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 absence leave to undergo a vitro-fertilization to conceive a

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

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

provider even though she often delivered relatively small air mail. 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 to ensure her compliance with her employer. The midwife

recommended she 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 to an

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

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

with her employer on the basis disability benefits, which ultimately led to filing a case. The

organization responded by filing a motion to dismiss the case, and it 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 into a disability benefits

group, 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, appeal the decision to 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 favored the defendant, stating that the plaintiff's

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

as contained in the company’s policy

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

for a driver injured while on duty and others who had lost transportation certification. Besides,

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

and as such, Young deserved to be treated the same way. The Pregnancy Discrimination Act

prohibited the employer from firing, failing to promote, or refusing to hire a pregnant woman

(Beatty et al., 2021). The law further prohibits employers from subjecting women to a hostile

work environment that impacts their ability to do the job. Even though pregnancy is not a

disability, the court argued that it should be treated temporarily due to the inability to perform

specific 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 against based on their sex, including being discriminated against 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 the Americans with Disability Act extended its coverage to

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

 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. In addition, the

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

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

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

employer’s policy and its burdening of pregnant women implied 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 convenience of incorporating pregnant women into the category of other

accommodated workers. Another judge added that the Act required equal treatment irrespective

of intent, and as such, pregnant women should be accorded similar treatment to others with

limitations.

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

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

their law. In dissent, another judge stated that the majority side interpreted the Act to depict

disparate treatment, which would elicit confusion in future cases involving pregnant mothers and

discrimination (Porter, 2020). This implies that 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. & Poly, 14, 73.

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