California employment case index

UPS accommodated drivers hurt on the job, drivers with ADA disabilities, and drivers who lost their DOT certifications — but told pregnant driver Peggy Young she could not work under a 20-pound lifting restriction. The Supreme Court vacated summary judgment and built the governing framework for PDA accommodation claims: show the employer accommodated others similar in ability to work, and a jury may infer discrimination if the policies significantly burden pregnant workers and the employer’s reasons are not strong enough to justify it. In California, where the PDLL and FEHA impose affirmative accommodation duties, Young is the federal floor — essential in pure Title VII postures, rarely the lead theory at home.

The Supreme Court held 5-4 that an employee is a “supervisor” for Title VII vicarious-liability purposes only if empowered to take tangible employment actions — hire, fire, demote, promote, transfer, or discipline. An employee who merely directs daily work is a co-worker, so the employer is liable only for negligence. The decision does not govern California’s FEHA, which defines “supervisor” more broadly and imposes strict liability for supervisor harassment.

The Supreme Court’s foundational “cat’s paw” decision: an employer is liable when a biased supervisor performs an act intended to cause an adverse employment action that is a proximate cause of the ultimate decision — even if the formal decisionmaker had no discriminatory animus. A decisionmaker’s “independent investigation” does not automatically break the causal chain, especially when it credits the biased actor’s report without independently confirming the action was justified.

In Weeks v. Southern Bell Tel. & Tel. Co. (5th Cir. 1969) 408 F.2d 228, the Fifth Circuit announced the foundational Title VII sex-BFOQ standard: an employer invoking sex as a bona fide occupational qualification must prove a factual basis for believing that all or substantially all women would be unable to perform safely and efficiently the duties of the job. The court rejected stereotype-based “romantic paternalism” and a state weight-lifting limit as justifications and placed the burden on the employer.