Pregnancy discrimination in the workplace has had a long history of claims through out the United States and has forced many women to fight for their rights and proceed with lawsuits against their employers. The Courts have the difficult task to interpret laws and enforce them to favor those women, who feel have been treated unequally. According to the American Association of University Woman, a nation’s leading voice which goals is to promote equity and education for girls and women, expressed that 75% of women who are part of the working class, 68 million will become pregnant at some point in their lives (AAUW, 2015). Having said that, in effort to eliminate discrimination against pregnant women, Congress passed the Pregnancy Discrimination
…show more content…
It was then determined that the PDA only worked to expand the definition of sex (women) to include pregnancy not special treatment for pregnant workers, but also those who may suffer disqualified illness or injury. In consequence, the confusing interpretation of the clauses leads to the question: Why wasn’t the plaintiff accommodated by the defendant when it had previously accommodated many other with similar physical limitations. As reported in the slip opinion under the Supreme Court syllabus of the case Young v. UPS; No. 12-1226 Ms. Young argued that: “as long as an employer accommodates only subset of workers with disable conditions, pregnant workers who are similar in the ability to work must receive the same treatment, even if still other non-pregnant workers do not receive accommodations” (Young v UPS, 2015). UPS then argued that the second clause does more than define sex discrimination to include pregnancy. At length, the Court did not accept either interpretation. They perceived that Ms. Young’s approach would privilege pregnant workers a “most-favored nation” status, which could be seen as Congress intent in passing the PDA, which was not the case. In contrast, if the UPS interpretation was adopted the second clause would confuse the first clause needs. Also, the Court did not want to follow the July 2014 EEOC guidelines, which …show more content…
Although, the case Young v. UPS is unable to provide a one size fits all employer guidance across the country, it could at least help employers take preventive steps in arising pregnancy discrimination acts in the workplace. However, companies should consider that if policies impose a significant burden on pregnant workers and not on other workers the company could be in problems. The Supreme Court has recognized that statistical evidence against a protected class could be used as evidence of pretext. Also, making assumptions about pregnancy or an employer’s ability to perform their job may lead to discrimination. Employers should review and amend their policies related to light duty assignments, reasonable accommodations and scheduling to ensure compliance with the law. Most importantly human resources personnel should understand and be trained on how to respond to workers with accommodation needs and
It was then determined that the PDA only worked to expand the definition of sex (women) to include pregnancy not special treatment for pregnant workers, but also those who may suffer disqualified illness or injury. In consequence, the confusing interpretation of the clauses leads to the question: Why wasn’t the plaintiff accommodated by the defendant when it had previously accommodated many other with similar physical limitations. As reported in the slip opinion under the Supreme Court syllabus of the case Young v. UPS; No. 12-1226 Ms. Young argued that: “as long as an employer accommodates only subset of workers with disable conditions, pregnant workers who are similar in the ability to work must receive the same treatment, even if still other non-pregnant workers do not receive accommodations” (Young v UPS, 2015). UPS then argued that the second clause does more than define sex discrimination to include pregnancy. At length, the Court did not accept either interpretation. They perceived that Ms. Young’s approach would privilege pregnant workers a “most-favored nation” status, which could be seen as Congress intent in passing the PDA, which was not the case. In contrast, if the UPS interpretation was adopted the second clause would confuse the first clause needs. Also, the Court did not want to follow the July 2014 EEOC guidelines, which …show more content…
Although, the case Young v. UPS is unable to provide a one size fits all employer guidance across the country, it could at least help employers take preventive steps in arising pregnancy discrimination acts in the workplace. However, companies should consider that if policies impose a significant burden on pregnant workers and not on other workers the company could be in problems. The Supreme Court has recognized that statistical evidence against a protected class could be used as evidence of pretext. Also, making assumptions about pregnancy or an employer’s ability to perform their job may lead to discrimination. Employers should review and amend their policies related to light duty assignments, reasonable accommodations and scheduling to ensure compliance with the law. Most importantly human resources personnel should understand and be trained on how to respond to workers with accommodation needs and