Supreme Court to Clarify Pregnant Workers’ Rights

The U.S. Supreme Court recently heard oral argument in Young v. United Parcel Service, Inc.,[1] a case that is expected to clarify employers’ legal obligations when pregnant women with work limitations seek workplace accommodations.

Petitioner Peggy Young was a driver for UPS, a positon that required her to lift up to 70 pounds. During her pregnancy, her doctor advised her not to lift more than 20 pounds, and she asked UPS to placer her on “light duty” – something UPS provided for employees who (1) had been injured on the job, (2) were disabled, or (3) had lost their commercial driver’s licenses. UPS denied Young’s request, reasoning that Young’s pregnancy was neither a disability nor an on-the-job injury, and put her on unpaid leave for the next nine months.

Young sued UPS under the Pregnancy Discrimination Act (“PDA”), alleging UPS’ policy discriminated against pregnant women. Since the PDA became law in 1978, it has been illegal to treat women workers unequally just because they become pregnant. But it has remained unclear whether employers who grant light-duty work accommodations to temporarily disabled workers must also provide light-duty accommodations to women whose doctors place similar restrictions on the work they can do during pregnancy.

Young argued that UPS’ policy is illegal under PDA, because it treats pregnant workers less favorably than non-pregnant workers who are similar in their ability or inability to work. UPS (which has since changed its policy), argued that Young is seeking is “special treatment for pregnant employees” — something the PDA does not require.  UPS pointed out that even the Justice Department has in the past defended a US Postal Service policy that treats pregnant women in substantially the same way. (The Justice Department said that policy is now being reconsidered.)

Both the district court and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit ruled in favor of UPS. Women’s rights advocates and the U.S. Department of Justice have now lined up on Young’s side. The Supreme Court’s ruling should clarify the rights available to pregnant women, as well as what is required of employers, under the PDA.

[1] No. 12-1226 (argued Dec. 3, 2014).

Pennsylvania Supreme Court to Decide Fresh Consideration Rule for Employee Non-Competes

Yesterday, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court granted allocator in Socko v. Mid-Atlantic Systems of CPA, Inc., 99 A.3d 928 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2014). Socko is the Pennsylvania Superior Court decision from May 2014 that re-affirmed the rule that fresh consideration is required for a non-compete signed after the inception of employment. In Socko, the employer tried to avoid the fresh consideration requirement by relying on Pennsylvania’s Uniform Written Obligations Act (“UWOA”). The UWOA provides that a written release or promise “shall not be invalid or unenforceable for lack of consideration, if the writing also contains an additional express statement . . . that the signer intends to be legally bound.”

The Superior Court called the issue one of “first impression in this Commonwealth,” but federal district courts interpreting Pennsylvania law had split on the issue of whether the UWOA applies in the non-compete context. On the merits, the Superior Court sided with the employee and held that the UWOA does not apply to restrictive covenants in the employment context, reasoning that non-compete covenants “are disfavored in Pennsylvania because they are in restraint of trade and may work significant hardships on employees agreeing to them.”

The Supreme Court’s decision in Socko will be of interest to business owners who use non-compete and to employees who are subject to non-competes. The subjects take on particular importance because in our experience the number of non-compete cases in litigation tends to rise with a growing economy.