young
parcel
service
argued
december
decided
march
pregnancy
discrimination
act
added
new
language
definitions
subsection
title
vii
civil
rights
act
first
clause
pregnancy
discrimination
act
specifies
title
vii
prohibition
sex
discrimination
applies
discrimination
basis
pregnancy
childbirth
related
medical
conditions
act
second
clause
says
employers
must
treat
women
affected
pregnancy
purposes
persons
affected
similar
ability
inability
work
ibid
case
asks
determine
latter
provision
applies
context
employer
policy
accommodates
many
workers
disabilities
petitioner
young
driver
respondent
parcel
service
ups
became
pregnant
doctor
advised
lift
pounds
ups
however
required
drivers
like
young
able
lift
pounds
ups
told
young
work
lifting
restriction
young
subsequently
filed
federal
lawsuit
claiming
ups
acted
unlawfully
refusing
accommodate
lifting
restriction
brought
claim
discrimination
plaintiff
prove
either
direct
evidence
workplace
policy
practice
decision
relies
expressly
protected
characteristic
using
framework
set
forth
mcdonnell
douglas
green
framework
plaintiff
initial
burden
establishing
prima
facie
case
discrimination
carries
burden
employer
must
opportunity
articulate
legitimate
reason
difference
treatment
ibid
employer
articulates
reasons
plaintiff
opportunity
prove
preponderance
evidence
reasons
pretext
discrimination
texas
dept
community
affairs
burdine
discovery
ups
sought
summary
judgment
reply
young
presented
several
favorable
facts
believed
prove
particular
pointed
ups
policies
accommodated
workers
injured
job
disabilities
covered
americans
disabilities
act
ada
lost
department
transportation
dot
certifications
pursuant
policies
young
contended
ups
accommodated
several
individuals
whose
disabilities
created
work
restrictions
similar
argued
policies
showed
ups
discriminated
pregnant
employees
policy
numerous
persons
pregnant
workers
ups
responded
since
young
fall
within
injury
ada
dot
categories
discriminated
young
basis
pregnancy
treated
treated
relevant
persons
district
granted
ups
summary
judgment
concluding
inter
alia
young
make
prima
facie
case
discrimination
mcdonnell
douglas
found
young
compared
falling
within
dot
ada
categories
different
qualify
similarly
situated
comparator
fourth
circuit
affirmed
held
individual
pregnant
worker
seeks
show
disparate
treatment
indirect
evidence
may
application
mcdonnell
douglas
framework
pp
parties
interpretations
pregnancy
discrimination
act
second
clause
unpersuasive
pp
young
claims
long
employer
accommodates
subset
workers
disabling
conditions
pregnant
workers
similar
ability
work
must
receive
treatment
even
still
nonpregnant
workers
receive
accommodations
brief
petitioner
reading
proves
much
doubts
congress
intended
grant
pregnant
workers
unconditional
status
employers
provide
one
two
workers
accommodation
must
provide
similar
accommodations
pregnant
workers
irrespective
criteria
second
clause
act
referring
nonpregnant
persons
similar
disabilities
uses
term
persons
say
employer
must
treat
pregnant
employees
persons
similar
ability
inability
work
specify
particular
persons
congress
mind
appropriate
comparators
pregnant
workers
moreover
law
normally
allows
employer
implement
policies
intended
harm
members
protected
class
even
implementation
sometimes
harms
members
long
employer
legitimate
nondiscriminatory
nonpretextual
reason
see
burdine
supra
reason
think
congress
intended
language
pregnancy
discrimination
act
deviate
approach
pp
ii
solicitor
general
argues
give
special
controlling
weight
equal
employment
opportunity
commission
guideline
concerning
application
title
vii
ada
pregnant
employees
guideline
lacks
timing
consistency
thoroughness
consideration
necessary
give
power
persuade
skidmore
swift
guideline
promulgated
certiorari
granted
takes
position
previous
eeoc
guidelines
silent
inconsistent
positions
long
advocated
government
eeoc
explain
basis
latest
guidance
pp
iii
ups
claims
act
second
clause
simply
defines
sex
discrimination
include
pregnancy
discrimination
right
first
clause
act
accomplishes
objective
reading
act
second
clause
ups
proposes
thus
render
first
clause
superfluous
also
fail
carry
key
congressional
objective
passing
act
act
intended
overturn
holding
reasoning
general
elec
gilbert
upheld
title
vii
challenge
company
plan
provided
nonoccupational
sickness
accident
benefits
employees
provide
payments
absence
due
pregnancy
pp
individual
pregnant
worker
seeks
show
disparate
treatment
may
make
prima
facie
case
mcdonnell
douglas
framework
showing
belongs
protected
class
sought
accommodation
employer
accommodate
employer
accommodate
others
similar
ability
inability
work
employer
may
seek
justify
refusal
accommodate
plaintiff
relying
legitimate
nondiscriminatory
reasons
denying
accommodation
reason
normally
consist
simply
claim
expensive
less
convenient
add
pregnant
women
category
employer
accommodates
employer
offers
legitimate
nondiscriminatory
reason
plaintiff
may
show
fact
pretextual
plaintiff
may
reach
jury
issue
providing
sufficient
evidence
employer
policies
impose
significant
burden
pregnant
workers
employer
legitimate
nondiscriminatory
reasons
sufficiently
strong
justify
burden
rather
considered
along
burden
imposed
give
rise
inference
intentional
discrimination
plaintiff
create
genuine
issue
material
fact
whether
significant
burden
exists
providing
evidence
employer
accommodates
large
percentage
nonpregnant
workers
failing
accommodate
large
percentage
pregnant
workers
approach
consistent
longstanding
rule
plaintiff
use
circumstantial
proof
rebut
employer
apparently
legitimate
nondiscriminatory
reasons
see
burdine
supra
congress
intent
overrule
gilbert
pp
interpretation
act
fourth
circuit
judgment
must
vacated
summary
judgment
appropriate
genuine
dispute
material
fact
fed
rule
civ
proc
record
shows
young
created
genuine
dispute
whether
ups
provided
favorable
treatment
least
employees
whose
situation
reasonably
distinguished
left
fourth
circuit
determine
remand
whether
young
also
created
genuine
issue
material
fact
whether
ups
reasons
treated
young
less
favorably
nonpregnant
employees
pretextual
pp
vacated
remanded
breyer
delivered
opinion
roberts
ginsburg
sotomayor
kagan
joined
alito
filed
opinion
concurring
judgment
scalia
filed
dissenting
opinion
kennedy
thomas
joined
kennedy
filed
dissenting
opinion
opinion
notice
opinion
subject
formal
revision
publication
preliminary
print
reports
readers
requested
notify
reporter
decisions
washington
typographical
formal
errors
order
corrections
may
made
preliminary
print
goes
press
peggy
young
petitioner
parcel
service
writ
certiorari
appeals
fourth
circuit
march
justice
breyer
delivered
opinion
pregnancy
discrimination
act
makes
clear
title
vii
prohibition
sex
discrimination
applies
discrimination
based
pregnancy
also
says
employers
must
treat
women
affected
pregnancy
purposes
persons
affected
similar
ability
inability
work
must
decide
latter
provision
applies
context
employer
policy
accommodates
many
workers
disabilities
view
act
requires
courts
consider
extent
employer
policy
treats
pregnant
workers
less
favorably
treats
nonpregnant
workers
similar
ability
inability
work
cases
individual
plaintiff
seeks
show
disparate
treatment
indirect
evidence
requires
courts
consider
legitimate
nondiscriminatory
nonpretextual
justification
differences
treatment
see
mcdonnell
douglas
green
ultimately
must
determine
whether
nature
employer
policy
way
burdens
pregnant
women
shows
employer
engaged
intentional
discrimination
appeals
affirmed
grant
summary
judgment
favor
employer
given
view
law
must
vacate
judgment
begin
summary
facts
petitioner
peggy
young
worked
driver
respondent
parcel
service
ups
responsibilities
included
pickup
delivery
packages
arrived
air
carrier
previous
night
suffering
several
miscarriages
became
pregnant
doctor
told
lift
pounds
first
weeks
pregnancy
pounds
thereafter
app
ups
required
drivers
like
young
able
lift
parcels
weighing
pounds
pounds
assistance
ups
told
young
work
lifting
restriction
young
consequently
stayed
home
without
pay
time
pregnant
eventually
lost
employee
medical
coverage
young
subsequently
brought
federal
lawsuit
focus
claim
ups
acted
unlawfully
refusing
accommodate
lifting
restriction
young
said
willing
help
heavy
packages
also
said
ups
accommodated
drivers
similar
inability
work
accordingly
concluded
ups
must
accommodate
well
see
brief
petitioner
ups
responded
persons
accommodated
drivers
become
disabled
job
lost
department
transportation
dot
certifications
suffered
disability
covered
americans
disabilities
act
ada
stat
et
seq
ups
said
since
young
fall
within
categories
discriminated
young
basis
pregnancy
treated
treated
relevant
persons
see
brief
respondent
title
vii
civil
rights
act
forbids
covered
employer
discriminate
individual
respect
terms
conditions
privileges
employment
individual
sex
stat
congress
enacted
pregnancy
discrimination
act
stat
added
new
language
title
vii
definitions
subsection
first
clause
act
specifies
title
vii
ter
sex
include
basis
pregnancy
childbirth
related
medical
conditions
second
clause
says
women
affected
pregnancy
childbirth
related
medical
conditions
shall
treated
purposes
persons
affected
similar
ability
inability
work
ibid
case
requires
us
consider
application
second
clause
claim
claim
employer
intentionally
treated
complainant
less
favorably
employees
complainant
qualifications
outside
complainant
protected
class
mcdonnell
douglas
supra
said
iability
case
depends
whether
protected
trait
actually
motivated
employer
decision
raytheon
hernandez
ellipsis
internal
quotation
marks
omitted
also
made
clear
plaintiff
prove
disparate
treatment
either
direct
evidence
workplace
policy
practice
decision
relies
expressly
protected
characteristic
using
framework
set
forth
mcdonnell
douglas
see
trans
world
airlines
thurston
mcdonnell
douglas
considered
claim
discriminatory
hiring
said
prove
disparate
treatment
individual
plaintiff
must
carry
initial
burden
establishing
prima
facie
case
discrimination
showing
belongs
minority
ii
applied
qualified
job
employer
seeking
applicants
iii
despite
qualifications
rejected
iv
rejection
position
remained
open
employer
continued
seek
applicants
persons
complainant
qualifications
plaintiff
makes
showing
employer
must
opportunity
articulate
legitimate
reason
treating
employees
outside
protected
class
better
employees
within
protected
class
ibid
employer
articulates
reason
plaintiff
opportunity
prove
preponderance
evidence
legitimate
reasons
offered
defendant
employer
true
reasons
pretext
discrimination
texas
dept
community
affairs
burdine
note
employment
discrimination
law
also
creates
called
claim
evaluating
claim
courts
focus
effects
employment
practice
determining
whether
unlawful
irrespective
motivation
intent
see
raytheon
supra
see
also
ricci
destefano
young
alleged
claim
asserted
called
claim
see
teamsters
explaining
title
vii
plaintiffs
allege
pattern
practice
discrimination
may
establish
prima
facie
case
another
means
see
also
rejecting
contention
burden
proof
case
must
equivalent
outlined
mcdonnell
douglas
july
young
filed
pregnancy
discrimination
charge
equal
employment
opportunity
commission
eeoc
september
eeoc
provided
letter
see
cfr
young
filed
complaint
federal
district
argued
among
things
show
direct
evidence
ups
intended
discriminate
pregnancy
event
establish
prima
facie
case
disparate
treatment
mcdonnell
douglas
framework
see
app
discovery
ups
filed
motion
summary
judgment
see
fed
rule
civ
proc
reply
young
pointed
favorable
facts
believed
either
undisputed
disputed
prove
include
following
young
worked
ups
driver
picking
delivering
packages
carried
air
plaintiff
memorandum
opposition
defendant
motion
summary
judgment
md
pp
hereinafter
memorandum
young
pregnant
fall
young
doctor
recommended
required
lift
greater
pounds
first
weeks
pregnancy
greater
pounds
thereafter
app
see
also
memorandum
ups
required
drivers
young
able
ift
lower
push
pull
leverage
manipulate
packages
weighing
pounds
ssist
moving
packages
weighing
pounds
app
see
also
memorandum
ups
occupational
health
manager
official
responsible
issues
relating
employee
health
ability
work
young
ups
facility
app
told
young
return
work
pregnancy
satisfy
ups
lifting
requirements
see
memorandum
wl
manager
also
determined
young
qualify
temporary
alternative
work
assignment
ibid
see
also
memorandum
ups
agreement
promised
provide
temporary
alternative
work
assignments
employees
unable
perform
normal
work
assignments
due
injury
app
emphasis
added
see
also
memorandum
agreement
also
provided
ups
make
good
faith
effort
comply
requests
reasonable
accommodation
permanent
disability
ada
app
see
also
memorandum
agreement
stated
ups
give
inside
jobs
drivers
lost
dot
certifications
failed
medical
exam
lost
driver
license
involvement
motor
vehicle
accident
see
app
memorandum
young
later
asked
ups
capital
division
manager
accommodate
disability
replied
pregnant
much
liability
come
back
longer
pregnant
young
remained
leave
absence
without
pay
much
pregnancy
young
returned
work
driver
june
two
months
baby
born
direct
evidence
intentional
discrimination
young
relied
significant
part
statement
capital
division
manager
evidence
made
prima
facie
case
mcdonnell
douglas
young
relied
significant
part
evidence
showing
ups
accommodate
workers
injured
job
suffering
ada
disabilities
lost
dot
certifications
evidence
said
showed
ups
policy
respect
numerous
persons
respect
pregnant
workers
see
memorandum
young
introduced
evidence
indicating
ups
accommodated
several
individuals
suffered
disabilities
created
work
restrictions
similar
ups
contests
correctness
facts
relevance
others
see
brief
respondent
summary
judgment
stage
genuine
dispute
facts
view
evidence
light
favorable
young
nonmoving
party
see
scott
harris
several
employees
received
accommodations
suffering
various
similar
serious
disabilities
incurred
job
see
app
lifting
limitation
foot
injury
arm
injury
several
employees
received
accommodations
following
injury
record
unclear
whether
injury
incurred
job
see
recurring
knee
injury
ankle
injury
knee
injury
stroke
leg
injury
several
employees
received
inside
jobs
losing
dot
certifications
see
dot
certification
suspended
conviction
driving
influence
failed
dot
test
due
high
blood
pressure
dot
certification
lost
due
sleep
apnea
diagnosis
employees
accommodated
despite
fact
disabilities
incurred
job
see
ankle
injury
cancer
according
deposition
ups
shop
steward
worked
ups
roughly
decade
light
duty
requested
due
physical
restrictions
became
issue
ups
women
pregnant
district
granted
ups
motion
summary
judgment
concluded
young
show
intentional
discrimination
direct
evidence
wl
make
prima
facie
case
discrimination
mcdonnell
douglas
wrote
young
compared
falling
within
dot
ada
categories
different
qualify
similarly
situated
comparator
wl
added
event
ups
offered
legitimate
nondiscriminatory
reason
failing
accommodate
pregnant
women
young
created
genuine
issue
material
fact
whether
reason
pretextual
appeal
fourth
circuit
affirmed
wrote
ups
crafted
policy
least
facially
legitimate
business
practice
evidence
ups
discriminatory
animus
toward
pregnant
workers
also
agreed
district
young
show
employees
outside
protected
class
received
favorable
treatment
young
specifically
believed
young
different
workers
disabled
ada
protected
permanent
disabilities
young
disabled
lifting
limitation
temporary
significant
restriction
ability
perform
major
life
activities
ibid
young
also
different
workers
lost
dot
certifications
legal
obstacle
stands
work
many
lost
dot
certifications
retained
physical
lifting
capacity
young
lacked
ibid
young
different
injured
job
quite
simply
inability
work
arise
injury
rather
young
closely
resembled
employee
injured
back
picking
infant
child
employee
whose
lifting
limitation
arose
work
volunteer
firefighter
neither
eligible
accommodation
ups
policies
young
filed
petition
certiorari
essentially
asking
us
review
fourth
circuit
interpretation
pregnancy
discrimination
act
light
uncertainty
interpretation
act
granted
petition
compare
runyon
urbano
continental
airlines
reeves
swift
transp
serednyj
beverly
healthcare
llc
spivey
beverly
enterprises
note
statutory
changes
made
time
young
pregnancy
may
limit
future
significance
interpretation
act
congress
expanded
definition
disability
ada
make
clear
physical
mental
impairment
substantially
limi
individual
ability
lift
stand
bend
disabilities
ada
amendments
act
stat
codified
interpreted
eeoc
new
statutory
definition
requires
employers
accommodate
employees
whose
temporary
lifting
restrictions
originate
job
see
cfr
pt
ix
express
view
statutory
regulatory
changes
ii
parties
disagree
interpretation
pregnancy
discrimination
act
second
clause
said
see
part
supra
act
first
clause
specifies
discrimination
includes
discrimination
pregnancy
meaning
second
clause
less
clear
adds
omen
affected
pregnancy
childbirth
related
medical
conditions
shall
treated
purposes
persons
affected
similar
ability
inability
work
emphasis
added
clause
mean
courts
must
compare
workers
respect
work
limitations
suffer
mean
courts
must
ignore
similarities
differences
pregnant
nonpregnant
workers
mean
courts
deciding
relevant
persons
may
consider
similarities
differences
well
ones
differences
possible
interpretations
come
fore
must
consider
workplace
policy
distinguishes
pregnant
nonpregnant
workers
light
characteristics
related
pregnancy
young
poses
problem
directly
reply
brief
says
act
requires
giving
accommodations
employee
work
limitation
give
employee
work
limitation
stemmed
different
cause
similar
effect
inability
work
reply
brief
suppose
employer
give
pregnant
employee
accommodations
another
employee
employer
reason
difference
treatment
pregnant
worker
falls
within
facially
neutral
category
example
individuals
injuries
parties
propose
different
answers
question
young
believe
second
clause
pregnancy
discrimination
act
requires
employer
provide
accommodations
workplace
disabilities
caused
pregnancy
provides
workplace
disabilities
causes
similar
effect
ability
work
brief
petitioner
words
young
contends
second
clause
means
whenever
employer
accommodates
subset
workers
disabling
conditions
find
title
vii
violation
pregnant
workers
similar
ability
work
receive
accommodation
even
still
workers
receive
accommodations
ups
takes
almost
polar
opposite
view
contends
second
clause
define
sex
discrimination
include
pregnancy
discrimination
see
brief
respondent
view
courts
compare
accommodations
employer
provides
pregnant
women
accommodations
provides
others
within
facially
neutral
category
injuries
determine
whether
employer
violated
title
vii
cf
post
scalia
dissenting
hereinafter
dissent
clause
prohibit
denying
pregnant
women
accommodations
basis
evenhanded
policy
accept
either
interpretations
young
asks
us
interpret
second
clause
broadly
view
literally
noted
argues
long
employer
accommodates
subset
workers
disabling
conditions
pregnant
workers
similar
ability
work
must
receive
treatment
even
still
nonpregnant
workers
receive
accommodations
brief
petitioner
adds
record
contains
evidence
pregnant
nonpregnant
workers
treated
end
matter
must
win
need
refer
mcdonnell
douglas
brief
petitioner
problem
young
approach
proves
much
seems
say
statute
grants
pregnant
workers
status
long
employer
provides
one
two
workers
accommodation
say
particularly
hazardous
jobs
whose
workplace
presence
particularly
needed
worked
company
many
years
age
must
provide
similar
accommodations
pregnant
workers
comparable
physical
limitations
irrespective
nature
jobs
employer
need
keep
working
ages
criteria
lower
courts
concluded
congress
intent
passing
pregnancy
discrimination
act
see
urbano
reeves
serednyj
spivey
young
partially
agrees
writes
statute
require
employers
give
pregnant
workers
benefits
privileges
extends
similarly
disabled
employees
benefits
privileges
based
employee
tenure
position
within
company
reply
brief
see
also
tr
oral
arg
eniority
work
different
job
classifications
things
permissible
distinctions
employer
make
differentiate
among
gets
benefits
young
concession
works
well
respect
seniority
title
vii
contains
seniority
defense
see
hence
seniority
part
problem
otherwise
problem
remains
young
concession
solve
example
treat
special
benefits
attached
injuries
arising
say
duty
congress
intended
allow
differences
treatment
arising
special
duties
special
service
special
needs
also
wanted
courts
take
account
differences
arising
special
causes
example
benefits
drive
injured
extrahazardous
conditions
agree
ups
extent
doubt
congress
intended
grant
pregnant
workers
unconditional
status
language
statute
require
unqualified
reading
second
clause
referring
nonpregnant
persons
similar
disabilities
uses
term
persons
say
employer
must
treat
pregnant
employees
persons
similar
ability
inability
work
otherwise
specify
persons
congress
mind
moreover
law
normally
permits
employer
implement
policies
intended
harm
members
protected
class
even
implementation
sometimes
harms
members
long
employer
legitimate
nondiscriminatory
nonpretextual
reason
see
raytheon
burdine
mcdonnell
douglas
reason
believe
congress
intended
language
pregnancy
discrimination
act
embody
significant
deviation
approach
indeed
relevant
house
report
specifies
act
reflect
new
legislative
mandate
pp
hereinafter
senate
report
act
designed
reestablis
law
understood
prior
decision
general
electric
gilbert
hereinafter
see
gilbert
supra
brennan
dissenting
lower
courts
held
disability
plan
compensates
employees
temporary
disabilities
pregnancy
violates
title
vii
see
also
hulteen
ginsburg
dissenting
congress
passed
pregnancy
discrimination
act
eeoc
issued
guidance
stating
isabilities
caused
contributed
pregnancy
purposes
temporary
disabilities
availability
benefits
privileges
shall
applied
disability
due
pregnancy
childbirth
terms
conditions
applied
temporary
disabilities
cfr
indeed
early
eeoc
guidelines
provided
disabilities
caused
contributed
pregnancy
purposes
temporary
disabilities
treated
health
temporary
disability
insurance
sick
leave
plan
available
connection
employment
fed
reg
codified
cfr
soon
act
passed
eeoc
issued
guidance
consistent
statements
eeoc
explained
disabilities
caused
contributed
pregnancy
purposes
shall
treated
disabilities
caused
contributed
medical
conditions
see
moreover
eeoc
stated
employees
temporarily
unable
lift
relieved
functions
pregnant
employees
also
unable
lift
must
temporarily
relieved
function
cfr
pt
guidance
however
resolve
ambiguity
term
persons
act
second
clause
rather
simply
tells
employers
treat
disabilities
like
disabilities
without
clarifying
instruction
implemented
employer
treat
disabilities
alike
recently
july
eeoc
promulgated
additional
guideline
apparently
designed
address
ambiguity
guideline
says
employer
may
refuse
treat
pregnant
worker
employees
similar
ability
inability
work
relying
policy
makes
distinctions
based
source
employee
limitations
policy
providing
light
duty
workers
injured
job
eeoc
compliance
manual
july
eeoc
also
provided
example
disparate
treatment
violate
act
employer
policy
practice
providing
light
duty
subject
availability
employee
perform
one
job
duties
days
due
injury
illness
condition
disability
ada
employee
requests
light
duty
assignment
lifting
restriction
related
pregnancy
employer
denies
light
duty
request
example
eeoc
added
employer
may
deny
light
duty
pregnant
employee
based
policy
limits
light
duty
employees
injuries
solicitor
general
argues
give
special
controlling
weight
guideline
points
long
held
rulings
interpretations
opinions
agency
charged
mission
enforcing
particular
statute
controlling
upon
courts
reason
authority
constitute
body
experience
informed
judgment
courts
litigants
may
properly
resort
guidance
skidmore
swift
see
brief
amicus
curiae
also
held
weight
judgment
particular
case
depend
upon
thoroughness
evident
consideration
validity
reasoning
consistency
earlier
later
pronouncements
factors
give
power
persuade
lacking
power
control
skidmore
supra
qualifications
relevant
severely
limit
eeoc
july
guidance
special
power
persuade
come
conclusion
agency
lack
experience
informed
judgment
rather
difficulties
timing
consistency
thoroughness
consideration
eeoc
promulgated
guidelines
recently
granted
certiorari
case
circumstances
fair
say
eeoc
current
guidelines
take
position
eeoc
previous
guidelines
silent
position
inconsistent
positions
government
long
advocated
see
brief
runyon
pp
explaining
reading
act
like
young
simply
incorrect
runs
counter
precedents
see
also
brief
amicus
curiae
department
justice
behalf
postal
service
previously
taken
position
pregnant
employees
work
limitations
similarly
situated
employees
similar
limitations
caused
injuries
eeoc
explain
basis
latest
guidance
read
statute
example
embodying
status
taken
position
contrary
litigation
position
government
previously
took
without
explanation
rely
significantly
eeoc
determination
find
similarly
difficult
accept
opposite
interpretation
act
second
clause
ups
says
second
clause
simply
defines
sex
discrimination
include
pregnancy
discrimination
see
brief
respondent
first
clause
accomplishes
objective
expressly
amends
title
vii
definitional
provision
make
clear
title
vii
words
sex
basis
sex
include
limited
basis
pregnancy
childbirth
related
medical
conditions
long
held
statute
upon
whole
construed
prevented
rendered
void
insignificant
trw
andrews
quoting
duncan
walker
ups
interpretation
second
clause
dissent
basically
accepting
ups
interpretation
says
second
clause
superfluous
adds
clarity
post
internal
quotation
marks
omitted
makes
plain
dissent
adds
unlawful
discrimination
includes
disfavoring
pregnant
women
relative
workers
similar
inability
work
post
perhaps
fail
understand
mcdonnell
douglas
makes
clear
courts
normally
consider
plaintiff
treated
relative
persons
plaintiff
qualifications
include
disabilities
second
clause
act
exist
still
say
employer
disfavored
pregnant
women
relative
workers
similar
ability
inability
work
engaged
pregnancy
discrimination
word
need
clarification
dissent
suggests
second
sentence
provides
moreover
interpretation
espoused
ups
dissent
fail
carry
important
congressional
objective
noted
congress
unambiguou
intent
passing
act
overturn
holding
reasoning
gilbert
decision
newport
news
shipbuilding
dry
dock
eeoc
see
also
post
recognizing
object
pregnancy
discrimination
act
displace
conclusion
gilbert
gilbert
considered
company
plan
provided
nonoccupational
sickness
accident
benefits
employees
without
providing
payments
absence
due
pregnancy
held
plan
violate
title
vii
discriminate
basis
sex
risk
men
protected
women
internal
quotation
marks
omitted
although
pregnancy
confined
women
majority
believed
comparable
respects
diseases
disabilities
plan
covered
specifically
majority
explained
pregnancy
necessarily
result
accident
ibid
neither
majority
see
distinction
plan
drew
subterfuge
pretext
engaging
discrimination
ibid
short
gilbert
majority
reasoned
part
dissent
reasons
employer
distinguish
pregnant
women
others
similar
ability
inability
pregnancy
post
distinguished
neutral
ground
accommodated
sicknesses
accidents
pregnancy
neither
see
simply
including
pregnancy
among
title
vii
protected
traits
accepting
ups
interpretation
overturn
gilbert
full
particular
respond
gilbert
determination
employer
treat
pregnancy
less
favorably
diseases
disabilities
resulting
similar
inability
work
explained
california
fed
sav
loan
assn
guerra
first
clause
act
reflects
congress
disapproval
reasoning
gilbert
adding
pregnancy
definition
sex
discrimination
prohibited
title
vii
second
clause
intended
intended
overrule
holding
gilbert
illustrate
discrimination
pregnancy
remedied
dissent
view
like
ups
ignores
precedent
iii
statute
lends
interpretation
parties
advocate
dissent
sets
forth
interpretation
minimizes
problems
discussed
responds
directly
gilbert
consistent
longstanding
interpretations
title
vii
view
individual
pregnant
worker
seeks
show
disparate
treatment
indirect
evidence
may
application
mcdonnell
douglas
framework
framework
requires
plaintiff
make
prima
facie
case
discrimination
intended
inflexible
rule
furnco
constr
waters
rather
individual
plaintiff
may
establish
prima
facie
case
showing
actions
taken
employer
one
infer
actions
remain
unexplained
likely
actions
based
discriminatory
criterion
illegal
title
vii
internal
quotation
marks
omitted
burden
making
showing
onerous
burdine
particular
making
showing
burdensome
succeeding
ultimate
finding
fact
discriminatory
employment
action
furnco
supra
neither
require
plaintiff
show
employer
favored
employer
disfavored
similar
protected
ways
see
mcdonnell
douglas
burden
met
plaintiff
showed
employer
hired
qualified
individuals
outside
protected
class
furnco
supra
burdine
supra
cf
reeves
sanderson
plumbing
products
similar
thus
plaintiff
alleging
denial
accommodation
constituted
disparate
treatment
pregnancy
discrimination
act
second
clause
may
make
prima
facie
case
showing
mcdonnell
douglas
belongs
protected
class
sought
accommodation
employer
accommodate
employer
accommodate
others
similar
ability
inability
work
employer
may
seek
justify
refusal
accommodate
plaintiff
relying
legitimate
nondiscriminatory
reasons
denying
accommodation
consistent
act
basic
objective
reason
normally
consist
simply
claim
expensive
less
convenient
add
pregnant
women
category
similar
ability
inability
work
employer
accommodates
employer
gilbert
likelihood
made
claim
employer
offers
apparently
legitimate
reason
actions
plaintiff
may
turn
show
employer
proffered
reasons
fact
pretextual
believe
plaintiff
may
reach
jury
issue
providing
sufficient
evidence
employer
policies
impose
significant
burden
pregnant
workers
employer
legitimate
nondiscriminatory
reasons
sufficiently
strong
justify
burden
rather
considered
along
burden
imposed
give
rise
inference
intentional
discrimination
plaintiff
create
genuine
issue
material
fact
whether
significant
burden
exists
providing
evidence
employer
accommodates
large
percentage
nonpregnant
workers
failing
accommodate
large
percentage
pregnant
workers
example
facts
young
says
show
ups
accommodates
nonpregnant
employees
lifting
limitations
categorically
failing
accommodate
pregnant
employees
lifting
limitations
young
might
also
add
fact
ups
multiple
policies
accommodate
nonpregnant
employees
lifting
restrictions
suggests
reasons
failing
accommodate
pregnant
employees
lifting
restrictions
sufficiently
strong
point
jury
find
reasons
failing
accommodate
pregnant
employees
give
rise
inference
intentional
discrimination
approach
though
limited
pregnancy
discrimination
act
context
consistent
longstanding
rule
plaintiff
use
circumstantial
proof
rebut
employer
apparently
legitimate
nondiscriminatory
reasons
treating
individuals
within
protected
class
differently
outside
protected
class
see
burdine
supra
particular
hardly
anomalous
dissent
makes
see
post
plaintiff
may
rebut
employer
proffered
justifications
showing
policy
operates
practice
mcdonnell
douglas
noted
employer
general
policy
practice
respect
minority
employment
including
statistics
policy
practice
evidence
pretext
moreover
continued
focus
whether
plaintiff
introduced
sufficient
evidence
give
rise
inference
intentional
discrimination
avoids
confusing
doctrines
cf
post
interpretation
act
also
unlike
dissent
consistent
congress
intent
overrule
gilbert
reasoning
result
dissent
says
pregnant
woman
denied
accommodation
policy
discriminate
pregnancy
everyone
else
post
logic
found
problem
employer
plan
gilbert
denied
accommodation
pregnant
women
basis
denied
accommodations
employees
accommodated
sicknesses
accidents
pregnancy
neither
see
part
supra
arguing
contrary
dissent
discussion
gilbert
relies
exclusively
opinions
dissenting
justices
case
see
post
congress
intent
passing
act
overrule
gilbert
majority
opinion
viewed
employer
disability
plan
denying
coverage
pregnant
employees
neutral
basis
iv
interpretation
act
judgment
fourth
circuit
must
vacated
party
entitled
summary
judgment
genuine
dispute
material
fact
movant
entitled
judgment
matter
law
fed
rule
civ
proc
already
outlined
evidence
young
introduced
see
part
supra
viewing
record
light
favorable
young
genuine
dispute
whether
ups
provided
favorable
treatment
least
employees
whose
situation
reasonably
distinguished
young
words
young
created
genuine
dispute
material
fact
fourth
prong
mcdonnell
douglas
analysis
young
also
introduced
evidence
ups
three
separate
accommodation
policies
ada
dot
taken
together
young
argued
policies
significantly
burdened
pregnant
women
see
app
shop
steward
testimony
light
duty
requested
due
physical
restrictions
became
issue
ups
women
pregnant
fourth
circuit
consider
combined
effects
policies
consider
strength
ups
justifications
combined
employer
accommodated
many
accommodate
pregnant
women
well
determine
whether
young
created
genuine
issue
material
fact
whether
ups
reasons
treated
young
less
favorably
treated
nonpregnant
employees
pretextual
leave
final
determination
question
fourth
circuit
make
remand
light
interpretation
pregnancy
discrimination
act
set
reasons
vacate
judgment
fourth
circuit
remand
case
proceedings
consistent
opinion
ordered
alito
concurring
judgment
peggy
young
petitioner
parcel
service
writ
certiorari
appeals
fourth
circuit
march
justice
alito
concurring
judgment
originally
enacted
title
vii
civil
rights
act
made
unlawful
employment
practice
discriminate
individual
sex
made
mention
discrimination
pregnancy
general
elec
gilbert
held
title
vii
reach
pregnancy
discrimination
congress
responded
enacting
pregnancy
discrimination
act
pda
added
subsection
definitional
provision
subsection
contains
two
clauses
first
straightforward
second
first
clause
provides
terms
sex
basis
sex
include
limited
basis
pregnancy
clause
effect
adding
pregnancy
list
prohibited
grounds
race
sex
etc
originally
included
claims
discrimination
provision
require
proof
discriminatory
intent
see
ricci
destefano
watson
fort
worth
bank
trust
thus
result
first
clause
employer
engages
unlawful
discrimination
employer
intent
discriminate
basis
pregnancy
employer
treats
pregnant
woman
unfavorably
reason
employer
guilty
unlawful
employment
practice
defined
first
clause
pda
first
clause
matter
whether
employer
ground
unfavorable
treatment
reasonable
matters
employer
actual
intent
course
employer
claims
made
decision
reason
seem
make
sense
factfinder
may
infer
employer
asserted
reason
action
pretext
unlawful
discrimination
factfinder
convinced
employer
acted
reason
pregnancy
employer
held
liable
clause
ii
pda
however
simply
prohibit
discrimination
basis
pregnancy
instead
second
clause
goes
say
following
women
affected
pregnancy
childbirth
related
medical
conditions
shall
treated
purposes
including
receipt
benefits
fringe
benefit
programs
persons
affected
similar
ability
inability
work
clause
raises
several
difficult
questions
interpretation
pertinent
case
us
first
clause
simply
explain
meant
discrimination
basis
pregnancy
impose
additional
restriction
employer
conduct
believe
clause
merely
explain
instead
adds
language
precedes
interpretation
consistent
statutory
text
clause
begins
word
certainly
suggests
follows
represents
addition
came
also
revealing
second
clause
makes
reference
intent
linchpin
liability
first
clause
second
clause
affirmative
command
employer
shall
provide
equal
treatment
first
clause
negative
prohibits
discrimination
careful
drafter
wanted
make
clear
second
clause
explain
meant
first
language
second
clause
substantially
modified
finally
second
clause
set
additional
restriction
employer
conduct
appear
largely
entirely
superfluous
see
arlington
central
school
dist
bd
ed
murphy
generally
presumed
statutes
contain
surplusage
noted
first
clause
adding
pregnancy
list
prohibited
grounds
adverse
employment
actions
mandates
discrimination
pregnancy
treated
like
discrimination
race
sex
etc
employer
commits
unlawful
employment
practice
intentionally
treats
employees
particular
race
sex
less
favorably
employees
similar
ability
inability
work
accordingly
first
clause
pda
alone
sufficient
make
clear
employer
guilty
unlawful
employment
practice
intentionally
treats
pregnant
employees
less
favorably
others
similar
ability
inability
reasons
conclude
second
clause
merely
explain
first
adds
requirement
equal
treatment
irrespective
intent
leads
second
question
determining
whether
pregnant
employees
given
equal
treatment
provision
demands
must
pregnant
employees
compared
interpret
second
clause
mean
pregnant
employees
must
compared
employees
performing
similar
jobs
pregnant
employees
second
provision
must
given
treatment
employees
similar
ability
inability
work
employee
ability
work
despite
illness
injury
pregnancy
often
depends
tasks
employee
job
includes
different
jobs
different
tasks
different
tasks
require
different
abilities
suppose
employer
provides
period
leave
pay
employees
whose
jobs
require
tasks
lifting
heavy
objects
perform
illness
injury
must
employer
provide
benefits
pregnant
employees
unable
lift
heavy
objects
desk
jobs
entail
heavy
lifting
answer
treatment
pregnant
employees
must
compared
treatment
nonpregnant
employees
whose
jobs
involve
performance
similar
tasks
conclusion
leads
third
even
difficult
question
comparing
pregnant
employees
nonpregnant
employees
similar
jobs
characteristics
pregnant
nonpregnant
employees
must
taken
account
answer
believe
must
found
reference
employees
similar
ability
inability
work
see
two
possible
interpretations
language
first
capacity
perform
tasks
required
job
relevant
characteristic
like
ante
accept
favored
employee
interpretation
interpretation
founders
case
employer
treats
pregnant
women
less
favorably
nonpregnant
employees
similar
jobs
similarly
impaired
ability
perform
tasks
jobs
require
case
explain
see
part
iii
parcel
service
ups
drivers
unable
perform
physical
tasks
required
job
fell
three
groups
first
nonpregnant
employees
received
favorable
treatment
second
nonpregnant
employees
receive
favorable
treatment
third
pregnant
employees
like
nonpregnant
employees
second
category
receive
favorable
treatment
circumstances
favored
employee
interpretation
require
employer
treat
pregnant
women
like
employees
first
favored
group
sufficient
employer
treated
nonpregnant
employees
second
group
receive
favorable
treatment
recall
second
clause
requires
pregnant
women
treated
purposes
persons
affected
similar
ability
inability
work
emphasis
added
therefore
ups
say
policy
treated
pregnant
employees
persons
similar
ability
inability
work
namely
nonpregnant
employees
second
category
time
pregnant
drivers
like
petitioner
say
ups
treat
employees
similar
ability
inability
work
namely
nonpregnant
employees
first
group
interpretation
leads
problem
therefore
turn
possible
interpretation
phrase
similar
ability
inability
work
namely
similar
ability
inability
work
means
similar
relation
ability
inability
work
interpretation
pregnant
employees
similar
relation
ability
inability
work
unable
work
different
reasons
means
two
groups
employees
similar
relevant
sense
employer
neutral
business
reason
treating
differently
agree
sufficient
reason
normally
consist
simply
claim
expensive
less
convenient
add
pregnant
women
category
employer
accommodates
ante
otherwise
however
think
second
clause
pda
authorizes
courts
evaluate
justification
truly
neutral
rule
language
used
second
clause
pda
quite
different
used
antidiscrimination
provisions
require
evaluation
cf
discrimination
person
disability
includes
making
reasonable
accommodations
known
physical
mental
limitations
otherwise
qualified
employee
unless
employer
demonstrate
accommodation
impose
undue
hardship
operation
business
emphasis
added
employer
must
reasonably
accommodate
religious
observance
practice
belief
unless
impose
undue
hardship
conduct
employer
business
business
necessity
defense
title
vii
cases
iii
understand
petitioner
case
assert
claims
first
second
clauses
respect
claim
first
clause
agree
information
summary
judgment
record
sufficient
albeit
barely
take
question
trier
fact
believe
judgment
appeals
respect
petitioner
claim
second
clause
must
also
vacated
petitioner
sought
excused
pregnancy
lifting
requirements
among
tasks
driver
policy
parcel
service
claims
force
time
question
drivers
physically
unable
perform
tasks
required
position
fell
three
groups
first
drivers
reassigned
less
physically
demanding
positions
included
group
unable
work
drivers
due
injury
incurred
job
drivers
unable
work
drivers
due
disability
defined
americans
disabilities
act
ada
drivers
result
medical
condition
injury
lost
department
transportation
dot
certification
needed
work
capacity
second
group
drivers
consisted
pregnant
denied
transfer
job
drivers
injured
job
fell
category
third
group
made
pregnant
drivers
like
petitioner
obvious
respondent
neutral
reason
providing
accommodation
required
ada
respondent
also
neutral
grounds
providing
special
accommodations
employees
injured
job
employees
permitted
work
appears
eligible
workers
compensation
benefits
see
md
lab
empl
code
ann
accommodations
provided
drivers
lost
dot
certifications
however
another
matter
driver
may
lose
dot
certification
variety
reasons
including
medical
conditions
injuries
incurred
job
impair
driver
ability
operate
motor
vehicle
drivers
may
transferred
jobs
require
physical
tasks
incompatible
illness
injury
appear
respondent
provided
plausible
justification
treating
drivers
favorably
drivers
pregnant
appeals
provided
two
grounds
distinguishing
petitioner
situation
drivers
lost
dot
certifications
see
neither
adequate
first
appeals
noted
legal
obstacle
stood
petitioner
work
ibid
legal
obstacle
faced
drivers
lost
dot
certification
explains
drivers
continue
perform
tasks
required
ordinary
jobs
explain
respondent
went
provided
drivers
work
accommodation
petitioner
pregnancy
prevented
continuing
normal
work
driver
case
driver
loses
dot
certification
respondent
policy
accommodating
drivers
lost
dot
certification
accommodating
pregnant
women
like
petitioner
legal
obstacle
lost
certification
explain
difference
treatment
second
appeals
observed
dot
certification
maintai
ability
perform
number
demanding
physical
tasks
doubtful
true
instances
driver
lose
dot
certification
due
great
variety
medical
conditions
including
loss
limb
cfr
impairments
arm
hand
finger
foot
leg
ii
cardiovascular
disease
respiratory
dysfunction
high
blood
pressure
arthritis
epilepsy
evident
far
aware
record
show
drivers
conditions
nevertheless
able
perform
great
many
physically
demanding
tasks
nevertheless
respondent
says
policy
transfer
drivers
inside
jobs
positions
available
presumably
respondent
assign
drivers
jobs
physically
unable
perform
least
instances
must
assigned
jobs
require
perform
tasks
incapable
performing
due
medical
condition
caused
loss
dot
certification
respondent
explained
pregnant
drivers
given
similar
consideration
reasons
clear
respondent
neutral
business
ground
treating
pregnant
drivers
less
favorably
least
nonpregnant
drivers
reassigned
jobs
physically
capable
performing
therefore
agree
decision
appeals
respect
petitioner
claim
second
clause
pda
must
vacated
case
must
remanded
proceedings
respect
claim
scalia
dissenting
peggy
young
petitioner
parcel
service
writ
certiorari
appeals
fourth
circuit
march
justice
scalia
justice
kennedy
justice
thomas
join
dissenting
faced
two
conceivable
readings
pregnancy
discrimination
act
chooses
neither
crafts
instead
new
law
splendidly
unconnected
text
even
legislative
history
act
treat
pregnant
workers
persons
told
means
refraining
adopting
policies
impose
significant
burden
upon
pregnant
women
without
sufficiently
strong
justifications
ante
significant
burden
sufficiently
strong
justification
requirements
come
inventiveness
posing
scholarship
gives
us
interpretation
dubious
principle
senseless
practice
title
vii
forbids
employers
discriminate
employees
sex
pregnancy
discrimination
act
adds
provision
title
vii
definitions
section
terms
sex
basis
sex
include
limited
basis
pregnancy
childbirth
related
medical
conditions
women
affected
pregnancy
childbirth
related
medical
conditions
shall
treated
purposes
including
receipt
benefits
fringe
benefit
programs
persons
affected
similar
ability
inability
work
title
vii
prohibition
discrimination
creates
liability
disparate
treatment
taking
action
discriminatory
motive
disparate
impact
using
practice
fall
harshly
one
group
another
justified
business
necessity
teamsters
peggy
young
establish
pregnancy
discrimination
either
theory
argued
parcel
service
refusal
accommodate
inability
work
amounted
disparate
treatment
appeals
concluded
mustered
evidence
ups
denied
accommodation
intent
disfavor
pregnant
women
young
never
brought
claim
disparate
impact
young
leave
behind
part
law
defining
pregnancy
discrimination
sex
discrimination
turn
part
requiring
women
affected
pregnancy
treated
persons
affected
similar
ability
inability
work
natural
way
understand
clause
employer
may
distinguish
pregnant
women
others
similar
ability
inability
pregnancy
means
pregnant
women
entitled
accommodations
terms
workers
disabling
conditions
pregnant
woman
denied
accommodation
policy
discriminate
pregnancy
treated
everyone
else
ups
accommodation
drivers
lose
certifications
illustrates
point
pregnant
woman
loses
certification
gets
benefit
like
worker
loses
pregnant
woman
keeps
certification
get
benefit
like
worker
keeps
certainly
sounds
like
treating
pregnant
women
others
however
another
way
understand
treated
least
looking
phrase
one
read
mean
employer
may
distinguish
pregnant
women
others
similar
ability
mean
pregnant
women
entitled
accommodations
terms
others
accommodations
others
matter
differences
pregnancy
ups
accommodation
decertified
drivers
illustrates
usage
sense
pregnant
woman
denied
accommodation
kept
certification
treated
injured
man
granted
accommodation
lost
certification
got
accommodation
two
readings
first
makes
sense
context
title
vii
point
title
vii
bans
discrimination
prohibit
employers
treating
one
worker
differently
another
protected
trait
prohibit
employers
treating
workers
differently
reasons
nothing
protected
traits
see
texas
dept
community
affairs
burdine
backdrop
requirement
pregnant
women
workers
treated
sensibly
read
forbid
distinctions
discriminate
pregnancy
distinctions
whatsoever
prohibiting
employers
making
distinctions
pregnant
workers
others
similar
ability
elevate
pregnant
workers
favored
employees
boeing
offered
chauffeurs
injured
directors
offer
chauffeurs
pregnant
mechanics
disney
paid
pensions
workers
longer
work
old
age
pay
pensions
workers
longer
work
childbirth
implausible
title
vii
elsewhere
creates
guarantees
equal
treatment
alone
creates
guarantee
favored
treatment
let
overlooked
moreover
thrust
pregnancy
discrimination
act
pregnancy
discrimination
sex
discrimination
instead
creating
freestanding
ban
pregnancy
discrimination
act
makes
plain
existing
ban
sex
discrimination
reaches
discrimination
pregnancy
reading
clause
give
pregnant
women
special
protection
unavailable
women
clash
central
theme
act
mean
pregnancy
discrimination
differs
sex
discrimination
things
considered
right
reading
clause
prohibits
practices
discriminate
pregnant
women
relative
workers
similar
ability
inability
prohibit
denying
pregnant
women
accommodations
benefit
matter
basis
evenhanded
policy
ii
agrees
clause
law
ante
time
refuses
adopt
reading
propose
reading
clause
conceivably
bear
reasons
resisting
reading
fail
persuade
starts
arguing
clause
must
ban
distinctions
basis
pregnancy
lest
add
nothing
part
act
defining
pregnancy
discrimination
sex
discrimination
ante
even
read
however
clause
add
something
clarity
see
newport
news
shipbuilding
dry
dock
eeoc
specific
language
second
clause
explains
application
first
clause
defining
pregnancy
discrimination
sex
discrimination
tell
us
means
discriminate
pregnancy
pregnancy
discrimination
include
addition
disfavoring
pregnant
women
relative
workplace
general
disfavoring
relative
disabled
workers
particular
concretely
employer
engage
pregnancy
discrimination
excluding
pregnancy
otherwise
complete
program
without
clause
answers
questions
obvious
employer
argue
people
necessarily
think
pregnancy
childbirth
disabilities
anomalous
read
law
defining
pregnancy
discrimination
sex
discrimination
require
treat
pregnancy
like
disability
title
vii
require
treat
sex
like
disability
even
pregnancy
disability
sui
generis
categorically
different
disabling
conditions
cf
geduldig
aiello
holding
state
rational
basis
excluding
disabilities
program
clause
doubts
disappear
requiring
women
affected
pregnancy
treated
persons
affected
similar
ability
inability
work
emphasis
added
clause
makes
plain
pregnancy
discrimination
includes
disfavoring
pregnant
women
relative
workers
similar
inability
work
clarifying
function
easily
overcomes
charge
reading
propose
makes
clause
void
insignificant
ante
perhaps
suggests
even
without
clause
best
reading
act
prohibit
disfavoring
pregnant
women
relative
disabled
workers
laws
often
make
explicit
might
already
implicit
greater
caution
order
leave
nothing
construction
federalist
pp
cooke
ed
hamilton
long
acknowledged
sufficient
explanation
inclusion
clause
found
desire
remove
doubts
meaning
rest
text
mcculloch
maryland
wheat
explanation
looks
sensible
one
remembers
object
pregnancy
discrimination
act
displace
conclusion
general
elec
gilbert
pregnancy
discrimination
sex
discrimination
natural
law
whose
object
superseding
earlier
judicial
interpretation
include
clause
whose
object
leaving
nothing
future
judicial
interpretation
brings
remaining
argument
claim
reading
set
forth
suffice
overturn
decision
gilbert
ante
wrong
gilbert
upheld
otherwise
comprehensive
plan
singled
pregnancy
disfavor
natural
reading
act
overturns
decision
prohibits
singling
pregnancy
disfavor
goes
astray
mistakenly
assumes
gilbert
plan
excluded
pregnancy
neutral
ground
covering
sicknesses
accidents
nothing
else
ante
reality
plan
gilbert
neutral
toward
pregnancy
place
pregnancy
class
treating
differently
kind
condition
stevens
dissenting
time
denied
coverage
pregnancy
provided
coverage
comprehensive
range
conditions
including
many
one
necessarily
call
sicknesses
accidents
like
sport
injuries
attempted
suicides
disabilities
incurred
commission
crime
fight
elective
cosmetic
surgery
brennan
dissenting
plan
denied
coverage
even
sicknesses
related
pregnancy
childbirth
ibid
matter
plan
denied
coverage
sicknesses
unrelated
pregnancy
childbirth
suffered
recovery
birth
child
ibid
gilbert
doubt
involved
lone
exclusion
pregnancy
program
ibid
natural
interpretation
act
easily
suffices
make
unlawful
iii
dissatisfied
two
readings
words
clause
possibly
bear
decides
clause
means
something
takes
couple
waves
wand
produce
desired
result
poof
clause
means
neutral
reason
refusing
accommodate
pregnant
woman
pretextual
employer
policies
impose
significant
burden
pregnant
workers
ante
poof
employer
reasons
sufficiently
strong
justify
burden
ibid
got
clause
anyone
guess
way
read
shall
treated
indeed
anything
else
clause
mean
courts
must
balance
significance
burden
pregnant
workers
strength
employer
justifications
policy
presumably
even
try
connect
interpretation
adopts
text
purports
interpret
forgotten
statutory
purpose
presumption
superfluity
tools
choosing
among
competing
reasonable
readings
law
authorizations
making
new
readings
law
reasonably
bear
fun
stop
ignored
terms
clause
proceeds
bungle
dichotomy
claims
disparate
treatment
claims
disparate
impact
normally
liability
disparate
treatment
arises
employment
policy
discriminatory
motive
liability
disparate
impact
arises
effects
employment
policy
fall
harshly
one
group
another
justified
business
necessity
teamsters
world
created
today
decision
however
pregnant
woman
establish
disparate
treatment
showing
effects
employer
policy
fall
harshly
pregnant
women
others
policies
impose
significant
burden
pregnant
workers
ante
inadequately
justified
reasons
sufficiently
strong
justify
burden
change
labels
may
small
change
results
assuredly
claims
come
different
standards
liability
different
defenses
different
remedies
example
plaintiffs
cases
get
compensatory
punitive
damages
well
equitable
relief
plaintiffs
disparate
impact
cases
get
equitable
relief
see
sound
reading
clause
preserve
distinctions
carefully
made
elsewhere
act
reading
makes
muddle
believe
gets
worse
order
make
sense
conflation
disparate
impact
disparate
treatment
claims
new
test
somehow
limited
pregnancy
discrimination
act
context
yet
time
consistent
traditional
use
circumstantial
evidence
show
intent
discriminate
title
vii
cases
ante
title
vii
case
true
enough
may
consider
policy
effects
even
justifications
along
surrounding
facts
trying
ferret
policy
motive
hazelwood
school
dist
possibly
think
however
newfangled
balancing
test
reflects
conventional
inquiry
marched
hill
telling
us
clause
void
insignificant
ante
clause
merely
instructed
courts
consider
policy
effects
justifications
way
considers
circumstantial
evidence
motive
superfluous
balancing
test
must
mean
something
else
even
effects
justifications
policies
enough
show
intent
discriminate
ordinary
title
vii
principles
poof
still
show
intent
discriminate
purposes
pregnancy
clause
deliciously
incoherent
end
difference
routine
inquiry
motive
today
grotesque
inquiry
motive
seem
today
approach
requires
judges
concentrate
effects
justifications
exclusion
considerations
title
vii
already
framework
allows
judges
home
policy
effects
justifications
disparate
impact
framework
already
unlawful
employer
use
practice
disparate
impact
basis
protected
trait
unless
among
things
employer
show
practice
job
related
consistent
business
necessity
explain
need
never
mind
act
possibly
read
contain
today
ersatz
test
element
gives
way
criterion
defense
gives
way
standard
today
decision
thus
serve
one
purpose
allowing
claims
belong
title
vii
provisions
brought
provisions
instead
iv
justice
alito
concurrence
agrees
rejection
conceivable
readings
clause
fashions
different
compromise
approach
employer
may
deny
pregnant
woman
benefit
granted
workers
perform
similar
tasks
basis
neutral
business
ground
ante
opinion
concurring
judgment
requirement
business
ground
shadows
requirement
sufficiently
strong
justification
like
footing
terms
clause
concurrence
understands
words
shall
treated
employer
must
give
pregnant
workers
accommodations
merely
accommodations
terms
workers
similar
ability
inability
work
ante
concurrence
realizes
requiring
accommodations
similar
ability
inability
work
characteristic
mentioned
clause
lead
wildly
implausible
results
ante
solve
problem
concurrence
broadens
category
characteristics
employer
may
take
account
allows
employer
find
dissimilarity
basis
traits
ability
work
long
neutral
business
reason
considering
though
immediately
adds
cost
inconvenience
good
enough
reasons
ante
need
engage
broadening
order
make
concurrence
interpretation
work
good
sign
interpretation
wrong
start
disagreement
fundamental
think
task
choose
best
possible
reading
law
text
context
strongly
suggest
conveys
seems
think
task
craft
compromise
possible
readings
law
like
congressional
conference
committee
reconciling
house
senate
versions
bill
young
established
ups
accommodations
policy
discriminates
pregnant
women
relative
others
similar
ability
inability
see
supra
shown
violation
act
requirement
therefore
affirm
judgment
appeals
fourth
circuit
kennedy
dissenting
peggy
young
petitioner
parcel
service
writ
certiorari
appeals
fourth
circuit
march
justice
kennedy
dissenting
seems
proper
joining
justice
scalia
dissent
add
additional
remarks
dissent
altogether
correct
point
petitioner
point
class
accommodated
include
particular
limitations
imposed
pregnancy
many
workers
restrictions
accommodated
either
addition
showing
animus
hostility
pregnant
women
matter
societal
concern
indifference
quite
another
matter
must
little
doubt
women
work
force
choice
financial
necessity
confront
serious
disadvantage
becoming
pregnant
may
find
difficult
continue
work
least
regular
assignment
still
taking
necessary
steps
avoid
risks
health
health
future
children
difficulties
pregnant
women
face
workplace
remain
issue
national
importance
historically
denial
curtailment
women
employment
opportunities
traceable
directly
pervasive
presumption
women
mothers
first
workers
second
nevada
dept
human
resources
hibbs
quoting
parental
medical
leave
act
joint
hearing
subcommittee
relations
subcommittee
labor
standards
house
committee
education
labor
attitudes
pregnancy
childbirth
sustained
pervasive
often
restrictions
woman
place
among
paid
workers
hulteen
ginsburg
dissenting
although
much
progress
made
recent
decades
many
employers
voluntarily
adopted
policies
designed
recruit
accommodate
retain
employees
pregnant
young
children
see
brief
women
chamber
commerce
et
al
amici
curiae
pregnant
employees
continue
disadvantaged
often
discriminated
workplace
see
brief
law
professors
et
al
amici
curiae
recognizing
financial
dignitary
harm
caused
conditions
congress
enacted
laws
combat
alleviate
least
extent
difficulties
faced
pregnant
women
work
force
relevant
congress
enacted
pregnancy
discrimination
act
pda
defines
discrimination
basis
pregnancy
sex
discrimination
purposes
title
vii
clarifies
pregnant
employees
shall
treated
nonpregnant
employees
similar
ability
inability
work
pda
forbids
disparate
treatment
also
disparate
impact
latter
prohibits
practices
intended
discriminate
fact
disproportionate
adverse
effect
ricci
destefano
congress
enacted
provision
family
medical
leave
act
requires
certain
employers
provide
eligible
employees
workweeks
leave
birth
child
events
giving
rise
litigation
congress
passed
ada
amendments
act
stat
expands
protections
employees
temporary
disabilities
parties
note
brief
petitioner
brief
respondent
brief
amicus
curiae
amendments
implementing
regulations
cfr
may
require
accommodations
many
pregnant
employees
even
though
pregnancy
expressly
classified
disability
additionally
many
enacted
laws
providing
certain
accommodations
pregnant
employees
see
cal
govt
code
ann
west
la
rev
stat
ann
west
code
ann
lexis
supp
see
also
california
fed
sav
loan
assn
guerra
holding
pda
statutes
acts
honor
safeguard
important
contributions
women
make
workplace
american
family
today
addresses
one
legal
protections
pda
prohibition
disparate
treatment
reasons
well
stated
justice
scalia
dissenting
opinion
interprets
pda
manner
risks
conflation
disparate
impact
disparate
treatment
permitting
plaintiff
use
policy
disproportionate
burden
pregnant
employees
evidence
pretext
ante
see
ante
opinion
injects
unnecessary
confusion
accepted
framework
established
mcdonnell
douglas
green
remarks
join
justice
scalia
dissent
footnotes
uses
phrase
sex
provisions
governed
definitions
use
phrase
basis
sex
see
therefore
subsection
covers
phrase
well
justice
scalia
dissent
argues
post
second
clause
serves
useful
purpose
clarifying
meaning
discrimination
pregnancy
without
second
clause
dissent
maintains
might
uncertainty
whether
employer
commit
unlawful
employment
practice
excluded
pregnancy
otherwise
complete
disability
benefits
program
contrary
dissent
however
think
answer
question
quite
obvious
based
first
clause
pda
alone
employer
provided
benefits
every
employee
temporarily
unable
work
due
physical
condition
pregnancy
employer
position
employer
provided
similar
benefits
employees
every
race
one
situations
employer
clearly
discriminate
prohibited
ground
favored
employee
interpretation
also
lead
wildly
implausible
results
suppose
example
employer
policy
refusing
provide
accommodation
employee
unable
work
due
reason
employer
wished
make
exception
several
employees
seriously
injured
performing
acts
extraordinary
heroism
job
example
saving
lives
numerous
fellow
employees
fire
workplace
ability
perform
job
tasks
characteristic
considered
employer
face
choice
either
denying
special
treatment
heroic
employees
providing
benefits
pregnant
employees
unlikely
congress
intended
requirement
go
beyond
anything
demanded
antidiscrimination
law
opinions
often
used
phrase
similar
mean
similar
relation
similar
respect
see
kiobel
royal
dutch
petroleum
breyer
concurring
judgment
slip
similar
character
specificity
piracy
williams
illinois
thomas
concurring
judgment
slip
similar
solemnity
marian
examination
practices
confrontation
clause
designed
prevent
sykes
slip
similar
degree
danger
involved
arson
cost
alone
justify
unequal
treatment
pregnant
employees
plan
issue
general
electric
gilbert
lawful
cf
repeatedly
said
pda
rejected
holding
gilbert
hulteen
ginsburg
dissenting
quoting
newport
news
shipbuilding
dry
dock
eeoc