1

Young V United Parcel Service

Name

Course

Instructor

Date
 2

Relevant Facts: In 2006, Peggy Young, the plaintiff, and a worker at United Parcel

Service as a delivery driver, requested for absence leave to undergo a vitro-fertilization to

conceive a child. Prior to beginning the process, she informed occupational health and safety

manager, Martin. The manager instructed the plaintiff to avail restrictions given to her by care

provider. She often delivered air mail which were relatively small. As a mother, she had two

children, which she raised with the help of her husband (Rose, 2016). Precisely, her husband

took care of her first-born son prior to the birth of their daughter. After the conception, the

plaintiff talked to her midwife in a bid to ensure her compliance with her employer. The midwife

recommended her to be exempted from carrying heavy packages exceeding twenty pounds.

The employee’s policy at United Parcel Services stated that employees should be capable

of lifting a weight of up to seventy pounds, implying that the plaintiff did not conform to the

policy based on the restrictions stated by her midwife. As a result, she was subjected into an

extended leave of absence without pay, given that her family medical leave has been utilized and

other benefits. While pregnant, she hired a lawyer who unsuccessfully tried to negotiate with her

employer on the basis of disability benefits, which ultimately led to filing a case in 2008. The

organizations responded by filing a motion to dismiss the case and was dismissed successfully in

2011 (Rose, 2016). The plaintiff resigned from her role and appealed, although she lost the

appeal in 2013. The appellate court argued that the plaintiff did not fall in a disability benefits

groups, after which young accepted the decision. A law professor, who was following the case

closely, owing to his expertise in America with disabilities act, decided to help the plaintiff,

through her lawyer to appeal the decision in the supreme court. In 2013, Young’s lawyer filed for

certiorari, and a year later the case was heard.

 3

Issue(s): The issue for determination in the case, was whether Pregnancy Discrimination

Act (PDA) obliges an employer to ensure the provision of all the services and benefits accorded

to a pregnant employee based on pregnancy limitations similar to an employee with limitations

not caused by pregnancy. The previous rulings were made in favor of the defendant stating that

the plaintiff situation did not fall in the category of an injured person while on duty, or disabled

while on duty as contained in the disability act.

Holding: The supreme court ruled against the defendant as they provided exception for a

driver who were injured while on duty and others who had lost transportation certification.

Besides, the organization accommodated other drivers who suffered disability while in the line of

duty, and as such, Young deserved to be treated the same way. The pregnancy discrimination act

was cited as prohibiting the employer from firing, failing to promote or refusing to hire a

pregnant woman (Beatty et al., 2021). The law further prohibits the employers from subjecting

women into a hostile work environment that impacts their ability to do the job. Even though

pregnancy is not a disability, the court argued that its should be treated temporary as such, due to

inability to perform certain tasks, implying that Young should have enjoyed similar treatments

that those with medical disabilities were accorded.

Reasoning: The reasoning behind the ruling was that the employer had accommodated

other disability cases. The Pregnancy Discrimination Act clarifies that no one should be

discriminated on the basis of their sex, including being discriminated on the basis of being

pregnant. The act also requires that employers accord pregnant women similar treatment as other

individuals affected, due to their inability to carry out a specific role (Beatty et al., 2021). The

2008 amendment to Americans with disability act extended its coverage to accommodate

pregnant women, compelling the employers to provide necessary accommodation to them,

 4

especially when they present a case that can be defined as a disability. As such, the defendant

had no reason to accord the plaintiff similar accommodations he offered others. The entity

incorporated a third category employees who were accorded limitations in their roles, and

therefore, there was no reason not to subject a pregnant woman to the same restrictions.

Dissenting Opinion: On the majority side, a significant inquiry was based on whether an

employer’s policy and its burdening of the pregnant women implies an intentional

discrimination. Further, it incorporated a balancing test which provided that a worker with a

claim that they are intentionally mistreated on the basis of their pregnancy, sought the

accommodation, and the organization rejected the appeal while granting accommodation to

others with similar limitations (Porter, 2020). It required the organization to show that its actions

were legitimate, but not on the basis of the costs and convenient to incorporate pregnant women

in the category of other accommodated workers. Another judge added that the Act requires equal

treatment irrespective of intent and as such, pregnant women should accord similar treatment to

others with limitations.

On the minority side, the trail was on the primary intent of the Act and the clarification of

pregnancy discrimination on the basis of sex. This implied the majority were trying to craft their

won law. In dissent, another judge stated that the majority side interpreted the Act in a manner

that depict disparate treatment which would elicit confusion in future cases involving pregnant

mothers and discrimination (Porter, 2020). This implies that in future cases involving pregnant

women being denied workplace accommodations, will potentially win their respective claims

against organizations that deny them.

 5

References

Beatty, J. F., Samuelson, S. S., & Abril, P. (2021). Legal Environment. Cengage Learning.

Porter, N. B. (2020). Accommodating Pregnancy Five Years After Young v. UPS: Where We

Are & Where We Should Go. . Louis UJ Health L. & Pol'y, 14, 73.

Rose, R. V. (2016). Pregnancy and the Workplace. FEDERAL LAWYER.