In This Issue:

- Recent Developments for Federal Contractors

- The Fate of Obamacare Premium Tax Credits

- Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity the Next Protected Class?

- EEOC Ratchets Up Focus on Pregnancy Discrimination with Updated Guidance

- Excerpt from Notes from the Chair and Executive Editor:

Welcome to the third quarter edition of SuperVision Today, the quarterly e-newsletter published by Spilman's labor &employment group...

...The lead article in this edition of SuperVision Today has Alyesha Dotson looking at the latest in pregnancy discrimination laws including the EEOC's recent enforcement guidance and, especially for our West Virginia readers, the newly enacted Pregnant Worker Fairness Act. What makes the timing of EEOC's recent Guidance curious is that the United States Supreme Court has agreed to hear an appeal on a pregnancy discrimination case next term that could directly negate part of the guidance. In Young v. United Parcel Service, Inc., the Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit held that the Pregnancy Discrimination Act does not mandate the kind of accommodations that the EEOC's Guidance demands for pregnant employees. In Young, UPS had a light duty policy that allowed "light duty" only for certain classes of employees. Young had medical restrictions relating to her pregnancy that barred her from lifting heavy packages and wanted UPS to accommodate her by putting her on the light duty work even though she didn't fall into one of the categories for which "light duty" could be offered. In other words, Young wanted UPS to offer her the same accommodations that it offered to other employees, which accommodations would be specifically required under the Guidance. The Fourth Circuit held that UPS's refusal to accommodate Young with light duty did not constitute pregnancy discrimination under a theory that UPS's light duty policy was pregnancy neutral (i.e. the light duty was offered to employees on the basis of the source of the restriction and would impact pregnant and non-pregnant employees identically). If affirmed by the Supreme Court, the ruling would negate the Guidance's requirement that pregnant employees must be granted the same accommodation as any disabled employee. We will keep watch on this decision and let you know how it turns out (and West Virginia employers must comply with the Pregnant Worker Fairness Act regardless).

Also in this edition, Pete Rich examines recent executive orders addressing labor and employment issues. Anna Sweigart explains some of the recent case developments, which you may have seen in the news regarding the Affordable Care Act, and Lindsay Griffin Smith details new federal rules on gender identity.

Please see full newsletter below for more information.

LOADING PDF: If there are any problems, click here to download the file.

DISCLAIMER: Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations.

© Spilman Thomas & Battle, PLLC | Attorney Advertising

Written by:


Spilman Thomas & Battle, PLLC on:

JD Supra Readers' Choice 2016 Awards
Reporters on Deadline

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:

Sign up to create your digest using LinkedIn*

*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.

Already signed up? Log in here

*With LinkedIn, you don't need to create a separate login to manage your free JD Supra account, and we can make suggestions based on your needs and interests. We will not post anything on LinkedIn in your name. Or, sign up using your email address.