The US supreme court on Wednesday backed a former United Parcel Service Inc driver who filed a discrimination lawsuit against the company for refusing to give her light-duty work when she was pregnant.



In a 6-3 vote, the justices sent the case back to the lower court for a possible trial. A federal district court judge and an appeals court had previously thrown out the lawsuit and sided with UPS, but will now have to contend with whether the package delivery company violated the Pregnancy Discrimination Act in its treatment of the former employee, Peggy Young.

At the crux of Young’s case is whether or not employers should allow for temporary assignments when workers are restricted from certain tasks due to pregnancy. Young became pregnant in 2006 while working as a UPS delivery truck driver in Landover, Maryland, and at the time was recommended by her doctor to refrain from lifting more than 20 pounds.

Young said she presented a doctor’s note to her employer but was told that the company did not offer alternative or light-duty work unless workers were recovering from injuries they incurred on the job. Young took an unpaid leave of absence and initially returned to work after the birth of her child, but later left UPS.

In the court’s decision, Justice Stephen Breyer asked why the employer was willing to accommodate the needs of other workers but not those who were pregnant. He was joined in the majority by all three of the court’s women – Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan – as well as GOP appointees Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito. Conservative justices Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy and Clarence Thomas dissented.

UPS and employers facing similar suits have argued that they are legally allowed to extend preferences based on seniority systems and on-duty incidents. The Pregnancy Discrimination Act does not require pregnant women to be treated the same as workers with temporary disabilities, UPS argued, but rather ensures that pregnant women are not singled out for discrimination.

Last October, the company announced plans to start providing accommodations for pregnant women in January. Young has continued to seek damages for her treatment.

The last time the supreme court ruled on the responsibilities of employers towards pregnant workers was in 1991.