If you think Hobby Lobby was contentious, wait for the next session’s cases. For example: Young vs UPS. Instead of relying on the media, ScotusBlog has all the original documents. http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/young-v-united-parcel-service/?wpmp_switcher=desktop Original petition http://sblog.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-co...ARATE-YOUNG-CERT-PETITION-13-04.03-2-copy.pdf ..States that Young was an “air” delivery driver. Meaning lighter packages usually, but the work manual did stipulate that the air driver are responsible up to 150 lbs (via handtruck). 5a, 31a–32a, these lifting requirements were not a significant part of Young’s day-to-day job: “[P]ackages heavier than 20 pounds were infrequent, she was able to use a hand truck, and other employees could and sometimes did take heavy packages for her.” Id. at 32a (citations omitted).[i/] Here’s another interesting tidbit: In July 2006, Young sought, and UPS granted, a leave of absence so that she could undergo a round of in vitro fertilization. App., infra, at 5a. The round was successful, and Young became pregnant. Id. at 5a, 39a. In October 2006, Young gave her supervisor and UPS’s occupational health manager a note from her midwife recommending that she not lift over twenty pounds during her pregnancy. Young explained that she wanted to return to work, and “that she was willing to do either light duty or her regular job.” App., infra, at 5a. The manager explained that “UPS offered light duty for those with on-the-job injuries, those accommodated under the ADA, and those who had lost [Department of Transportation] certification, but not for pregnancy,” and that “UPS policy did not permit Young to continue working as an air driver with her twenty-pound lifting restriction.” Young spoke to UPS’s division manager, who “told her she was ‘too much of a liability’ while pregnant and that she ‘could not come back into the [facility in which she worked] until [she] was no longer pregnant.’ ” Id. at 8a. As a result, Young was required to go on an extended, unpaid leave of absence, during which she lost her medical coverage. ================= From UPS perspective: By its own admission, UPS offers work accommodations to three categories of employees. First, the collective bargaining agreement that covered Young “provides temporary alternative work (‘TAW’) [also referred to as “light-duty” work] to employees ‘unable to perform their normal work assignments due to an on-the-job-injury.’” App., infra, at 3a–4a (emphasis in Court of Appeals’ opinion) (quoting the Collective Bargaining Agreement (“CBA”)). But UPS also accommodates employees who acquire injuries and medical conditions off the job. Thus, the second category of employees that UPS accommodates consists of workers with “a permanent impairment cognizable under the [Americans with Disabilities Act].” Id. at 4a. And the third category consists of drivers who are ineligible for Department of Transportation (“DOT”) certification to drive a commercial motor vehicle. Id. at 4a, 34a. An employee might lose DOT eligibility for any number of reasons, including vision impairments, high blood pressure, diabetes, sleep apnea, and impairments of the arm or legs. …. UPS accommodates “only drivers (1) who suffered on-the-job injuries; (2) who were disabled under the Americans with Disabilities Act; or (3) [who] lost their DOT certification to drive. …. Finally, the Fourth Circuit concluded that “a pregnant worker subject to a temporary lifting restriction is not similar in her ‘ability or inability to work’ to an employee disabled within the meaning of the ADA or an employee either prevented from operating a vehicle as a result of losing her DO1T certification or injured on the job.” You can read the rest of the petition starting from page 13 on your own to get to the details.