Peggy Young worked for UPS delivering letters and packages. When she became pregnant, she requested but was denied less strenuous work. She was then forced off her job.
We first told you about Peggy's story back in 2012, when the ACLU announced its support for her appeal. We argued that Peggy Young, like all pregnant workers who need temporary accommodations, is entitled to the same kinds of light-duty assignments employers routinely make available to disabled and injured workers. The appeals court in Peggy's case ruled against her. The court found that it was perfectly legal for UPS to leave her high and dry.
Just when she needed her paycheck to prepare for the expenses of having a baby, Peggy lost her pay, her benefits and had to go without health insurance. To make matters worse, she couldn't even get short-term disability benefits, because her doctor hadn't said she could not work – just that she could not lift heavy objects. She ended up stuck in a cruel bind – not allowed by UPS to work, but also not able to collect the short-term benefits normally available to people who temporarily cannot work.
Today, we filed a "friend of the court" brief in support of Peggy Young at the Supreme Court, which will consider her case this term.
Peggy's home state of Maryland reacted to this decision by standing up for pregnant workers. It passed a law requiring employers to give reasonable accommodations to pregnant workers who need them. This year, a number of other states followed suit. And now the Supreme Court will decide whether employers like UPS must offer light duty and other accommodations to pregnant workers that are provided to other employees.
Unfortunately, Peggy's situation is not an isolated case. In fact, it's pretty typical of workers who are pushed to take unpaid leave when pregnant. One worker who testified before Congress this year, Armanda Legros, described her inability as a single mom to put food on the table after she was kicked out of her job at a truck company because she couldn't lift heavy items while six months pregnant. She ended up having to take shortcuts, like putting water in her older child's cereal instead of milk, and had to turn to public assistance to get by.
Our client Asia Myers, a nursing assistant at a nursing home was not allowed to come to work after she experienced pregnancy complications and was told not to lift by her doctor. Being out of work made it hard for her to make ends meet, and she watched the bills pile up.
These incidents have long-term effects on women's ability to maintain stable careers and achieve equality in the workforce. Last week, the New York Times on new showing that while men statistically get paid more when they have children (the "fatherhood bonus"), women pay a "motherhood penalty" that affects their income throughout their lives. Policies like UPS's, that force pregnant women who want to work out of the workforce, contribute to this problem.
In the brief we filed today, along with our co-authors at A Better Balance, and joined by a number of civil rights organizations, we explained what happened to Peggy, Armanda Legros, and other women who have been pushed into financial instability by policies like UPS'. These are part of the larger picture of persistent inequality for working women who become pregnant and have children. We hope the Supreme Court agrees: It's time for employers to let women – including pregnant women – remain at work.
Read more about pregnancy discrimination.
Learn more about pregnancy discrimination and other civil liberty issues: Sign up for breaking news alerts,, and .
Learn More About the Issues on This Page
-
Press ReleaseDec 2024
LGBTQ Rights
President Biden Must Veto Defense Bill Attacking Military Families with Transgender YouthPresident Biden Must Veto Defense Bill Attacking Military Families with Transgender Youth
WASHINGTON — The U.S. Senate today passed a version of the National Defense Authorization Act that would ban coverage for gender-affirming care for transgender youth whose parents are active-duty military personnel. The American Civil Liberties Union is opposing final passage of the defense bill over the inclusion of this health care ban and calling on President Joe Biden to veto the bill. Section 708 of the NDAA would prohibit insurance coverage for “medical interventions for the treatment of gender dysphoria” such as hormone therapy and puberty-suppressant medications, which Speaker Mike Johnson says would “permanently ban transgender medical treatment for minors.” The same treatments would be covered by TRICARE for any medical purpose other than treating gender dysphoria, the clinical diagnosis for the psychological distress experienced by transgender people related to their gender identity. “By passing this bill, the House and Senate are forcing thousands of active-duty service members to choose between their careers in the military and the future of their transgender children,” said Mike Zamore, national director of policy & government affairs at the ACLU. “This unconscionable and unjustifiable attack on those families stands in direct contrast to President Joe Biden’s legacy of defending the civil rights of transgender Americans — including when few in his own party showed the courage to do so. President Biden should cement his legacy by vetoing this bill and sending it back to Congress to pass without Speaker Johnson’s last minute health care ban for servicemembers’ kids.” If signed by President Biden, this health care ban would be the first new anti-LGBTQ provision enacted by Congress and signed into law by the president since the enactment of the military’s since-repealed “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy for LGBTQ servicemembers and the since-repealed federal law barring recognition of same-sex marriages known as the Defense of Marriage Act. It is unknown how many transgender youth are currently enrolled in TRICARE or how many of those enrolled are currently receiving coverage for gender-affirming care. In one 2022 analysis, 2,500 minor patients sought care for gender dysphoria through TRICARE Prime insurance at military or civilian treatment facilities in 2017, and 900 received puberty suppressants or gender-affirming hormones. Earlier this month, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in a landmark case brought by the ACLU, the ACLU of Tennessee, Lambda Legal, and Akin Gump on behalf of three families and a medical provider challenging a Tennessee ban on gender-affirming hormonal therapies for transgender youth on the grounds the ban violates the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution. -
Press ReleaseDec 2024
LGBTQ Rights
Montana Court Blocks State From Refusing to Correct Sex Markers on Transgender People's Birth Certificates and Driver's LicensesMontana Court Blocks State From Refusing to Correct Sex Markers on Transgender People's Birth Certificates and Driver's Licenses
HELENA, Mont. – A Montana court has granted a preliminary injunction preventing the state of Montana from enforcing policies that bar transgender people from obtaining accurate sex designations on their birth certificates and driver’s licenses. After a prior restriction on amendments of birth certificates was struck down by the courts, in early 2024 the state of Montana enacted a new rule that categorically bars transgender Montanans from correcting the sex designation on their birth certificates. Around the same time, the Montana Department of Justice adopted a policy similarly restricting amendment of driver’s licenses. The plaintiffs challenged these policies in state district court, arguing that they violate various constitutional provisions, including the right to equal protection of the law. In a recent Montana Supreme Court decision, two justices concluded that discrimination on the basis of transgender status – as the state is engaging in here – is a form of sex discrimination that violates the Montana Constitution’s equal protection clause. The plaintiffs, two transgender women, are represented by the American Civil Liberties Union, the ACLU of Montana, and Nixon Peabody LLP. Plaintiff Jessica Kalarchik, a veteran who served in the United States Army for 31 years, said: “After finally being able to live my life openly as the woman I know myself to be, I am frustrated that my birth state, Montana, wants me to carry around a birth certificate that incorrectly lists my sex as male. I live my life openly as a woman, I am treated as a woman in my daily life, and there is no reason I should be forced to carry a birth certificate that incorrectly identifies me as male. Fortunately, the court agrees that this ridiculous policy should not be in effect.” “Once again the State of Montana chose to adopt a draconian policy that is clearly intended to marginalize transgender Montanans, only for that discriminatory action to be blocked by the courts,” said Akilah Deernose, executive director for the ACLU of Montana. “Here in Montana we treasure our right to privacy and to live our lives free from governmental intrusion. The State of Montana clearly has not learned any lessons from the past few years, where courts have repeatedly struck down unconstitutional laws targeting transgender Montanans.” “Forcing anyone to carry documents that contradict their identity unjustly violates their rights to privacy, equal treatment, and not being compelled to convey a government message about their sex that they disagree with,” said Malita Picasso, staff attorney for the ACLU’s LGBTQ & HIV Project. “Such a policy marks transgender people for further mistreatment and discrimination, essentially requiring them to carry papers that out them as transgender any time they need to provide identity documents. Fortunately, the court has refused to allow the state of Montana to subvert the freedom of transgender Montanans to control their own identity as this case goes forward.” In granting the plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction, the court held, “[i]f the challenged state actions discriminate against transgender individuals on the basis of their transgender status, they also necessarily discriminate the basis of sex.” The state has the option of appealing the district court’s ruling to the Montana Supreme Court, but the underlying case will proceed in district court. A trial has not yet been scheduled. -
FloridaDec 2024
LGBTQ Rights
Keohane v. DixonKeohane v. Dixon
On September 30, 2024, the Florida Department of Corrections rescinded its policy regarding treatment of gender dysphoria, which allowed for hormone therapy when deemed medically necessary, as well as access to clothing and grooming standards that accord with one’s gender identity. Under this new policy, grooming and clothing accommodations have been stripped away, and hormone therapy is not permitted unless an exception is deemed constitutionally required. The ACLU brought a class action challenging the policy. -
IdahoDec 2024
LGBTQ Rights
Robinson v. LabradorRobinson v. Labrador
Two incarcerated transgender women have sued the state of Idaho alleging that HB 688, a 2024 law barring state funding for gender-affirming medical care for transgender people, denies them access to the health care their doctors have prescribed for them and is a violation of their Eighth Amendment right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment. They represent a class of all incarcerated folks within the state of Idaho who face the loss of hormone therapy due to HB 668.