Boston Lawyer Blog

Pregnant Women Are Entitled to Reasonable Accommodations in the Workplace Under the Americans with Disabilities Act

Published on: December 5, 2014 | by Emma Quinn-Judge

On Wednesday, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Young v. UPS, a case that examines what protections pregnant workers have under the Pregnancy Discrimination Act (“PDA”). As I explained in detail earlier this week, the issue in Young is whether an employer who accommodates some of its workers by providing light duty or modified work assignments is required to provide pregnant workers who are “similar in their ability or inability to work” with the same accommodations it voluntarily provides its other workers. Oral argument was lively and we’ll know by June at the very latest how the Supreme Court will decide this case. (One court-watcher predicts a ruling in favor of UPS, but hedges that his “confidence level is not high on this prediction.”)

The PDA, however, is not the only law that protects pregnant workers. As the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) made clear in the updated pregnancy guidance it released this summer, pregnant women are not exempt from the protections of the ADA. Pregnant workers who have medical conditions that would trigger ADA protection are entitled to reasonable accommodations on the same terms as any other workers who have ADA-protected medical conditions. In order to be covered by the ADA, a pregnant woman must establish that she has a pregnancy-related condition that substantially limits one or more major life activities; the EEOC clarifies that even “impairments of short duration that are sufficiently limiting can be disabilities.” Numerous medical conditions associated with pregnancy may qualify for protection under this test. These include carpal tunnel syndrome, cervix problems, sciatica, pelvic inflammation, gestational diabetes, preeclampsia, nausea that causes severe dehydration, abnormal heart rhythms, swelling, or depression. Moreover, even a non-specific pregnancy-related condition – such as a doctor’s opinion that a pregnancy is “high risk” and therefore requires certain limitations, even where there is no diagnosis of a specific medical impairment –may able to obtain protections under the ADA. The ADA also protects pregnant women who are “regarded as” having disabilities. If an employer takes adverse action against a pregnant woman – for example, it refuses to hire her, terminates her, or reassigns her to a low-paying position against her will – the employer may also be liable under the ADA for disability discrimination.

Supreme Court Will Decide Scope of Protection for Pregnant Workers in Young v. UPS

Published on: December 3, 2014 | by Emma Quinn-Judge

When she became pregnant in 2006, Peggy Young’s doctor told her not to lift more than 20 pounds during the early part of her pregnancy, and no more than 10 thereafter. Upon hearing of this restriction, Young’s employer, UPS, refused to let her stay in her job, as she occasionally – albeit rarely – needed to lift packages more than 20 pounds. Young responded that she could keep working: she could do her “regular job” with occasional assistance from willing coworkers or she could be assigned to “light duty” like other employees to whom UPS offered light duty when they faced similar work restrictions. UPS refused to accommodate Young; a division manager told her she was “too much of a liability” while pregnant and instructed her not to return until she “was no longer pregnant.” Young took an extended unpaid leave of absence and eventually lost her medical coverage.

The Supreme Court today hears oral argument in Young v. UPS, Young’s case alleging that UPS violated the Pregnancy Discrimination Act (“PDA”) by failing to provide her with the same accommodations it provided non-pregnant workers who were similar to Young in their ability to work. (The many briefs in the case are here.) The PDA, which was enacted in 1978, amended Title VII to clarify that discrimination based on pregnancy is a form of sex discrimination; the statute further provides that “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.” Young argues that the PDA requires an employer that accommodates non-pregnant employees with work limitations to provide pregnant women who are “similar in their ability or inability to work” with the same accommodations.

The Federal and Massachusetts Anti-Discrimination Agencies Both Say That Parental Leave Must Be Provided Equally to Men and Women

Published on: November 13, 2014 | by Emma Quinn-Judge

Just over 36 years ago, on October 31, 1978, the Pregnancy Discrimination Act (“PDA”) was signed into law, extending the protections of Title VII to pregnant women. This summer, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) issued new enforcement guidance on pregnancy discrimination, explaining how both the PDA/Title VII and the Americans with Disabilities Act provide protections for pregnant women in the workplace.

While much of the response to the EEOC’s new enforcement guidance has focused on the provisions that require employers to provide reasonable accommodations to pregnant women, another important aspect of the guidance – one that affects both men and women – has received substantially less attention. In the new guidance, the EEOC clarifies that under Title VII men and women are entitled to parental leave on an equal basis. To be precise, “similarly situated men and women” must receive parental leave “on the same terms.” What does this mean? It means that any leave provided to a new mother that extends beyond the “period of recuperation from childbirth” must also be provided to a new father. In other words, any leave provided for the purpose of bonding with a child or providing care for a young child – as opposed to leave that is provided for the purpose of recuperating from childbirth – must be provided equally to men and women. Moms and dads get the opportunity to bond with and care for their babies.