abusesaffiliationarrow-downarrow-leftarrow-rightarrow-upattack-typeburgerchevron-downchevron-leftchevron-rightchevron-upClock iconclosedeletedevelopment-povertydiscriminationdollardownloademailenvironmentexternal-linkfacebookfiltergenderglobegroupshealthC4067174-3DD9-4B9E-AD64-284FDAAE6338@1xinformation-outlineinformationinstagraminvestment-trade-globalisationissueslabourlanguagesShapeCombined Shapeline, chart, up, arrow, graphLinkedInlocationmap-pinminusnewsorganisationotheroverviewpluspreviewArtboard 185profilerefreshIconnewssearchsecurityPathStock downStock steadyStock uptagticktooltiptwitteruniversalityweb
Article

25 Mar 2015

Author:
Barbara Leonard, Courthouse News Service

Pregnancy Bias Claims Against UPS Revived

See all tags

UPS must face claims that it discriminated by barring a woman from working while pregnant, the Supreme Court ruled Wednesday…Prior to her pregnancy, Young had been a seven-year, part-time employee for UPS…When she became pregnant, both Young's doctor and midwife signed notes stating that Young should not lift more than 20 pounds. A supervisor refused to let Young return to work in the fall based on a UPS policy that says all drivers must be able to lift packages weighing up to 70 pounds…Young remained home without pay…[I]n 2007, she brought discrimination claims to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) and sued UPS in October 2008. A federal judge granted UPS summary judgment in 2011, however and the 4th Circuit affirmed in January 2013. The Supreme Court vacated that ruling 6-3 Wednesday based on its interpretation of the Pregnancy Discrimination Act, before more recent changes by Congress. It noted that the relevant statutory clause says "women affected by pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions shall be treated the same for all employment-related purposes ... as other persons not so affected but similar in their ability or inability to work."…