Three Key EEO Cases to Watch on the SCOTUS Docket This Term

The Supreme Court is set to weigh in on several key questions for employers this term related to employee discrimination. When does an employer have to accommodate a pregnant employee? How about a job applicant who wears a head scarf in an interview but does not make it clear she is doing so for religious reasons and needs an accommodation? Can a court decide whether the EEOC has done enough to resolve your case? Here are three key EEO cases to keep your eye on in the coming months.

  1. When Must Employers Accommodate Pregnant Employees?

    In Young v. United Parcel Serv., Inc., U.S., No. 12-1226, the high Court will review whether the Pregnancy Discrimination Act of 1978 ("PDA") requires an employer to accommodate pregnant employees when it accommodates similarly disabled non-pregnant employees.

    Peggy Young, a UPS delivery driver, asked for a light duty assignment after her doctor said she should not lift more than 20 pounds for the first 20 weeks of her pregnancy and not more than 10 pounds thereafter. UPS offered light duty only to employees with on-the-job injuries, employees accommodated under the ADA, or certain employees who temporarily lost certification from the Department of Transportation. Because she did not fall into one of these three categories, Young was ineligible under UPS's accommodation policy. She sued, arguing, among other things, that offering light duty work to some employees but not pregnant employees violated the PDA's requirement to treat pregnant employees the same "as other persons not so affected but similar in their ability or inability to work."

    The Fourth Circuit held that Young failed to establish that similarly situated employees received more favorable treatment and that the light duty policy was "pregnancy blind." Young appealed, arguing that under the PDA, she (and other pregnant employees) should be compared to non-pregnant employees who have lifting restrictions andare accommodated under the company's policy—not to non-pregnant workers who are not accommodated.

    Young filed her brief on September 4, 2014. UPS's brief is due October 24, 2014. Oral argument is scheduled for December 3, 2014. The Fourth Circuit opinion can be found here. For more on this case, see our July 15, 2014 blog post here.

  2. Is Wearing a Head Scarf in an Interview Enough Notice of the Need to Provide Religious Accommodation?

    In EEOC v. Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc., U.S., No. 14-86, the Court will determine whether Abercrombie can...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT