Maryland Employers Soon Must Provide 'Light Duty' To Pregnant Disabled Women And Update Employment Handbooks

Effective October 1, 2013, Maryland employers with 15 or more employees must provide their pregnant employees with certain reasonable accommodations beyond the requirements of the federal Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and Pregnancy Discrimination Act (PDA). The Reasonable Accommodations for Disabilities Due to Pregnancy Act (SB 784/HB 804) mandates that employers provide pregnant employees who are temporarily disabled with light duty assignments or transfers to less strenuous jobs, among other potential accommodations. Typically, these accommodations remove essential functions from a job, in contrast to traditional ADA accommodations which remove impediments or otherwise assist employees in performing the essential functions of their jobs.

Significantly, the amendment to Maryland's Fair Employment Practices Act (FEPA)1 states also that an employer must post in a conspicuous location - and include in any employee handbook - information concerning an employee's rights to a reasonable accommodation under the new law. In this regard, on September 12, 2013, the Maryland Commission on Civil Rights informed the public that, although the law does not direct the Commission to create a poster, the Commission will create a poster in the near future. For now, the Commission suggests:

In the interim employers should consult legal counsel for the specific language to post and provide in employee handbooks consistent with [the new law]. The Reasonable Accommodations for Disabilities Due to Pregnancy Act

The impetus to amend the Maryland FEPA to include additional accommodations for pregnant employees was a decision issued by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. In Young v. UPS,2 the Fourth Circuit held that employers are not required under the ADA or PDA to provide pregnant employees with light duty assignments so long as the employer treats pregnant employees the same as non-pregnant employees with respect to offering accommodations.

In Young, the plaintiff worked for UPS as a part-time driver. Although all drivers were required to be able to lift items weighing up to 70 pounds, the plaintiff's duties generally included carrying lighter letters and packages. After the plaintiff became pregnant, she asked for a brief leave of absence. Shortly thereafter, the plaintiff submitted a doctor's note with a recommendation that she not lift more than 20 pounds, and asked for an accommodation to work light duty. UPS refused these requests and...