Peggy Young, left, sued UPS in 2008, claiming they must make accommodations for her pregnancy as they had done for other employees with physical limitations. She is pictured here in 2014. Supreme Court lightens load for pregnant employees

The Supreme Court made it easier Wednesday for women to sue their employers for failing to accommodate a pregnancy.

In a 6-3 decision the court revived a lawsuit brought by a former United Parcel Service driver named Peggy Young who sued the company —- under the Pregnancy Discrimination Act of 1978 —- after it denied her “light duty” when she became pregnant. Young will now have the opportunity to allege discrimination under the theory set forth in today’s opinion.


The decision, which allows pregnant women to sue their employer even when they don’t have direct evidence of discrimination, will likely prompt employers to accommodate pregnant employees more readily than they have in the past.

Under the ruling, employers must grant pregnant employees accommodations if they have previously granted the same accommodations to large groups of other employees with similar physical limitations. Young had claimed UPS offered light duty to injured workers and should have offered the same to her.

“The record here shows that Young created a genuine dispute as to whether UPS provided more favorable treatment to at least some employees whose situation cannot reasonably be distinguished from hers,” said Associate Justice Stephen Breyer in the majority opinion.

“This is a big win, not just for Peggy Young but also for all women in the workplace,” said Samuel Bagenstos, Young’s attorney. “The Court recognized that a ruling for UPS would have thwarted Congress’s intent in passing the Pregnancy Discrimination Act … It’s a big step forward towards enforcing the principle that a woman shouldn’t have to choose between her pregnancy and her job.”

The worker-friendly ruling is a departure of sorts for the business-friendly court, which under Chief Justice John Roberts has ruled against Amazon.com contract workers seeking overtime pay and, more famously, denied former Goodyear employee Lilly Ledbetter compensation for years of pay discrimination, leading Congress to amend the relevant statute early in President Barack Obama’s first term. Roberts sided with the majority Tuesday, as did the court’s three women justices, Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor and Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Associate Justice Samuel Alito concurred in a separate opinion.

Wednesday’s decision prompted Sen. Bob Casey (D-Pa.) to pledge that he would introduce a budget amendment on workplace discrimination. “While the Court’s decision is a victory for Peggy Young,” Casey said in a written statement, “it still leaves too much uncertainty for other pregnant workers.” Casey said his bill would “streamline the process for pregnant workers to receive reasonable accommodations.”

The decision is a rare win for both women’s rights groups and anti-abortion groups. Both had joined Young’s cause in briefs seeking greater job protections for pregnant women.

Young sued UPS in 2008 claiming the company was required under the 1978 Pregnancy Discrimination Act to accommodate her in the same way it accommodated employees who were hampered by other physical ailments. The high court stopped short of interpreting the 1978 law as broadly as Young proposed.

In a written statement, UPS said it was “pleased that the Supreme Court rejected the argument that UPS’s pregnancy-neutral policy was inherently discriminatory.” The company said it was “confident” that when the case was sent back to the lower courts they “will find that UPS did not discriminate against Ms. Young under this newly announced standard.”

In the majority opinion, Breyer wrote that the court would not confer “most-favored-nation status” on pregnant employees. Instead, Breyer wrote, Young could use a long-held standard used in discrimination cases brought in other contexts under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Associate Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, and Anthony Kennedy dissented from Wednesday’s majority opinion. Scalia argued that the court was creating a new interpretation of the Pregnancy Discrimination Act out of whole cloth.

“The Court seems to think our task is to craft a policy-driven compromise between the possible readings of the law, like a congressional conference committee reconciling House and Senate versions of a bill,” Scalia said.

“It takes only a couple of waves of the Supreme Wand to produce the desired result. Poof!” he added.

During the appeal, UPS rescinded the policy in question, saying it did so in response to new guidelines by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. “We have been in business for more than 100 years,” UPS said Wednesday, “and have learned that the ability to change and adapt is fundamental to our success.”

Correction: An earlier version of this piece stated, erroneously, that the decision came down Tuesday.