Use this button to switch between dark and light mode.

Share your feedback on this Case Opinion Preview

Thank You For Submiting Feedback!

Experience a New Era in Legal Research with Free Access to Lexis+

  • Case Opinion

Young v. UPS of Am., Inc.

Young v. UPS of Am., Inc.

United States District Court for the District of Maryland

March 30, 2010, Filed

Civil Action No. DKC-08-2586

Opinion

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Presently pending and ready for resolution in this discrimination action are: (1) a motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction (Paper 35) filed by Defendant United Parcel Service, Inc. ("UPS"); (2) a motion to clarify, motion for reconsideration in part, and request for hearing (Paper 25) filed by Plaintiff Peggy Young; (3) a motion for protective order (Paper 27) filed by Defendant; (4) a motion to leave to file a second amended complaint and request for hearing (Paper 30) filed by Plaintiff; and (5) a motion for sanctions filed by Defendant (Paper 42). The issues are fully briefed and the court now rules pursuant to Local Rule 105.6, no hearing being deemed necessary.

I. Background

Plaintiff Peggy Young, a Caucasian female, has been employed as an early morning driver by  [*2] Defendant United Parcel Service ("UPS") since October 23, 1999. During the summer of 2005, Plaintiff was attempting to get pregnant through in vitro fertilization ("IVF"). Plaintiff was out of work on leave related to this pregnancy attempt. In October 2005, Plaintiff suffered a miscarriage and returned to work. Plaintiff thereafter had a second round of IVF treatments that were not successful. In July 2006, Plaintiff went on unpaid leave to undergo another IVF process. The IVF treatment was successful and Plaintiff became pregnant.

In October 2006, Plaintiff was ready to return to work. She provided a note to UPS Occupational Health Manager Carol Martin ("Martin") from her doctor stating, "Peggy Young is currently pregnant and due to deliver on or about May 2, 2007. Due to her pregnancy it is recommended that she not lift more than 20 pounds." (Paper 4 P 14). Martin replied that Plaintiff could not come back to work during her pregnancy because, due to the lifting restriction, Plaintiff could not perform the essential functions of her regular job as a driver. Martin also told Plaintiff that she was not qualified to receive disability benefits because she was not disabled under the  [*3] terms of the UPS health plan. Martin further advised Plaintiff that she could not work because light duty positions were not available for pregnancy. Such positions were only available to employees injured on the job or to employees with disabilities under the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"), 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq. Plaintiff remained on unpaid leave of absence for the remainder of her pregnancy. After the birth of her child in April 2007, Plaintiff returned to work as a driver in June 2007.

On July 23, 2007, Plaintiff filed a charge of discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") alleging discrimination on the basis of race, sex, and pregnancy. The EEOC issued Plaintiff a right to sue letter on September 2, 2008. Plaintiff filed this action on October 3, 2008 against UPS of America, Inc., UPS, Inc., UPS Health Program, Aetna Life Insurance, and Aetna Disability and Absence Management alleging violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA"), 29 U.S.C. § 1001 et seq., Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et. seq., and 42 U.S.C. § 1981. 1 (Paper 1). On October 29, 2008, Plaintiff filed an amended  [*4] complaint against UPS, Inc. and UPS America, removing the ERISA claim and seeking damages and equitable relief for alleged violations of Title VII, the ADA, and § 1981. (Paper 4). Defendants filed an answer on December 8, 2008 (Paper 7), and a scheduling order was entered the same day. (Paper 8). Defendant UPS of America, Inc. was dismissed from the case on December 17, 2008. (Paper 14).

Read The Full CaseNot a Lexis Advance subscriber? Try it out for free.

Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.

2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 30764 *; 2010 WL 1346423

PEGGY YOUNG v. UNITED PARCEL SERVICE OF AMERICA, INC., et al.

Subsequent History: Motions ruled upon by, Summary judgment granted by Young v. UPS, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14266 (D. Md., Feb. 14, 2011)

Prior History: Young v. Ups of Am., 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 145889 (D. Md., May 26, 2009)

CORE TERMS

requests, disparate impact, deposition, matters, discovery, employees, numbers, investigator, disparate treatment, time period, pregnancy, exhaust, driver, notice, defense motion, rebuttal, asserts, exhaustion of administrative remedies, subject matter jurisdiction, alternate work, pleadings, sanctions, deadline, pregnant, amend, motion for a protective order, pregnancy discrimination, administrative remedy, disability benefits, amended complaint