Skip to footer

Why the Supreme Court is hearing a UPS pregnancy case

A driver for United Parcel Service wanted a temporary assignment to avoid lifting heavy packages after she became pregnant in 2006. UPS refused.

|
(AP Photo/Jacquelyn Martin)
Peggy Young, of Lorton, Va., with her daughter Triniti, 7, in Washington. Peggy Young has only to look at her 7-year-old younger daughter to be reminded how long she has been fighting with United Parcel Service over its treatment of pregnant employees, and why. Young was pregnant when the company told her she could not have a temporary assignment to avoid lifting heavy packages, as her doctor ordered. She sued UPS for discriminating against pregnant women and, after losing two rounds in lower courts, the Supreme Court will hear her case Wednesday.
  • By Mark Sherman Associated Press

| Washington

The Supreme Court is taking up a pregnancy discrimination case with the potential to affect many American women who continue to work throughout their pregnancies.

The case before the justices Wednesday involves a former driver for United Parcel Service who wanted a temporary assignment to avoid lifting heavy packages after she became pregnant in 2006.

UPS refused to accommodate driver Peggy Young, who did not return to work until two months after she delivered her baby.

The court is weighing whether the company's actions violated the 36-year-old federal Pregnancy Discrimination Act.

Young says she should have been offered light-duty work because some UPS workers were.

The Atlanta-based package delivery company says it will voluntarily offer pregnant women light duty starting in January. But the company contends it complied with the law in Young's case.

The question at the Supreme Court is whether UPS was required to accommodate Young, 42, because it gave temporary assignments to some workers, including those who were injured on the job or had a condition that was covered by the Americans With Disabilities Act.

The Obama administration and an unusual array of liberal and conservative interest groups are backing Young, who lives with her 7-year-old daughter, Triniti, in Lorton, Virginia.

Young's dispute with UPS arose after she gave her supervisor a doctor's note recommending that she not lift packages heavier than 20 pounds. Young said she dealt almost exclusively with overnight letters, but UPS said its drivers must be able to lift packages weighing up to 70 pounds. Young left the company in 2009.

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce is among those on UPS' side. The chamber says many of its members do provide additional benefits to pregnant workers, but says policies at thousands of companies would be upended if the court were to rule for Young. Lower federal courts have rejected her claim.

Since the justices agreed in July to hear the case, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission updated guidance to employers to make clear that they should accommodate people in Young's situation. Yet the U.S. Postal Service, an independent federal agency, maintains the practice that UPS has now abandoned, UPS said in court papers. The Postal Service declined to comment.

A decision in Young v. UPS, 12-1226, is expected by late June.

___

Follow Mark Sherman on Twitter at: http://www.twitter.com/shermancourt

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.
Real news can be honest, hopeful, credible, constructive.
What is the Monitor difference? Tackling the tough headlines – with humanity. Listening to sources – with respect. Seeing the story that others are missing by reporting what so often gets overlooked: the values that connect us. That’s Monitor reporting – news that changes how you see the world.
editor@csmonitor.com
Subscribe
Mark Sappenfield
Editor

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.

Subscribe to insightful journalism

QR Code to Why the Supreme Court is hearing a UPS pregnancy case
Read this article in
https://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Latest-News-Wires/2014/1203/Why-the-Supreme-Court-is-hearing-a-UPS-pregnancy-case
QR Code to Subscription page
Start your subscription today
https://www.csmonitor.com/subscribe