Update on Young vs. UPS: the “Pregnant Workers Fairness Act

Back last week, in commenting on the current case at the Supreme Court on accomodations for pregnant women, I observed that the supporters of Peggy Young, asking that UPS be required to accomodate her inability to lift heavy items during pregnancy, we really asking for a change in legislation, because UPS in fact followed the law as written.

with respect to employment, it is a civil rights violation for an employer to refuse to provide reasonable accommodations for an employee for conditions related to pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions, if she so requests, with the advice of her health care provider

according to the law’s official summary, with further definitions of what “reasonable accommodation” means.  Skimming through, what I can’t tell is this:  if, for instance, an employer accomodates a pregnant woman with greater numbers of bathroom breaks, may these breaks be unpaid?  If the heavy lifting element of the job is removed, may the pay be reduced to reflect this?  But presumably these sorts of questions have already been worked out for disability-related accomodations.

Is this the right law?  Will it, in fact, impose undue burdens on employers, especially given that there are far more pregnant women than there are people with disabilities?  I don’t know.  But I do know that this is a far more honest approach than trying to create the same result through the courts.