Doing some heavy lifting

By Gail Collins

Friday, Dec. 5, 2014 | 2 a.m.

In their long, frequently triumphant but totally unfinished struggle for equal employment rights, women keep coming up against the matter of lifting heavy bundles.

This week, the latest chapter arrived at the Supreme Court: Peggy Young, a former United Parcel Service driver, and her eight-year fight about whether she could handle a 21-pound package.

Young was a driver for UPS in Maryland when she got pregnant and was told to get a note from her doctor detailing any necessary work restrictions. “The doctor said: ‘Well then, I’ll recommend you don’t lift anything over 20 pounds,’” Young recalled in a phone interview.

Her job at the time involved delivering packages that were generally light. And her co-workers had made it clear they would take care of anything heavy that did happen to come her way. But UPS put her on an unpaid leave.

“They told me they don’t provide light duty for pregnancy and that I had become a liability,” she said.

The case has echoes of one of the first great legal victories in the women’s rights movement. More than half a century ago, Lorena Weeks, a Georgia telephone company clerk, applied for a better-paying job and was told she was ineligible because it involved lifting a piece of equipment that weighed about 30 pounds. The fact that the object in question was actually pushed around on a dolly and that Lorena’s own job required her to lift a 34-pound typewriter onto her desk every morning did not appear to enter into the company’s equation.

Weeks’ lawyer, Sylvia Roberts, convinced the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals that the rule was both paternalistic and arbitrary, punctuating her argument by lifting a series of objects in the courtroom. She told me once that she believed her performance of hoisting a workbench helped win the day. That was in 1969. And, now, here we are with Peggy Young and her packages.

It’s ironic, really, since women of childbearing age probably spend more time picking up heavy — and frequently squirming — objects than most men. Young has two older children who were born three years apart. When she was pregnant with her second child, she noted, “I had zero issues holding my 3-year-old, who I’m pretty sure weighed more than any packages they’d give me.”

Further irony: The courts have ruled repeatedly that the federal Pregnancy Discrimination Act does not require an employer to accommodate a pregnant worker. Basically, a boss just has to prove he’d be equally unfeeling if she fell down the stairs at home and broke her leg. (UPS says it believes its policy was “lawful, evenly and consistently applied at the time to all employees.”)

Yet, more irony, with a heavy overlay of pathos: During her enforced disability leave, Peggy Young still needed income, and she continued to work as a driver for a florist, lifting packages that were heavier than anything she had handled at UPS. And the job didn’t include health benefits.

Ironic finale: UPS did not make accommodations for pregnant workers, but it did make accommodations for employees who get in trouble for drunken driving off the job. “If you lose your license for a DUI, you get reassigned temporarily while you work to get your license back,” said Samuel Bagenstos, the attorney who argued Young’s case in Washington.

How do you think the Supreme Court will react to all this? It’s had a dismal recent history when it comes to workers’ rights. But history is most definitely marching on Young’s side. Since she filed her suit, Maryland has joined a number of states that require employers to make reasonable accommodations for pregnant workers. And, last month, UPS sent out a notice that it would henceforth offer pregnant women temporary light-duty assignments. So it’ll be sort of hard to argue that Young’s demands were unreasonable.

“The best evidence that they can do this is ... that they’re going to do this,” Bagenstos said.

Young’s case is also one of the very, very, extremely rare occasions when both sides of the abortion rights divide come together. Everybody, from the American Civil Liberties Union to Americans United for Life, understands most American mothers need to work to help support their families, and nobody wants them to have to choose between having a child and keeping their job.

“We have calls from pregnant women who are cashiers who can’t stand for eight hours and ask if they can use a stool or who need to take extra bathroom breaks. These kind of simple requests are being refused,” said Marcia Greenberger of the National Women’s Law Center. “It’s still very much of a problem, especially for women in low-paying jobs.”

Congress could, of course, clear this up by passing a federal law requiring fair treatment for pregnant workers. All that’s necessary is for Republicans and Democrats to work together to ...

Never mind.

Gail Collins is a columnist for The New York Times.