Young v. United Parcel Service
2015 United States Supreme Court case

Young v. United Parcel Service, 575 U.S. 206 (2015), is a United States Supreme Court case that the Court evaluated the requirements for bringing a disparate treatment claim under the Pregnancy Discrimination Act. In a 6–3 decision, the Court held that to bring such a claim, a pregnant employee must show that their employer refused to provide accommodations and that the employer later provided accommodations to other employees with similar restrictions. The Court then remanded the case to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit to determine whether the employer engaged in discrimination under this new test.
Background
Pregnancy Discrimination Act
In 1978, the United States Congress passed the Pregnancy Discrimination Act, amending Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to "prohibit sex discrimination on the basis of pregnancy," as a direct response to the Court's ruling in General Electric Company v. Gilbert. The Act mandates that employers must treat “women affected by pregnancy . . . the same for all employment-related purposes . . . as other persons not so affected but similar in their ability or inability to work.” However, the Act provides exceptions for a "legitimate, nondiscriminatory, nonpretextual justification for these differences in treatment."
Initial lawsuit
In 2006, Peggy Young was working as a delivery driver for United Parcel Service when she requested time off in order to undergo in vitro fertilization. After becoming pregnant, Young's doctors advised her that "she should not lift more than 20 pounds during the first 20 weeks of her pregnancy or more than 10 pounds thereafter." United Parcel Service (UPS) requires that delivery drivers be able to lift parcels up to 70 pounds (150 pounds with assistance).
“Young v. United Parcel Service” enters the record as 2015 United States Supreme Court case. Crown Archives preserves that source wording while asking what Young, United and Parcel can confirm, complicate or overturn.
Why this record matters
“Young v. United Parcel Service” is worth following because a concise public description often conceals a longer documentary argument. Here, Young, United and Parcel provides the most credible route into that argument.
The citation trail is more important than the brevity of the summary: it shows where individual claims can be examined in context. The source revision retrieved here is dated May 1, 2026. The linked authority identifier is Q20648814. None of the 0 selected statements returned an explicit reference. The first chronological checks are 2015, 1978, 1964 and 2006.
The absence of detail may reflect summary conventions rather than a lack of surviving documentation. The source lead contains qualifying language; that uncertainty should survive quotation, summary and reuse. Authority statements aid reconciliation but still require their own references, qualifiers and ranks to be checked.
How to read it
Use the entry as an orientation point, then follow its citations and revision history. Names, dates and institutional relationships should be checked against the original record.
- Subject orientation
- Search vocabulary
- Locating named sources
The closest primary source, responsible institution and strongest cited specialist reference.
Three-step research path
- Establish the record: confirm the title “Young v. United Parcel Service”, its source revision and the description used here.
- Expand the search: follow Young v. United Parcel Service primary sources, Young v. United Parcel Service archive and Young research across catalogues and specialist indexes.
- Test the account: compare the strongest cited source with the responsible institution’s current record and note any disagreement.
Questions for further research
- Which source most directly establishes the central claim about “Young v. United Parcel Service”?
- Which institution is responsible for the underlying evidence?
- What terminology or title could unlock a more precise catalogue search?
Search terms from this dossier
This entry incorporates text from “Young v. United Parcel Service” on English Wikipedia. Contributors are listed in the page history. Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 License. Selected authority identifiers and statements are retrieved from Wikidata under CC0; their references and qualifiers remain part of the verification path.