Oral arguments will be held Wednesday, Dec. 3, in the Young v. UPS pregnancy discrimination case in the U.S. Supreme Court, with a brief drafted by University of St. Thomas School of Law professors Thomas Berg, Teresa Collett and Elizabeth Schiltz, among others, gaining attention from national media leading up to the proceedings.
The amicus curiae ("friend of the court") brief, filed on behalf of 23 pro-life organizations and the Judicial Education Project, argues that the Pregnancy Discrimination Act should be construed to give meaningful protection to working pregnant women from having to choose between their job and their unborn child.
From the Nov. 30 The New York Times article, “Case Seeking Job Protections for Pregnant Women Heads to Supreme Court”:
Ms. Young has attracted a diverse array of supporters, including women’s rights organizations and anti-abortion groups. The federal law, the anti-abortion groups told the justices, “protects the unborn child as well as the working mother who faces economic and other difficulties in bearing and raising the child.”
From the Nov. 30 The Washington Post article, “Former UPS driver at center of pregnancy discrimination case before Supreme Court”:
His arguments are backed by amicus briefs filed from both the left and right of the political spectrum and from women’s rights organizations as well as anti-abortion groups. “Women’s groups are concerned about guaranteeing equal access to the workplace for women,” he said. “And anti-abortion groups are concerned about removing the pressures to terminate a pregnancy that a worker might not want to make.” [Referencing Sam Bagenstos, the former No. 2 official in the U.S. Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division and a law professor at the University of Michigan, who will be arguing Young’s case before the Supreme Court.]
Read the earlier story here.