Young Vs. United Parcel Service

...

up to 70 pounds (and up to 150 pounds with assistance) (Bagenstos, 10). UPS told Young she could not work while under a lifting restriction. As a result, Young ended up having to stay home without pay during most of the time she was pregnant and eventually lost her employee medical coverage. UPS acted unlawfully by refusing to accommodate her pregnancy-related lifting restriction. She also said that UPS accommodated other drivers who were "similar in their “inability to work" which means that UPS should have accommodated for Young as well. However, this was not the case and she was simply dismissed from work and was therefore discriminated in her different treatment.

In addition, the PDA also states that workers must be permitted to work as long as they are able to perform their jobs. The EEOC (Equal Employment Opportunity Commission) states that "an employer may not deny light duty to a pregnant employee based on a policy that limits light duty to employees with on-the-job injuries (Justia, NA). Although Peggy Young was unable go about her regular job due to her limiting state, she requested an accommodation of providing her a temporary alternate job that she could do during her pregnancy. When Young later asked the UPS Capital Division Manager to accommodate her disability, he said that, while she was pregnant, she was "too much of a liability" and could "not come back" until she was no longer pregnant. Because of this Young remained on a leave of absence (without pay) for much of her pregnancy. Young brought forth evidence that she was a victim of discrimination through this act by showing that UPS had a light-duty-for-injury policy with respect to numerous "other persons," but not with respect to pregnant workers, some employees were accommodated despite the fact that their disabilities had been incurred off the job. According to a statement made by a UPS shop steward who had worked for UPS for roughly a decade, "the only light duty requested (due to physical) restrictions that became an issue" at UPS "were with women who were pregnant."

Peggy Young should have received proper work accommodations during her time of pregnancy from UPS because under the PDA Young was a victim of gender discrimination, should have received equal treatment in terms of accommodations, and should have been allowed to work. As stated by both clauses of the PDA discrimination against ones sex is unconstitutional, with the inclusion of treating those with pregnancy related disabilities differently from others with similar disabilities. During Young’s pregnancy she had a physical limitation that disabled from doing her work properly but was not accommodated whereas other with the similar limitation were. In addition, the PDA states that those who are able to work are to be allowed with proper accommodations such as giving a lighter duty. All these reasons come together to prove that Peggy Young should have received proper accommodations and it was unconstitutional the way UPS treated