Pregnancy accommodations at work
Young v. United Parcel Service
In brief
The Supreme Court sent Young’s case back after finding a factual dispute over whether UPS treated some nonpregnant employees with similar work limits more favorably.
- Where it stands
- Decided
Decided 6-3 · March 25, 2015 · Opinion by Justice Breyer
- What it’s about
- Peggy Young challenged UPS’s refusal to accommodate her pregnancy-related work limits under the Pregnancy Discrimination Act.
- Who it affects
- The Supreme Court did not decide that UPS violated the law; Young’s claim remains unresolved as the appeals court reviews the company’s reasons.
Summary: written with AI from the case record.
What it's about
The Supreme Court wiped out the Fourth Circuit’s ruling (vacated it) and sent the case back (remanded it), finding a factual dispute over whether some nonpregnant workers with similar limits received better treatment; the appeals court must still decide whether UPS’s reasons were an excuse.
Young brought her claim under the federal Pregnancy Discrimination Act, which addresses pregnancy discrimination at work.
Question presented
Whether, and in what circumstances, an employer that provides work accommodations to nonpregnant employees with work limitations must provide work accommodations to pregnant employees who are "similar in their ability or inability to work."?
What the Court decided
Holding
Under this interpretation of the Act, the Fourth Circuit’s judgment must be vacated. Summary judgment is appropriate when there is “no genuine dispute as to any material fact.” Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 56(a). The record here shows that Young created a genuine dispute as to whether UPS provided more favorable treatment to at least some employees whose situation cannot reasonably be distinguished from hers. It is left to the Fourth Circuit to determine on remand whether Young also created a genuine issue of material fact as to whether UPS’ reasons for having treated Young less favorably than these other nonpregnant employees were pretextual. 707 F. 3d 437, vacated and remanded.
- Result
- Vacated
The Court's reasoning
The Court said a judge may end a case without a trial only when no important fact is genuinely disputed. It found a factual dispute over whether UPS gave better treatment to at least some nonpregnant workers whose situations could not reasonably be distinguished from Young’s.
The vote
- Joined the judgment
- Concurred in a separate opinion
- Dissented
- Wrote an opinion
- Concurring · 1agreed with the result, wrote separately
- Alitowrote separately
- Dissenting · 3disagreed with the result
- Thomas
- Scaliawrote a dissent
- Kennedywrote a dissent
From the opinions
“Faced with two conceivable readings of the Pregnancy Discrimination Act, the Court chooses neither.”
What's next
The Fourth Circuit must decide whether Young raised a factual dispute about whether UPS’s stated reasons were a cover for treating her less favorably.
Documents
Opinions
Docket activity
New analysis added
AI analysis generated: Case Briefing
New analysis added
AI analysis generated: Impact Analysis
AI analysis generated: Opinion Summary
Show 4 moreShow fewer
AI analysis generated: Decision Record
Case data updated: question_presented, extraction_metadata
Case data updated: summary, question_presented, generation_metadata
Opinion added: Young
Sources
Primary materials plus reporting. Best-effort analysis: this explainer relies on a mix of primary materials and trusted secondary sources. Official filings and opinions remain authoritative.