Peggy Young worked as a part-time driver for United Parcel Service (UPS). Her job required her to be able to lift up to 70 pounds (and up to 150 pounds with assistance). After becoming pregnant in 2006, her midwife recommended that she not lift more than 20 pounds during the first 20 weeks of pregnancy and no more than 10 pounds thereafter. Young sought a light-duty or other accommodation so she could continue working. UPS denied her request based on a written policy that made temporary alternative work or light duty available only to (1) employees injured on the job, (2) employees who had lost Department of Transportation (DOT) certification, and (3) employees with disabilities covered by the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Because Young's limitation stemmed from pregnancy and she had not lost DOT certification, UPS concluded she did not qualify under any category. UPS placed Young on unpaid leave, during which she lost her medical coverage. Young filed a charge with the EEOC and then sued under Title VII, as amended by the PDA, alleging disparate treatment for failure to accommodate. The district court granted summary judgment for UPS, and the Fourth Circuit affirmed, reasoning that UPS's policy was pregnancy-neutral and that the comparators Young identified were not similarly situated. The Supreme Court granted certiorari.
Under the Pregnancy Discrimination Act, may a pregnant worker establish a disparate treatment claim when her employer denies her an accommodation that it provides to nonpregnant employees who are similar in their ability or inability to work, and what evidentiary framework governs that claim?
Pregnancy discrimination claims under Title VII's Pregnancy Discrimination Act proceed under the McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting framework, adapted to the PDA's text. A plaintiff makes a prima facie case by showing: (1) she is pregnant (a protected class), (2) she sought an accommodation, (3) the employer denied the accommodation, and (4) the employer did accommodate others who are similar in their ability or inability to work. The employer must then articulate a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for denying the accommodation to the plaintiff. Reasons consisting merely of cost or convenience are insufficient. The plaintiff may show pretext by providing evidence that the employer's policies impose a significant burden on pregnant workers and that the employer's reasons are not sufficiently strong to justify that burden. Evidence that an employer accommodates a large percentage of nonpregnant workers while failing to accommodate a large percentage of pregnant workers with similar work limitations can permit a reasonable jury to infer intentional discrimination.
Yes. A pregnant employee can establish a prima facie case of disparate treatment under the PDA by showing she was denied an accommodation given to others similar in their ability or inability to work. Neutral policies do not automatically defeat such claims, and cost or convenience alone is not a sufficient justification. The Court vacated the Fourth Circuit's judgment and remanded for further proceedings under the proper standard.
The Court began with the PDA's text, which commands that pregnant workers be treated the same as nonpregnant workers "similar in their ability or inability to work." Reading this language in light of Title VII and the PDA's purpose to overrule General Electric Co. v. Gilbert, the Court rejected both the employee's broad interpretation (which would have effectively created a most-favored-nation status requiring any accommodation given to any worker be given to all pregnant workers) and the employer's narrow interpretation (which treated pregnancy blindness in policy as an absolute defense). Instead, the Court applied the McDonnell Douglas framework to disparate treatment PDA claims, reasoning that intent can be inferred indirectly from how an employer treats pregnant workers relative to others with similar work limitations. Under this approach, a plaintiff's prima facie case requires proof that she sought an accommodation, was denied, and that the employer did accommodate others similar in their ability or inability to work. The employer then must provide a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason; but reasons limited to saving money or administrative convenience are inadequate given the PDA's mandate of equal treatment. The plaintiff can establish pretext by showing that the employer's policies impose a significant burden on pregnant workers and that the employer's reasons do not justify that burden. For example, evidence that a company routinely provides light duty to multiple nonpregnant categories (such as workers injured on the job or who lost DOT certification) while categorically refusing the same to pregnant workers with identical lifting restrictions can allow a jury to find intentional discrimination. Applying this standard, the Court concluded that Young offered sufficient evidence to create a genuine dispute of material fact—UPS had carved out accommodations for several groups with comparable limitations but excluded pregnancy—and therefore summary judgment for UPS was improper. The Court emphasized that it was not creating an automatic accommodation mandate nor endorsing the employer's neutrality defense. Rather, it crafted an evidentiary path by which plaintiffs can proceed to trial where the proof shows that pregnant workers bear a disproportionate burden under a policy and the employer's explanations lack sufficient strength. The decision thus harmonizes the PDA with established Title VII methodologies while giving effect to Congress's directive of parity for pregnant workers.
Young is pivotal for pregnancy discrimination law because it clarifies how courts assess comparators and pretext in PDA disparate treatment cases. It embeds pregnancy-discrimination claims within the familiar McDonnell Douglas framework while articulating a distinctive "significant burden" inquiry tailored to the PDA's equal-treatment command. Practically, it prevents employers from using facial neutrality or convenience-based rationales to defeat claims at summary judgment when their accommodation schemes favor large classes of nonpregnant workers with similar limitations. For students, Young is a study in statutory interpretation (text, history, and purpose), the calibration of burden-shifting frameworks, and the limits of categorical employer policies. It also provides a foundation for understanding later legislative developments, including the federal Pregnant Workers Fairness Act (effective 2023), which imposes an affirmative reasonable accommodation duty distinct from Title VII's disparate treatment paradigm. Post-Young, PDA claims still require comparator and pretext analysis; PWFA claims proceed under an ADA-like undue hardship standard.
Young v. UPS reframed pregnancy discrimination litigation by reaffirming that the PDA demands equal treatment for pregnant workers relative to others with similar work limitations and by embedding that command in a calibrated McDonnell Douglas analysis. The decision forecloses both automatic entitlement to accommodations and automatic employer defenses based on facially neutral policies or convenience.