Skip to content
Our team has decades of experience serving people across the state and throughout the country.
Madison Office: (608) 257-0040
Milwaukee Office: (414) 271-8650
Get a Free Case Screening
Hawks Quindel, S.C. Logo
  • Attorneys
  • Practice Areas
    • Employment
    • Family & Divorce
    • Labor Law
    • Social Security
    • Employee Benefits
    • Wage & Hour
    • Workers' Compensation
    • STD/LTD Benefits
    • Employment Contracts
    • Duty Disability
  • About the Firm
    • Mission & Values
    • What to Expect
    • Firm History
    • Community Involvement
    • Careers
    • Workplace Culture
    • Offices
      • Milwaukee
      • Madison
      • Chicago
      • Appleton
      • Waukesha
  • Blog
  • News & Victories
  • En Español
    • La Compensación Laboral
    • Ley Laboral
    • Ley de Permiso de Auscencia Médica o Familiar
    • Sueldos y Salarios
  • Contact
  • Search

Supreme Court to Decide Whether an Employer is Required to Accommodate a Pregnant Worker’s Medical Restrictions

Home  >  Blog  >  Supreme Court to Decide Whether an Employer is Required to Accommodate a Pregnant Worker’s Medical Restrictions

December 12, 2014 | By Hawks Quindel, S.C.
Supreme Court to Decide Whether an Employer is Required to Accommodate a Pregnant Worker’s Medical Restrictions

Last week, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Young v. UPS, a case involving an employer’s denial of a pregnant employee’s request for light duty work. The law at issue is the Pregnancy Discrimination Act (PDA), which amended Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to require that, “women affected by pregnancy, childbirth or related medical conditions shall be treated the same for all employment-related purposes, including receipt of benefits under fringe benefit programs, as other persons not so affected but similar in their ability or inability to work...” 42 U.S. Code § 2000e(k) (emphasis added). Peggy Young, a pregnant employee of UPS, requested light-duty work as a result of her doctor’s 20 pound lifting restrictions. UPS had a policy which provided for light-duty work assignments to employees who (1) were disabled within the meaning of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), (2) had been injured on the job, or (3) had lost their commercial driver’s license. Because Ms. Young did not fall within any of those three categories, UPS denied Ms. Young’s request and placed her on unpaid leave, without benefits. Ms. Young filed suit, claiming UPS’s policy discriminated against pregnant employees. After all, UPS granted accommodations to other persons with medical restrictions who were “similar in their inability to work.” Both the District Court of Maryland and the Fourth Circuit Court of appeals granted summary judgment in favor of UPS. These courts concluded, among other things, that UPS’s policy was neutral and did not discriminate against pregnant employees: according to the policy, pregnant workers were treated the same as non-pregnant workers who had an off-the-job injury and whose medical condition was not disabling. In both cases – that of a pregnant employee and that of a non-disabled employee whose injury arose of the job– the UPS workers were not entitled to accommodation. Despite UPS’s position in court, it has since changed its policy to accommodate pregnant workers by offering them light duty work, starting January 1. The Supreme Court now must decide what Congress meant when it passed the PDA, a law which was intended to guarantee equal treatment to pregnant women in the workforce. For more information on the Pregnancy Discrimination Act, and the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s guidance, please see Attorney Nicholas Fairweather’s blog post. If you are a pregnant women experiencing workplace discrimination due to your pregnancy, please contact the employment discrimination attorneys at Hawks Quindel to discuss your situation.

Contact an Attorney

"*" indicates required fields

This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
Can we communicate with you via SMS (Text) message?
Hawks Quindel is a plaintiff-side firm serving the State of Wisconsin and beyond. In order for your inquiry to be sent to the correct group of attorneys for review, please select one of our areas of practice that best categorizes your legal issue.
After receiving your initial inquiry, our attorneys may follow-up with questions relevant to the area of practice that categorize your specific legal issue.
Are you completing this form on behalf of another person?

  • Employment Flat Fee Consults
  • Short or Long-Term Disability Flat Fee Consults
  • Improper Classification of Salaried Employees
  • Applying for Social Security Benefits
  • How Social Security Evaluates Disability
  • SSDI vs. SSI
  • Short Term Disability Benefits
  • Long Term Disability Benefits
  • Sex & Gender Discrimination
  • Americans with Disabilities Act

Hawks Quindel, S.C. Logo

Get a Free Case Screening Call Us Today


Milwaukee

5150 N Port Washington Rd Ste 243,
Milwaukee, WI 53217-5470
(414) 271-8650

Madison

409 E Main St,
Madison, WI 53703
(608) 257-0040

Chicago

111 E Wacker Drive Ste 2300,
Chicago, IL 60601
312-262-7517

Appleton

54 Park Pl #400 ,
Appleton, WI 54914
920-931-2560

Waukesha

500 Elm Grove Rd Ste 205,
Elm Grove, WI 53122
262-439-4450

Attorneys|Practice Areas|About the Firm|Blog
© 2025 Hawks Quindel, S.C. |Sitemap|Disclaimer
Hawks Quindel represents clients throughout the State of Wisconsin, including the cities of Milwaukee, Madison, Green Bay, Kenosha, Racine, Appleton, Waukesha, Eau Claire, Oshkosh, Janesville, West Allis, La Crosse, Wauwatosa, Sheboygan, Fond du Lac, New Berlin, Wausau, Menomonee Falls, Brookfield, Oak Creek, and Beloit, among others statewide. Hawks Quindel also represents Illinois clients throughout the State of Illinois through its Chicago office. In addition, our attorneys represent clients nationwide in short-term disability (STD), long-term disability (LTD), and other employee benefit claims, as well as select out-of-state Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI) matters.