️<unk>️<unk>️<unk>️  ️<unk>️<unk>️<unk>️<unk>️<unk>️<unk>️<unk>️<unk>️<unk>️<unk>️<unk>️<unk>️<unk>️<unk>️<unk>️<unk>️<unk>️<unk>️<unk>️<unk>️<unk>️<unk>️<unk>️<unk>️<unk>️<unk>️<unk>️<unk>️<unk>️<unk>️<unk>️<unk>️<unk>️<unk>️<unk>️<unk>️<unk>️<unk>️<unk>️<unk>️<unk>️<unk>️ ️<unk>️<unk>️<unk>️<unk>️<unk>️<unk>️<unk>️<unk>️<unk>️<unk>️<unk>️<unk>️<unk>️<unk>️<unk>️<unk>️<unk>️<unk>️<unk>️<unk>️<unk>️<unk>️<unk>️<unk>️<unk>️<unk>️<unk>️<unk>️<unk>️<unk>️<unk>️ ️<unk>️<unk>️<unk>️<unk>️<unk>️<unk>️<unk>️<unk>️<unk>️<unk>️<unk>️<unk>️<unk>️<unk>️<unk>️<unk>️<unk>️<unk>️<unk>️<unk>️<unk>️<unk>️<unk>️<unk> ️<unk>️<unk>️<unk>️<unk>️<unk>️<unk>️<unk>️<unk>️<unk>️<unk>️<unk>️<unk>️<unk>️<unk>️<unk>️<unk>️<unk>️ Peggy Young (pictured in December last year), a Virginia woman who lost her UPS job because she became pregnant, speaks to reporters outside the Supreme Court in Washington, DC. <unk> Peggy Young (pictured in December last year), a Virginia woman who lost her UPS job because she became pregnant, speaks to reporters outside the Supreme Court in Washington, DC. Supreme Court is giving the former UPS driver another chance to prove her claim of discrimination after the company didn't offer her lighter duty when she was pregnant.<unk> Supreme Court is giving the former UPS driver another chance to prove her claim of discrimination after the company did not offer her lighter duty when she was pregnant.<unk> company changed its policy as of January and said it now tries to accommodate pregnant workers.<unk> But the company changed its policy as of January and said it now tries to accommodate pregnant workers.<unk> But the company changed its policy as of January and said it now tries to accommodate pregnant workers. ️<unk>️<unk>️<unk>️<unk>️<unk>️<unk>️<unk>️<unk>️<unk>️<unk>️<unk>️<unk>️<unk>️<unk>️<unk>️<unk>️<unk>️<unk>️<unk>️<unk>️<unk>️<unk>️ Writing on behalf of the majority, liberal Justice Stephen Breyer said the lower court is required to determine whether the employer had 'legitimate, nondiscriminatory, nonpretextual justification' for treating employees differently.<unk> Writing on behalf of the majority, liberal Justice Stephen Breyer said the lower court is required to determine whether the employer had 'legitimate, nondiscriminatory, nonpretextual justification' for treating employees differently. Breyer said the lower court failed to consider the effects of UPS policies that covered non-pregnant workers who might have disabilities, injuries or otherwise might need accommodations, and asked, 'Why, when the employer accommodated so many, could it not accommodate pregnant women as well?' Breyer indicated that there is a "genuine dispute as to whether UPS provided more favorable treatment to at least some employees whose situation cannot reasonably be distinguished from Young's". ️<unk>️<unk>️<unk>️<unk>️<unk>️<unk>️<unk>️<unk>️<unk>️<unk>️<unk>️<unk>️<unk>️<unk>️
️<unk>️<unk>️<unk>️<unk>️<unk>️<unk>️<unk>️<unk>️<unk>️<unk>️<unk>️<unk>️<unk>️<unk>️<unk>️<unk>️<unk>️<unk>️<unk>️<unk>️<unk>️<unk>️<unk>️<unk>️<unk>️<unk>️<unk>️ <unk> <unk> <unk> <unk>