In the case of Young v. United Parcel Service, Inc., Peggy Young, a part-time driver for UPS became pregnant and was advised by her doctor not to lift more than 20 pounds during her pregnancy. However, UPS policy required drivers to be able to lift up to 70 pounds. As a result, UPS did not allow Young to continue working during her pregnancy under these conditions which led her filing a lawsuit against them alleging that they violated the Pregnancy Discrimination Act (PDA) by refusing to accommodate her pregnancy-related lifting restriction. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Young in March 2015 stating that employers must provide reasonable accommodations for pregnant workers who are similar in their ability or inability work as non-pregnant employees with disabilities. The court held that if an employer accommodates non-pregnant workers while failing to do so for pregnant ones without providing sufficient reasons why it cannot do the same for both groups then such an employer is guilty of violating PDA.

In the dissenting opinion for Young v. UPS, Justice Scalia, joined by Justices Kennedy and Thomas, argued that the majority misinterpreted the Pregnancy Discrimination Act (PDA). They contended that under a correct reading of the PDA, employers are not required to provide accommodations to pregnant workers if they do not offer similar accommodations to other employees with comparable physical limitations. The dissenters believed that UPS's policy was neutral because it limited accommodations to three categories: those injured on the job; those covered by Americans with Disabilities Act; and those who lost Department of Transportation certifications. Pregnant women did not fall into these categories but neither did many non-pregnant employees. Therefore, according to this view, UPS’s policy treated pregnant workers no differently than similarly situated non-pregnant workers which is all what PDA requires.