Young v. United Parcel Serv., Inc.
| Decision Date | 09 January 2013 |
| Docket Number | No. 11–2078.,11–2078. |
| Citation | 707 F.3d 437 |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fourth Circuit |
| Parties | Peggy YOUNG, Plaintiff–Appellant, v. UNITED PARCEL SERVICE, INC., Defendant–Appellee, and United Parcel Service of America, Inc.; UPS Health Program; Aetna Life Insurance Company; Aetna Disability and Absence Management, Defendants. American Civil Liberties Union Foundation; American Civil Liberties Union Foundation of Maryland; A Better Balance; Equal Rights Advocates; Legal Aid Society—Employment Law Center; Legal Momentum; National Partnership for Women & Families; National Women's Law Center; Public Justice Center; Southwest Women's Law Center; Women's Law Center of Maryland, Inc.; Women's Law Project, Amici Supporting Appellant. |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
ARGUED:Sharon Fast Gustafson, Arlington, Virginia, for Appellant. Emmett F. McGee, Jr., Jackson Lewis, LLP, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee. ON BRIEF:Jill S. Distler, Jackson Lewis, LLP, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee. Ariela M. Migdal, Lenora M. Lapidus, American Civil Liberties Union Foundation, New York, New York; Deborah A. Jeon, ACLU Foundation of Maryland, Baltimore, Maryland, for Amici Curiae.
Before WILKINSON, GREGORY, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by published opinion. Judge DUNCAN wrote the opinion, in which Judge WILKINSON and Judge GREGORY joined.
In 1978, Congress passed the Pregnancy Discrimination Act (the “PDA”), which amended the definition of discrimination on the basis of sex in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VII”) to provide that it included discrimination in employment “because of or on the basis of pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions.” 42 U.S.C. § 2000e(k). Invoking both the PDA and the Americans with Disabilities Act (the “ADA”), 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq., Peggy Young (“Young”) appeals the district court's grant of summary judgment for her employer, United Postal Service, Inc. (“UPS”). For the reasons that follow, we affirm.1
In reviewing a grant of summary judgment, we recite the facts in the light most favorable to Young as the non-moving party. Dulaney v. Packaging Corp. of America, 673 F.3d 323, 324–25 (4th Cir.2012). Three UPS policies lie at the core of this dispute. First, UPS defined among the essential functions for all drivers the ability to “[l]ift, lower, push, pull, leverage and manipulate ... packages weighing up to 70 pounds,” and to “[a]ssist in moving packages weighing up to 150 pounds,” J.A. 577.
Second, the applicable Collective Bargaining Agreement (the “CBA”) provides temporary alternate work (“TAW”) 2 to employees “unable to perform their normal work assignments due to an on-the-job injury.” J.A. 580 (emphasis added). To comply with this CBA provision, UPS offerslight duty work to those employees injured while on the job or suffering from a permanent impairment cognizable under the ADA. Under UPS policy and the CBA, a pregnant employee can continue working as long as she can perform the essential functions of her job, but is ineligible for light duty work for any limitations arising solely as result of her pregnancy.
Finally, a CBA provision requires UPS to give an “inside job” to drivers who have lost their certification by the Department of Transportation (the “DOT”) because of a failed medical exam, a lost driver's license, or involvement in a motor vehicle accident as long as the driver is capable of performing such a job. Because an inside job often involves heavy lifting, it is typically not considered light duty work.
Against this backdrop, we turn to the facts before us. We begin with a general statement of facts, providing additional information as necessary to the analysis.
Young started working for UPS in 1999, and began driving a delivery truck in 2002. By 2006 and throughout the relevant period, Young held a position as a part-time, early morning driver, also known as an “air driver,” apparently in reference to her responsibility to pick up and deliver packages that had arrived by air carrier the previous night. Young worked out of a UPS facility in Landover, Maryland known as the “D.C. Building.” Each morning after clocking in at the D.C. Building and inspecting her delivery van, Young and other air drivers would meet a shuttle from the airport bearing letters and packages scheduled for immediate delivery. Air drivers were then responsible for loading their vans and making deliveries. Young typically finished her work responsibilities by 9:45 or 10 in the morning, and then proceeded to her second job at a flower delivery company.
In July 2006, following two unsuccessful rounds of in vitro fertilization, Young requested a leave of absence to try a third round. The UPS occupational health manager, Carolyn Martin, granted Young's request. When Young became pregnant, she sought to extend her leave. At some point in September 2006, she left with her supervisor a note from Dr. Thaddeus Mamlenski indicating that she should not lift more than twenty pounds for the first twenty weeks of her pregnancy and not more than ten pounds thereafter. Young soon followed up with a phone call to Martin saying that she was not yet ready to return to work.
During that September 2006 call, Martin informed Young that UPS policy would not permit her to continue working as long as she had the twenty-pound lifting restriction. Young maintains that she sought to explain to Martin that her job rarely required her to lift over twenty pounds, that other UPS employees had in any case agreed to assist her, and that she was willing to do either light duty work or her regular job. Young characterized the seventy-pound lifting requirement as illusory because she rarely had to transport large packages, and when she did, she could use a hand truck or request assistance from other UPS employees.
On October 11, 2006, Young had a check-up with midwife Cynthia Shawl. At the conclusion of her check-up, Shawl drafted and signed a short note on National Naval Medical Center letterhead stating J.A. 510 (the “Shawl note”). The Shawl note also indicated Shawl was available to provide further information or answer questions, and listed contact information for her. Although Shawl did not typically draft such notes, she did so in this instance because Young had told her she needed “a letter for work stating her restrictions.” J.A. 656.3
At some point after her appointment with Shawl, Young contacted her supervisor at the D.C. Building and requested to return to work. When Young informed her supervisor of the note recommending she not lift more than twenty pounds, her supervisor referred Young to Martin. After speaking with Young, Martin concluded that, based on UPS policy, Young was unable to perform the essential functions of her job and was ineligible for light duty assignment. It is undisputed that Martin made this determination alone.
Young and Martin spoke by phone at the end of October 2006. In the course of discussing Young's lifting limitation and eligibility for work, Martin explained to Young that (1) UPS offered light duty for those with on-the-job injuries, those accommodated under the ADA, and those who had lost DOT certification, but not for pregnancy; (2) Young did not qualify for short-term disability benefits because she had presented no note stating she could not work at all; (3) Young had exhausted her leave under the Family and Medical Leave Act (the “FMLA”); and (4) UPS policy did not permit Young to continue working as an air driver with her twenty-pound lifting restriction. Although Martin “empathize[d] with [Young's] situation and would have loved to help her,” J.A. 1032, Martin believed she was required to treat Young the same as she would any other UPS employee who had a lifting restriction that did not result from an on-the-job injury or illness and who could not perform his or her regular job. According to Martin, she would have allowed Young to return to work if Young could provide a medical certification removing her lifting restriction and stating she could perform the essential functions of her job.
The parties do not dispute that Martin based her decision to disallow Young from returning to work solely on the basis of the lifting limitations imposed by Mamlenski and Shawl. Martin did not believe Young had any other restrictions, and asserts that had she considered Young disabled within the meaning of the ADA, she would have encouraged Young to apply for an accommodation in accordance with UPS's ADA policy. J.A. 575. Although Young takes issue with Martin's failure to contact Shawl and seek more information regarding the recommended lifting restriction, Young does not controvert Martin's assertion.
Still seeking to return to work, Young approached Myron Williams, the Capital Division Manager in the D.C. Building, in November 2006. According to Young, when she explained her desire to return to work, Williams told her she was “too much of a liability” while pregnant and that she “could not come back into the [D.C.] [B]uilding until [she] was no longer pregnant.” J.A. 500.
By November 2006, Young's FMLA leave had expired. She then went on an extended leave of absence, receiving no pay and eventually losing her medical coverage by the end of the year. During this extended leave, someone—the record does not disclose who—at UPS ascribed Young's absence to “disability” by placing the code for disability on her attendance chart. A UPS employee explained at his deposition that the disability code does not necessarily mean that the employee is on approved disability leave; it in some cases means only that an employee is “not working because of an off the job situation.” J.A. 1836.
Young gave birth on April 29, 2007, and returned to work for UPS at some point thereafter.
Young...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Labarbera v. NYU Winthrop Hosp.
...child." Young , 135 S.Ct. at 1344, 1348 (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting the underlying Fourth Circuit's opinion, 707 F.3d 437, 448 (4th Cir. 2013) ).The dispute before the Supreme Court centered on the meaning of the PDA's second clause:[W]omen affected by pregnancy, childbirth,......
-
Howard v. Coll. of the Albemarle
...(unpublished). Thus, a "regarded as" claim under the ADAAA is much easier to prove than a "regarded as" claim before the ADAAA. Cf. Young, 707 F.3d at 443–44 (analyzing a pre-ADAAA "regarded as" claim); Rohan, 375 F.3d at 277–78 (same); Pollard v. High's of Baltimore. Inc., 281 F.3d 462, 47......
-
Wonasue v. Univ. of Md. Alumni Ass'n
...No. WMN–13–217, 2013 WL 2490270, at *5 n. 3 (D.Md. June 7, 2013) (citation and quotation marks omitted); see Young v. United Parcel Serv., 707 F.3d 437, 443 (4th Cir.2013) (“ ‘With near unanimity, federal courts have held that pregnancy is not a ‘disability’ under the ADA.' ”) (quoting Wenz......
-
Rocha v. Coastal Carolina Neuropsychiatric Crisis Servs., P.A.
...(unpublished). Thus, a “regarded as” claim under the ADAAA is much easier to prove than a “regarded as” claim before the ADAAA. Cf. Young, 707 F.3d at 443–44 (analyzing a pre-ADAAA “regarded as” claim); Rohan, 375 F.3d at 277–78 (same); Pollard v. High's of Baltimore, Inc., 281 F.3d 462, 47......
-
Supreme Court Docket Report - July 1, 2014
...The Fourth Circuit affirmed, concluding that UPS's accommodations policy was "pregnancy-blind." Young v. United Parcel Service, 707 F.3d 437, 446, 450 (4th Cir. 2013). But the court acknowledged its disagreement with a decision of the Sixth Circuit, Ensley-Gaines v. Runyon, 1000 F.3d 1220 (......
-
EEOC Issues Pregnancy Discrimination Enforcement Guidance
...n.6 ("[W]e have held that the EEOC's interpretive guidelines do not receive Chevron deference.") 3 . Young v. United Parcel Service, Inc., 707 F.3d 437 (4th Cir. 2013), cert. granted, 81 U.S.L.W. 3602 (U.S. July 1, 2014) (No. The Guidance on an employer's legal obligation under Title VII wi......
-
Maryland Enacts Three New Employment Laws
...of Family Members in the Armed Services Act here. View the Lien for Unpaid Wages Act here. Young v. United Parcel Service, Inc., 707 F.3d 437 (4th Cir. 2013), available Id. at 448. Copyright 2013. Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP. All Rights Reserved. This article is provided as a general in......
-
Maryland Employers Soon Must Provide 'Light Duty' To Pregnant Disabled Women And Update Employment Handbooks
...to update their handbooks to include other recent developments in labor and employment law. Foonotes Md. Code Ann., Art. 20 et seq. 707 F.3d 437 (4th Cir. The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your ......
-
"LEAST FAVORED NATION": PREGNANCY DISCRIMINATION DISPARATE IMPACT CLAIMS POST-YOUNG.
...motion to amend the complaint, and the Fourth Circuit held that this was not an abuse of discretion. Young v. United Parcel Serv., Inc., 707 F.3d 437, 442 n.6 (4th Cir. 2013). In Justice Breyer's view, Young's theory of harm--that the policy at issue disproportionately impacted pregnant wor......