Support through your toughest HR challenges: A network of 285,000 HR professionals.
Shawn Premer shows how doing the right thing for employees leads to positive business results.
Is your employee handbook keeping up with the changing world of work? With SHRM's Employee Handbook Builder get peace of mind that your handbook is up-to-date.
Build competencies, establish credibility and advance your career—while earning PDCs—at SHRM Seminars in 12 cities across the U.S. this spring.
#SHRM18 will expand your perspective – on your organization, on your career, and on the way you approach HR. Join us in Chicago June 17-20, 2018
Supreme Court Decides Pregnancy Discrimination and Accommodation Case
Members may download one copy of our sample forms and templates for your personal use within your organization. Please note that all such forms and policies should be reviewed by your legal counsel for compliance with applicable law, and should be modified to suit your organization’s culture, industry, and practices. Neither members nor non-members may reproduce such samples in any other way (e.g., to republish in a book or use for a commercial purpose) without SHRM’s permission. To request permission for specific items, click on the “reuse permissions” button on the page where you find the item.
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.
Please sign in as a SHRM member before saving bookmarks.
Please purchase a SHRM membership before saving bookmarks.
An error has occurred
Recommended for you
Become a SHRM Member
SHRM’s HR Vendor Directory contains over 3,200 companies