Employment Litigation · Primary-source case analysis

Young: Pregnancy-Accommodation Claims Turn on Comparable Work Limitations

By Aneeta Mishra and Timothy Chan

Published May 17, 2026

Decision: Young v. United Parcel Serv., Inc., 575 U.S. 206 (2015).

Young v. United Parcel Service, Inc. reviewed a light-duty policy that accommodated several categories of workers but excluded a pregnant employee with a lifting restriction.

The comparison focuses on work ability

A claimant may identify nonpregnant employees who were similar in their ability or inability to work and nevertheless received accommodation.

The employer must articulate a legitimate reason

The reason ordinarily must be more than the cost or inconvenience of extending accommodation to pregnant employees.

A significant burden can support pretext

Evidence that a policy accommodates many nonpregnant workers while burdening many pregnant workers may permit an inference of intentional discrimination.

The summary-judgment record required reconsideration

The Court remanded for application of the clarified Pregnancy Discrimination Act framework.

Key takeaways

• Identify every accommodation category and actual recipient.
• Compare functional limitations, not job labels alone.
• Test the employer’s stated operational reason with policy data.
• Evaluate current Pregnant Workers Fairness Act duties separately.