Earlier today, the Supreme Court issued a decision, Young v. United Parcel Service, Inc., which will shape how pregnancy discrimination claims are brought. Plaintiff, Defendant, and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) each offered the Court differing interpretations of the Pregnancy Discrimination Act (“PDA”). Rather than selecting from among the choices presented, the Court, in a five member majority written by Justice Breyer, found a middle-ground in its analysis.
To decide the case, the Court applied the legal structure created the landmark employment discrimination case McDonnell Douglas. That structure allows Plaintiff to meet an initial burden by showing she belongs to a protected class, she requested accommodation, she was not accommodated, but others similarly situated were accommodated. Then the burden shifts to Defendant to produce a “legitimate non-discriminatory reason” for refusing to accommodate Plaintiff. The third and final step of this structure allows Plaintiff to imply that her adverse treatment amounts to discrimination by discrediting the Defendant employer’s “legitimate non-discriminatory reason.” Young tweaks the third step of the McDonnell Douglas structure by allowing Plaintiff to present evidence of systematic discrimination against members of her class, rather than confining Plaintiff to evidence relating to her individual claim of discriminatory treatment. In effect, Young allows Plaintiff to demonstrate that she was discriminated against by establishing the statistical impact an employer’s policy has on her protected class.