1.The Plaintiff: Peggy Young
UPS hired Young in 1999. In January 2002, Young started driving a delivery truck for the company. (Young Dep., 40, 65; ECF No. 76-16 ¶ 1). During the time relevant to this case -- primarily the years 2006 and 2007 -- Young worked as a part-time, early-morning "air driver." (Young Dep., at 65, 114-15; ECF No. 76-16 ¶ 3).*fn1 As an air driver, Young often carried lighter letters and packs, as opposed to heavier packages. "Air delivery is more expensive by weight than ground delivery. Therefore, heavier packages tend to be sent by ground delivery, and lighter packages tend to be sent by air delivery." (ECF No. 76-4 ¶ 1; see also ECF Nos. 76-11, at 3; 76-18, at 8). At least on some infrequent occasions, however, Young's deliveries would also include heavier boxes.*fn2 (Young Dep., at 67; ECF Nos. 76-16 ¶ 3; 76-18, at 8).
Because they were sometimes called upon to deliver heavier packages, air drivers like Young were required by UPS to be able to "lift, lower, push, pull, leverage and manipulate" items "weighing up to 70 pounds." Air drivers also needed to be able to "[a]ssist in moving packages weighing up to 150 pounds." (ECF No. 76-26, at 23; see also, e.g., ECF Nos. 60-5 ¶ 10; 60-9 ¶ 2; 60-4, at 47; 60-10, at 4-5). Young recognized that UPS "require[d] [her] to lift 70 pounds." (Young Dep., at 45, 52-53). She argues that the 70-pound lifting requirement was "illusory" because packages heavier than 20 pounds were infrequent (ECF No. 76-11 ¶ 11), she was able to use a hand truck (Young Dep., at 572), and other employees could and sometimes did take heavy packages for her (e.g., ECF No. 76-15 ¶ 5). She observes that several other UPS jobs have similar 70-pound "lifting" requirements, even though the jobs did not in actuality require heavy lifting - at least in her view. (See ECF No. 76-27, at 19 (operations clerk), 21 (loader/unloader), 23 (auto painter)).
In 2006, early-morning air drivers like Young would begin their workday at 6:30 a.m. (Young Dep., at 74). After arriving at the D.C. Building and clocking in, Young would inspect her delivery van. (Young Dep., at 74-75). Once finished with the inspection, Young would gather with other early-morning drivers to meet a shuttle that arrived from the airport bearing packages. (Young Dep., at 75). Together, the delivery drivers, including Young, "jumped up and unloaded" the packages from the shuttle van into their individual delivery vans.*fn3 (Young Dep., at 78-80). Young would load her own van and was expected to load and deliver - on her own - any packages under 70 pounds that were not oddly shaped. (Young Dep., 81-82). Young was ultimately responsible for delivering any packages of any weights that the customers sent. (Young Dep., at 85-86; ECF Nos. 76-17, at 4; 60-10, at 2). She had no control over which packages she was given to deliver on her route. (Young Dep., 75, 80, 85-86).
After the van was loaded, Young would begin making her deliveries. (Young Dep., at 82). Young ordinarily drove a route covering Annapolis, Davidsonville, and Calvert County (Young Dep., at 68; ECF No. 76-16 ¶ 3), delivering generally lighter letters and packs by 8:30 a.m.. (Young Dep., at 67; ECF No. 76-16 ¶¶ 3, 66). Sometimes, particularly on Saturdays, she would also make deliveries in Washington. (Young Dep., at 68). She would usually make five to twenty deliveries each day. (ECF No. 76-16 ¶ 66).
After finishing her deliveries, Young would meet a full-time driver to take additional "air" packages off his vehicle and deliver them by the 8:30 a.m. deadline. (Young Dep., at 69, 73, 85). She would then return with her van to the D.C. Building. (Young Dep., at 86). Young's day at UPS would end around 9:45 a.m. (Young Dep., at 86), after which she would punch out and go to her second job at a flower delivery company. (Young Dep., at 87).
2.The Defendant: United Parcel Service, Inc.
UPS is a package delivery service that employs 318 drivers at the D.C. Building, 14 of whom are part-time female drivers like Young. (Brien Dep., Ex. 1). Many of these employees, including Young (Young Dep., at 105), were covered by a Collective Bargaining Agreement ("CBA"). Young's arguments implicate many provisions of the CBA, in addition to certain other policies and procedures at UPS.*fn4
Under Article 14, Section 2 of the CBA, UPS must give temporary work assignments to CBA-covered employees who are unable to perform their regular jobs because of on-the-job injuries. (ECF Nos. 60-5 ¶ 3; 60-7, at 2-3). These temporary assignments are generally limited to 30 days and are meant to help return the employee to regular work as soon as possible.
(ECF Nos. 60-5 ¶ 3; 60-7, at 2-4). Unless an employee suffers an on-the-job injury, the stated policy of UPS is to permit light-duty accommodations only where "an employee has a qualifying disability within the meaning of the ADA which prevents him/her from being able to perform some aspect of his/her job." (ECF No. 60-5 ¶¶ 4-5; see also ECF No. 60-7, at 4). Thus, UPS's policy is that an employee who is unable to perform an essential function of the job would be required to take a leave of absence (if the inability stemmed from something off-the-job). (ECF No. 60-5 ¶ 6).
UPS's general policy is to treat pregnancy just like any other off-the-job injury or condition. (See, e.g., No. 60-4, at 51 ("UPS does not offer light duty to any employee, male or female, who has any medical condition not related to work, pregnancy included."); cf. 85-3 ¶ 3). Thus, "[p]regnant employees were permitted to continue working as long as they wanted to during their pregnancies, unless and until the employee presented a doctor's note or other medical certification that she had a restriction that rendered her unable to perform the essential functions of the job." (ECF No. 60-5 ¶ 7). Many delivery drivers, for instance, do in fact continue to work throughout their pregnancy. (ECF No. 60-5 ¶ 7). Pregnant employees who are unable to perform essential functions of their job are granted a leave of absence, but are ineligible for temporary work assignments or other light-duty work. (ECF No. 60-5 ¶ 7).
Young argues that UPS made exceptions to its stated policy of refusing to provide accommodations to employees who were injured off-duty. For instance, she believed one employee with cancer was given "light duty" while undergoing treatment. (ECF Nos. 76-4 ¶ 23; 76-11 ¶ 2). Young provides evidence of several other instances of accommodation for drivers and other employees dealing with injuries or other job impediments. (See, e.g., ECF Nos. 76-4 ¶¶ 22-30; 76-5 ¶¶ 3-4; 76-6 ¶¶ 4-7; 76-8 ¶¶ 4-5; Pl.'s Ex. 32; 76-16 ¶¶ 33-36). Young also notes instances where other pregnant employees enjoyed accommodations. (See, e.g., ECF Nos. 76-11 ¶¶ 5-7, 9; 76-16 ¶ 32).
Several of Young's cited "exceptions" involved drivers who failed a Department of Transportation ("DOT") medical exam. Drivers must pass such a medical exam every 24 months. See 49 C.F.R. § 391.45. Article 20, Section 4 of the CBA provides that, if a driver fails the exam and becomes legally prohibited from driving, but is still fit enough to perform "inside jobs,"*fn5
UPS must provide that employee with such a job. (ECF No. 76-27, at 7; see also Brien Dep., at 17-18, 93-94, 103-05, 114-15; see, e.g., ECF No. 76-21, at 3). Similar arrangements are provided for under the CBA for drivers who lose their driver's license or have been involved in a motor vehicle accident. (ECF Nos. 85-3 ¶ 3; 76-27, at 4-5, 6, 17).
Carolyn Martin, the District Occupational Health Manager for the Metro D.C. District at UPS, was the individual charged with applying the above policies in Young's region. (ECF Nos. 60-5 ¶ 1; 60-4, at 11-15; 60-6, at 15-17; Brien Dep., at 107-08). In particular, Martin was responsible for: . . . most issues relating to employee health and ability to work, including leaves of absence under the Family and Medical Leave Act . . ., the administration of UPS's Program for Compliance with the [ADA], the [DOT] medical examination and qualification requirements applicable to UPS drivers, and injury prevention. [She] also was the official in the Metro D.C. District who made decisions about whether employees were able to perform the essential functions of their jobs based on restrictions imposed by physicians. (ECF No. 60-5 ¶ 1). In determining whether an employee could perform her job, Martin would rely on the Essential Job Functions list for each employee's job. (ECF No. 60-5 ¶ 6). Martin states that only she has the authority to grant accommodations. (ECF No. 60-5 ¶ 8; see also Brien Dep., at 57-60). According to her, she would only provide accommodations in accordance with company policy and would put an end to any accommodation inappropriately granted by a manager or supervisor. (ECF No. 60-5 ¶ 8). Martin states that she makes accommodation decisions on her own. (ECF Nos. 60-4, at 64-65).
3.Young's Pregnancy and Problems with UPS
In 2005, Young started a first round of in vitro fertilization in an effort to get pregnant. (Young Dep., at 118). Because of that treatment, Young took a leave of absence from her job at UPS beginning in July 2005. (Young Dep., at 121-22). Young became pregnant, but suffered a miscarriage in September. (Young Dep., at 122). She returned to her former position at UPS roughly a month later, in October 2005. (Young Dep., at 122).
In February 2006, Young started a second round of in vitro fertilization. (Young Dep., at 123). She again requested time off, this time submitting a form titled, "Certification by Health Care Provider." (ECF No. 60-11, at 1). Young's physician certified on that form that she was unable to perform work on the day of surgery or the day after, and should not lift more than ten to fifteen pounds for two weeks after surgery. (ECF No. 60-11, at 1). Martin approved the leave request.*fn6 (ECF No. 60-11, at 2). Young then took leave beginning on February 21, 2006. (ECF No. 60-11, at 2).
The second round of in vitro fertilization was unsuccessful and Young returned to work in March 2006. (Young Dep., at 125). After her return, Carol Richardson -- the other driver on Young's route -- insisted on taking all of the heavier packages from Young. (Young Dep., at 76; ECF Nos. 76-16 ¶ 3; 76-9 ¶ 4). Richardson took the heavier packages because she was concerned Young might not be able to get pregnant again if she handled them herself. (Young Dep., at 77, 435-36; ECF Nos. 60-10, at 6-7; 76-9 ¶ 4; 76-4 ¶ 15).*fn7
Young then began a third round of in vitro fertilization in July 2006. (Young Dep., at 45). Once more, she asked for a leave of absence because she could not lift more than ten pounds. (Young Dep., at 45). In another letter from Martin, UPS granted her requested leave. (Young Dep., at 126). The leave began at the end of July, with an anticipated return date around August 26. (Young Dep., at 127; ECF No. 76-16 ¶ 12). The third round of in vitro was successful, and Young became pregnant. (Young Dep., at 23, 127).
Because of the new pregnancy, Young sought to extend her leave. (Young Dep., at 137, 153, 258-59; ECF No. 76-16 ¶¶ 12, 13, 15). Consequently, she went to the D.C. Building sometime in September 2006 and dropped off a "letter with [her restrictions]" from her doctor, Dr. Thaddeus Mamlenski. (Young Dep., at 128, 136-37; ECF No. 76-16 ¶ 14). The letter recommended that Young "not be required to lift greater than 20 pounds for the first 20 weeks of pregnancy and no greater than 10 pounds thereafter." (ECF No. 60-12, at 1). She left the note with her supervisor, Urusla Blunt, or "someone else at UPS to give to her." (ECF No. 76-16 ¶ 14). When she delivered the note, Young was told to speak with Martin about her leave extension request. (Young Dep., at 139).
Young later called and left a voicemail message for Martin informing her of the doctor's note. (Young Dep., at 143-44). Sometime thereafter, Young finally reached Martin, told her about the doctor's note, and told her she "wasn't ready to come back to work quite yet." (Young Dep., at 148-49). According to Young, Martin responded that she "wasn't sure what to do with [Young] at that point." (Young Dep., at 149). Martin also "gave [Young] the impression that UPS did not care when [she] returned to work." (ECF No. 76-16 ¶ 15). Martin reminded Young, however, that when she did return she "needed to bring in a doctor's note stating what [her] restrictions were." (ECF No. 76-16 ¶ 15).
Young had another checkup appointment on October 11, 2006 with nurse midwife Cynthia Shawl. (Young Dep., at 156). Following an "encouraging appointment" (Young Dep., at 157), Shawl released Young "without limitations" (ECF No. 76-12 ¶ 2). Nonetheless, Shawl wrote a note stating: "Due to her pregnancy it is recommended that she not lift more than 20 pounds." (ECF Nos. 76-12 ¶ 3; 60-13, at 1). Shawl did not normally write such notes, but "wrote this note only because Ms. Young told me she needed a letter for work stating her restrictions." (ECF No. 76-12 ¶ 4). Her letter did not include the word "restriction" because she felt she "was making only a recommendation." (ECF No. 76-12 ¶ 4).
A short time thereafter, Young contacted Blunt and asked to come back to work. (Young Dep., at 186). She also explained, however, that she had a "doctor's" note with a recommendation not to lift more than 20 pounds, and asked if there was any light duty available. (Young Dep., at 186-87). Blunt referred her again to Martin. (Young Dep., at 188).
At some point before Young reached out to Martin, Martin learned about Young's doctor's note through another UPS manager, Jim Harris. (ECF No. 60-4, at 37-38). Harris phoned Martin and told her that "Peggy Young had brought in a note regarding light duty because she had restrictions due to her pregnancy." (ECF No. 60-4, at 37-38). She told Harris that, "since [Young] ha[d] restrictions, that she [could] not be allowed to continue doing her regular job as a delivery driver or air driver or service provider." (ECF No. 60-4, at 38). She knew that the Essential Job Function list required air drivers to lift 70 pounds, and consequently "concluded that the lifting restriction rendered Peggy Young unable to perform the essential functions of her job." (ECF No. 60-5 ¶ 10). Martin also believed that Young was ineligible for light duty or an alternative work assignment because the restriction was not the result of an on-the-job injury. (ECF No. 60-5 ¶ 10). She told Harris that Young could not return to work while the restriction was in place. (ECF Nos. 60-5 ¶ 10; 60-4, at 38). She reached this decision entirely on her own. (ECF No. 60-5 ¶ 11).
At the end of October 2006, Young called and left a phone message with Martin. (Young Dep., at 162-63). Young explained that "she got a note with her restrictions and that, you know, [she] felt good about [her] pregnancy and that [she] wanted to come back to work and [she] needed to know what [she] had to do." (Young Dep., at 163). Martin returned her call the same day. (Young Dep., at 164). They again discussed the lifting recommendation and Young's health. (Young Dep., at 164). Martin then told Young that (a) UPS did not "offer light duty for pregnancy, only for on-the-job injuries"; (b) Young didn't "qualify for short-term disability because [her] doctor didn't give [her] a note saying that [she] couldn't work, that [she] just had a lifting restriction"; and (c) that she had used up all of her medical leave. (Young Dep., at 164-65; ECF No. 60-5 ¶ 11). Martin also informed Young: "Based on company policy, I, unfortunately, could not allow her to continue working with her 20-pound lifting restriction." (ECF No. 60-4, at 41). Young told her she "wanted to work" and Martin felt that, although she "would have loved to help her" (ECF No. 60-4, at 44), she "needed to treat [Young] like [she] would treat anybody who had a note for lifting and couldn't do their regular job." (ECF No. 60-4, at 42).
Martin explains that she would have allowed Young to return to work if Young had "presented another medical certification indicating that the lifting restriction had been removed and that she was able to perform the essential functions of her job." (ECF No. 60-5, at 7). Young, however, says Martin provided her with only two options: provide a note stating that she could not work at all -- rendering her eligible for disability -- or "think about [her] job with UPS because [she] was pregnant and had used up [her medical] leave." (Young Dep., at 317, 559-60; ECF No. 30-3 ¶¶ 20-21).
In early November 2006, Young spoke with "the top person at [her] jobsite," Myron Williams, about the possibility of returning to work. (ECF No. 76-16 ¶ 26). Williams, who is the Capital Division Manager,*fn8 "did not have the authority to determine whether [an] employee was able to perform the essential functions of his/her job notwithstanding [a] restriction/recommendation." (ECF No. 85-4 ¶ 5; see also ECF No. 85-5 ¶¶ 5-6).*fn9 Young maintains that Williams told her "not to come back in the building until [she] was no longer pregnant because [she] was too much of a liability." (ECF No. 76-16 ¶ 26; see also Young Dep., at 563-64). Williams denies making any such statement. (ECF No. 85-4 ¶ 4).
By this point in time, Young had exhausted her medical leave, but her leave of absence was extended. (ECF No. 60-5 ¶ 12). UPS "coded" Young's absence under the code for "disability" on her attendance chart. (ECF Nos. 76-26, at 4; 76-16 ¶¶ 45; Young Dep., at 166-170).*fn10 During her leave, Young received no pay and lost her medical coverage at the end of 2006. (ECF No. 76-16 ¶ 38; ECF No. 76-26, at 1).
Young gave birth to her child on April 29, 2007. (Young Dep., at 204). She did not immediately return to UPS because she "felt as though [she] should have the maternity leave like every other pregnant woman to spend time with their child and bond with their child before they have to return to work." (Young Dep., at 227). She also felt that she would not have been able physically or emotionally to perform her regular job for the first two months after the birth. (Young Dep., at 606-607). As soon as Young wished to return to work, she did so.
(Young Dep., at 210-11). She returned to work on June 26, 2007 and resumed the same position she held before. (Young Dep., at 208, 211).