Today the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in Young v. United Parcel Service, a case involving what private businesses must do to accommodate pregnant employees without violating anti-discrimination laws.

Hard cases make bad law, or so the adage goes. And in this case, the Supreme Court is faced with a sympathetic plaintiff who was put in an unfortunate situation.

UPS would not make accommodations for those who sustained non-work-related injuries. (Photo: Keystone Pressedienst/Newscom)

Peggy Young was employed with United Parcel Service from 1999 until 2006. As a driver, Young was expected to lift packages that were 20 pounds or heavier on a regular basis. But when she became pregnant, her doctor advised her against lifting heavy packages. Though the company had made lifting accommodations for some employees, it placed Young on unpaid medical leave for the duration of her pregnancy. In an interview with The New York Times, Young said, “I lost my health benefits…I lost my pension. And I lost my wages for seven months.”

Although UPS made temporary accommodations for drivers who were injured on the job or those who did not maintain driving certifications, it would not make accommodations for those who sustained non-work-related injuries. The company also made accommodations for employees with disabilities recognized under the Americans with Disabilities Act.

@LASELC at S ct standing with Peggy Young and speaking out for justice for pregnant workers. pic.twitter.com/wVyaczcChj

— Elizabeth Kristen (@LasEkristen) December 3, 2014

Moreover, although UPS accommodated pregnant employees with physical restrictions in states that required such an accommodation, Young worked in Maryland, which did not have such a mandate. Young filed a complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, claiming that UPS’s failure to offer her an accommodation when it accommodated non-pregnant employees with similar limitations violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended by the Pregnancy Discrimination Act of 1978. Passed in response to the Supreme Court holding in General Electric Co. v. Gilbert (1976) that discrimination on the basis of pregnancy does not constitute sex discrimination under Title VII, the Pregnancy Discrimination Act provides that pregnant women “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 …” UPS argues that the law “make[s] clear that employers may lawfully distinguish between on- and off-the-job injuries [or conditions].”The company maintains that it treated Young the same as it treated other employees who were similarly limited because of non-job-related injuries. Although UPS now agrees that it is good policy to allow lifting accommodations for pregnant employees, and, effective Jan. 1, 2015, will begin offering such an accommodation for pregnant employees, what this case boils down to is whether UPS discriminated against Peggy Young when it denied her a work accommodation at the time. As UPS puts it, employers “cannot single out pregnant employees for less favorable treatment. But they can apply the same neutral terms and conditions to pregnant employees as to other similarly situated employees…. In order words, liability…depends on whether the protected trait [pregnancy] actually motivated the employer’s decision.” That’s a standard the trial court adopted and which the court concluded Young didn’t meet.  In affirming, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals wrote, “One may characterize the UPS policy as insufficiently charitable, but a lack of charity does not amount to discriminatory animus directed at a protected class of employees.” 

We hope the Supreme Court will deliver justice after they hear argument in Peggy Young v. UPS today. #StandWithPeggy pic.twitter.com/XWEPTeM3Vd

— NWLC (@nwlc) December 3, 2014

Now, Young v. United Parcel Service is before the Supreme Court, and at least one justice may have tipped her hand.  In a recent interview, a reporter for Elle Magazine asked Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg about the case, and she replied, “For people who were temporarily disabled, the employer would make an accommodation, but the employer said, ‘We’re not making an accommodation for her because she’s not disabled.’” The Court should issue its decision by the end of June.

This article has been modified.