Close X
Attorney Spotlight

How did Sylvia Yi's previous work at the Department of Homeland Security prepare her for working with government contractors at Bass, Berry & Sims? Find out more>


Close X


Search our Experience

Experience Spotlight

On December 1, 2016, Parker Hannifin Corporation and CLARCOR Inc. announced that the companies have entered into a definitive agreement under which Parker will acquire CLARCOR for approximately $4.3 billion in cash, including the assumption of net debt. The transaction has been unanimously approved by the board of directors of each company. Upon closing of the transaction, expected to be completed by or during the first quarter of Parker’s fiscal year 2018, CLARCOR will be combined with Parker’s Filtration Group to form a leading and diverse global filtration business. Bass, Berry & Sims has served CLARCOR as primary corporate and securities counsel for 10 years and served as lead counsel on this transaction. Read more here.

Close X

Thought Leadership

Enter your search terms in the relevant box(es) below to search for specific Thought Leadership.
To see a recent listing of Thought Leadership, click the blue Search button below.

Thought Leadership Spotlight

FCPA: 2016 Year in Review & 2017 Enforcement Predictions

A review of trends and developments in FCPA as well as a look ahead into what to expect for 2017. This report aims at providing corporate leaders and companies with the knowledge they need to comply with the FCPA and avoid litigation in 2017.

Read now

Labor Talk Blog: Supreme Court Revives Pregnancy Discrimination Case


April 3, 2015

Is the Supreme Court's recent decision in Young v. United Parcel Service, here, a limited ruling, applicable only in the context of the Pregnancy Discrimination Act (PDA)? Or, does the decision ring in a whole new (and less employer-friendly) era in discrimination case law? It is too early to tell. Allow this explanation for why.

The Supreme Court ruled that UPS may have violated the PDA by not providing a temporary light duty assignment to a pregnant driver who was on temporary, pregnancy-related restrictions. But the Court found that neither party was entitled to their desired interpretation of the PDA.

The pregnant driver, Ms. Young argued that the PDA granted her "most favored employee" status. That is, she argued that the PDA meant her employer had to treat her as favorably as any other driver on similar restrictions, regardless of the reason for that driver's restrictions. UPS argued, however, that it had not violated the PDA because there were several drivers who had similar restrictions who also did not receive light duty assignments, just like Ms. Young, and those employees were not pregnant. The Court ruled, in a 6-3 decision, that neither approach to the PDA was proper. The Court found that the PDA did not grant Ms. Young "most favored employee" status, but also found that, given the facts of this case, Ms. Young had presented enough evidence to present her case to a jury. The Court noted Ms. Young can show that UPS' practice might be pretext for pregnancy discrimination since its practice placed such a high burden on her (and other pregnant employees) and may not be justified since UPS provided light duty assignments to such a large group of drivers with similar restrictions.

Readers will recall that, in this case, the pregnant driver, Ms. Young, had a lifting restriction due to her pregnancy; she asked for a light duty assignment during the time of the restrictions. The request was denied. UPS policy provided that certain restricted drivers could receive light duty assignments but that other restricted drivers could not. The difference in treatment depended upon the source of the restrictions. If the driver’s restrictions were related to an on-the-job injury, or related to the loss of Department of Transportation (DOT) certification, or related to an ADA-qualifying disability (which the temporary restriction of a pregnant driver did not qualify for at the time), then the driver could receive a light duty assignment. Other drivers with restrictions that were not within those categories, like Ms. Young, did not receive light duty assignments.

Ms. Young sued under thePDA. She claimed that since some drivers received light duty assignments, UPS was required to give her the same light duty assignments. The lower courts granted UPS summary judgment, dismissing the case without the need for trial. The Supreme Court reversed, and a trial will likely be necessary (if the case is not settled hereafter).

The Supreme Court ruled that the PDA tells employers that it must treat pregnancy-related restrictions in the same manner as it treats non-pregnancy related restrictions. However, as is the case here, the PDA does not clarify for employers how to treat pregnancy-related restrictions when the employer treats some non-pregnancy-related restrictions differently than other non-pregnancy-related restrictions.

UPS answered by explaining that, given this proof, its policy did not make distinctions on the basis of pregnancy, and thus it should not be considered in violation of the PDA. The Court disagreed, reversing judgment for UPS and remanding the case back to the lower courts.

So, what does this mean? There is some good, and some bad, and some ugly.

The Good

  • The pregnant employee is not entitled to most favored employee status. That is, just because the employee can point to one employee (or presumably some small subset of employees) who are treated better, that proof does not establish pregnancy discrimination.
  • The EEOC's guidance, issued during the pendency of the Supreme Court appeal, was not afforded any weight. The EEOC issued guidance noting that under the PDA, an employer cannot refuse to grant light duty assignments to a pregnant employee if such assignments are granted to employees with similar restrictions caused by on-the-job injuries. The Court noted that the EEOC was taking a position that it previously had been silent on and what's more, the EEOC's position was directly contrary to, the government’s previous position in similar cases.

The Bad

  • The Court noted that UPS not providing light duty assignments to pregnant employees placed a substantial burden on pregnant employees. The Court further noted that, in light of the large subset of drivers who did receive light duty assignments, it may prove difficult for UPS to justify such burden only on pregnant employees when so many others get better treatment.
  • This "justification" analysis for the company’s job assignment policy could get courts, and juries, embroiled in analysis of whether a particular policy is reasonable, or wise, or justified. Prior to this decision, for the most part, any such analysis has always been a "business call." Courts have repeatedly ruled that they do not sit as super-HR departments and evaluate whether a policy is wise or advisable.
  • The dissent is concerned with this "justification" analysis and whether it rings in a new era in discrimination claims.
  • The dissent also expressed concern that the majority appeared to confuse a claim based on a disparate impact theory (a neutral policy has substantial impact on a minority group, established generally by statistics) and Ms. Young's claim before the Court based on a disparate treatment theory (plaintiff claims in a particular decision, she was treated differently than certain comparators outside her minority class).
  • The majority attempts to answer the dissent by explaining that the justification analysis applies only to PDA claims, stating that the majority approach is "limited to the PDA context." But the majority then explained that its ruling is consistent with a long-standing case authority that employees can use circumstantial proof to show that a policy, though appearing to be neutral, really is a pretext for discrimination.

The Ugly

  • Does the new standard allow an employee to claim some "unjustified burden" that a neutral policy places on a minority and thereby show pretext?
  • If so, does this new standard apply only to PDA claims?
  • Depending upon how lower courts answer those questions, this case could be very limited in its ruling and context; or it could bring a whole new era to discrimination cases.
  • Time will tell.

For more labor and employment information, visit

Related Professionals

Related Services


Visiting, or interacting with, this website does not constitute an attorney-client relationship. Although we are always interested in hearing from visitors to our website, we cannot accept representation on a new matter from either existing clients or new clients until we know that we do not have a conflict of interest that would prevent us from doing so. Therefore, please do not send us any information about any new matter that may involve a potential legal representation until we have confirmed that a conflict of interest does not exist and we have expressly agreed in writing to the representation. Until there is such an agreement, we will not be deemed to have given you any advice, any information you send may not be deemed privileged and confidential, and we may be able to represent adverse parties.