Peggy Young (right) leaving the Supreme Court building
The Supreme Court is taking on the question of whether companies can refuse to accommodate women's needs during pregnancy. The case in question involves a UPS driver, Peggy Young, who in 2006 was forced onto unpaid leave because she couldn't lift more than 20 pounds, rather than being allowed by the company to continue doing her job, which rarely required her to lift more than 20 pounds. That meant that, while pregnant, Young lost her health coverage as well as her income.
Circumstances have changed since Young's pregnancy—UPS has changed its policy and Congress has amended the Americans with Disabilities Act to include temporary disabilities, which includes pregnancy. However, the notoriously sexist Supreme Court will now decide whether Young should get back pay and damages under the Pregnancy Discrimination Act, a law courts have generally interpreted to allow discrimination against pregnant women under many circumstances. UPS says that since it wouldn't have given light duty to a man who hurt himself off the job, Young's pregnancy didn't merit light duty, either. However:
Representing Peggy Young in the Supreme Court on Wednesday, University of Michigan law professor Samuel Bagenstos will tell the justices that drivers who lost their licenses were assigned light duty until they could get their licenses back — in other words, that nonpregnant workers with temporary disabilities were treated more favorably than pregnant workers.
He says that UPS had drivers who had strokes and hypertension who were reassigned to light duty to allow them to get their health back so they could once again qualify for driving. "And that's exactly the same treatment that UPS refused to give Peggy Young," he contends.
UPS would reassign a driver who lost his or her commercial driver's license because of drunk driving, but not a pregnant woman. And pregnancy discrimination remains common. Republicans have blocked a federal Pregnant Workers Fairness Act, but
several states and cities have acted to strengthen protections for pregnant workers. Workers and advocacy groups, meanwhile, have pushed to keep the issue in the public eye; Walmart workers, who have had their own struggles with their company's
failure to accommodate pregnant women, rallied in support of Young outside the Supreme Court Wednesday.
So, what will the Supreme Court do? There's lots of reason to be pessimistic. As the National Women's Law Center's Emily Martin writes:
The specific legal questions raised in Hobby Lobby and Young are quite different, but the fundamental question of whether women’s reproductive health needs should be afforded equal treatment with other health needs is the common thread that runs through both. Over the years, this Court has shown a discomforting willingness to permit legal obstacles to be placed in the path of women seeking abortion. Last term, it permitted employers to place obstacles in front of women seeking birth control. This term, it will decide whether employers may also place obstacles in the path of women seeking to maintain healthy pregnancies.
Like I said, reason for pessimism.