Not a Member? Get access to HR news and resources that you can trust.
Don't leave the task of calculating total cost of workforce to the finance department.
Is your employee handbook ready for the changing world of work? With SHRM’s Employee Handbook Builder get peace of mind that your handbook is up-to-date.
60+ new SHRM Seminar dates in 10 U.S. cities and virtually.
Expand your influence and learn how to become an effective leader -- Join us in Phoenix, AZ, October 2-4, 2017.
Supreme Court Decides Pregnancy Discrimination and Accommodation Case
On March 25, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its ruling in Young v. UPS, remanding the case back to the lower court for final determination.
In its decision, the Court rejected the plaintiff’s argument that the Pregnancy Discrimination Act requires employers to accommodate pregnant women when they provide an accommodation to any other nonpregnant employee who is similar in ability to work.
The Court also rejected the EEOC’s guidance issued in July 2014, ruling that the Court “cannot rely significantly on the EEOC’s determination” for several reasons including that the guidance was issued after certiorari was granted, that it takes a position on which previous EEOC guidelines were silent, and that it is inconsistent with positions long advocated by the government without explanation for the basis of the change. Instead the Court ruled that the issue should be decided the same way other disparate treatment cases are determined— by using the existing McDonnell Douglas test in which the burden shifts to employers to show a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for the employment action.
It is important to recognize that the Young case began before passage of the Americans with Disabilities Act Amendments, which expanded the definition of “disability,” qualifying more employees for accommodations that will impact pregnancy cases going forward. In addition, the law in this area continues to evolve with the possibility of Congress pursuing legislation to clarify accommodation requirements for pregnant women.
SHRM’s amicus brief is available HERE.
2015 Employment Law & Legislative Conference
Supreme Court Update
Health Care – Wellness Programs
Lawmakers Introduce Proposal to Protect Employer-Provided Wellness Programs
2015 California State Legislative and HR Conference
HR Professionals Head to Sacramento to Advocate and Learn About Workplace Public Policy
You have successfully saved this page as a bookmark.
Please confirm that you want to proceed with deleting bookmark.
You have successfully removed bookmark.
Please log in as a SHRM member before saving bookmarks.
Your session has expired. Please log in again before saving bookmarks.
Please purchase a SHRM membership before saving bookmarks.
An error has occurred
Recommended for you
Join SHRM's exclusive peer-to-peer social network
SHRM’s HR Vendor Directory contains over 3,200 companies