Pregnant worker case at high court divides pro-life, conservative groups

The Supreme Court will hear a case tomorrow about the meaning of the Pregnancy Discrimination Act of 1978 (PDA), and whether UPS discriminated against one of its workers who was pregnant. Conservative groups have sided with the company, while pro-life groups have sided with the pregnant worker.

Peggy Young was a UPS delivery driver who was forced to take a leave of absence after becoming pregnant—her doctor ordered her not to lift more than 20 pounds, and her job required her to be able to lift packages up to 70 pounds. She sued, saying the company could have found work for her other than lifting heavy packages. UPS argues she did not qualify for special accommodation under the federal discrimination statute. Under company policy at the time, UPS only provided “light duty” to drivers temporarily disabled for certain reasons, but not for pregnancies. The lower courts have sided with UPS, saying it did not discriminate under the PDA because it treated all similarly situated pregnant workers the same. The company has since changed its policies to accommodate pregnant workers like Young with light duty shifts, but the Supreme Court will decide the underlying statutory issue.

The case has created unusual alliances and divisions. Twenty-three pro-life groups filed an amicus brief on Young’s side, alongside briefs from groups that advocate for abortion, including the American Civil Liberties Union and the Black Women’s Health Imperative (filing on the grounds of women’s equality). The U.S. government also filed on Young’s behalf. Filing on the side of UPS were conservative groups like the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and Phyllis Schlafly’s Eagle Forum, arguing that Young’s broad reading of the PDA would create a burdensome definition of discrimination for businesses.

The pro-life groups—including the March for Life, Bethany Christian Services, the Catholic Medical Association, Democrats for Life of America, the Susan B. Anthony List, and Heartbeat International—argued Congress passed the PDA in part to help women who might consider abortion for economic reasons to continue their work and their pregnancies.

“We do have to be concerned with over-regulating the business community—it’s bad for the pregnant women and non-pregnant women,” said Carrie Severino, one of the lawyers with Judicial Education Project who wrote the brief for the 23 pro-life organizations. “The question is as a policy matter how you balance [the rights of pregnant workers and businesses]. The court is not deciding whether it’s a good policy but what Congress said."

Severino said the case is “not completely open-and-shut” because the wording in the statute is ambiguous. But she thinks Young should win because obviously Congress intended “to expand accommodations for pregnant women,” not just give them the same accommodations that every worker has.

The Supreme Court will hear the case tomorrow morning, and a transcript should be available on the court’s website by early afternoon.