
Young and amicus supporters like the American Civil Liberties
Union argued that, because UPS offered light duty work to certain
nonpregnant workers, the PDA required it to extend the same
treatment to pregnant workers. The Fourth Circuit found, however,
that Young was treated the same as the general category of
employees who were unable to lift as a result of an off-the-job
injury or illness but were not disabled within the meaning of the
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The Young Court found that
Young was not entitled to protection under the ADA and emphasized
that, where a policy treats pregnant employees and nonpregnant
employees alike, the employer has complied with the PDA, even if
the effect of the neutral policy is that the pregnant employee is
prevented from continuing to work.
The Fourth Circuit's decision confirms that pregnant workers
are not entitled to accommodation merely by virtue of their
pregnancy. Employers should be careful to note, however, that
pregnant workers may still be entitled to accommodation due to
disability. While the Fourth Circuit found that the plaintiff in
Young was not disabled, the plaintiff in that case was not covered
by the Americans with Disabilities Amendments Act (ADAAA), which
became effective on January 1, 2009, and expanded the definition of
a disability under the ADA. Under the ADAAA and the Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission's (EEOC) related regulations,
an impairment can be "substantially limiting" even it is
expected to last for only a limited period. The EEOC's
Interpretive Guidance explicitly notes that an employee with an
impairment resulting in a 20-pound lifting restriction that lasts
for several months - which is similar to the restriction Young was
under during her pregnancy - would be considered to be
substantially limited in the major life activity of lifting for
purposes of the ADAAA.
Employers should keep in mind the need to evaluate all requests
for accommodation, including those by pregnant workers, on a
case-by-case basis. While case law interpreting pregnancy
accommodations required by the ADAAA is in its infancy, the EEOC
has made it clear that it is keenly interested in the issue: at the
end of 2012, the EEOC officially declared that accommodation of
pregnant employees would be one of its enforcement priorities over
the next four years. Congress, meanwhile, is considering a bill,
The Pregnant Workers Fairness Act (PWFA), which, if passed, would
require employers to provide reasonable accommodations to employees
who are pregnant, or who have limitations related to childbirth.
The PWFA would essentially be to pregnancy what the ADA is to
disabilities: it would require an employer to make reasonable
accommodations to limitations related to pregnancy or childbirth,
unless the accommodation would impose an undue hardship. It would
also forbid an employer from requiring a pregnant employee to take
a leave if another reasonable accommodation can be provided
instead
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.