%PDF-1.3
%%
%%Page: 1 1
4 0 obj
<<
/Length 5 0 R
>>
stream
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 156 664.5 Tm
/F1 12 Tf 100 Tz
115.326 -8.4 Td
1.2 Tw
0 Tc
(PUBLISHED) Tj
/F1 19 Tf 84.2 Tz
-114.766 -40 Td
1.9 Tw
(UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS) Tj
/F1 12 Tf 100 Tz
66.136 -18 Td
1.2 Tw
(FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
-66.696 -18 Td
() Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
1.2 Tw
0 0 Td
183.8 0 Td
/F3 20 Tf 100 Tz
-2.18 -17.6 Td
2 Tw
() Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
-181.62 -2.8 Td
1.2 Tw
(P) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(EGGY) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
( Y) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(OUNG) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
(,) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
80.988 -18 Td
(Plaintiff-Appellant,) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
1.512 -18 Td
(v.) Tj
-82.5 -18 Td
(U) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(NITED) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
( P) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(ARCEL) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
( S) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(ERVICE) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
(, I) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(NC) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
(.,) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
75.024 -18 Td
(Defendant-Appellee,) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
3.312 -18 Td
(and) Tj
-78.336 -18 Td
(U) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(NITED) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
( P) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(ARCEL) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
( S) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(ERVICE) Tj
2.12 Tw
( ) Tj
.79 Tw
(OF) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
0 -13.2 Td
1.2 Tw
(A) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(MERICA) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
(, I) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(NC) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
(.; UPS H) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(EALTH) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
0 -13.2 Td
1.2 Tw
(P) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(ROGRAM) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
(; AETNA L) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(IFE) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
( I) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(NSURANCE) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
0 -13.2 Td
1.2 Tw
(C) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(OMPANY) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
(; AETNA D) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(ISABILITY) Tj
2.12 Tw
( ) Tj
.79 Tw
(AND) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
0 -13.2 Td
1.2 Tw
(A) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(BSENCE) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
( M) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(ANAGEMENT) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
(,) Tj
218.07 -12.6 Td
(No. 11-2078) Tj
/F3 20 Tf 100 Tz
-36.45 -1.3 Td
2 Tw
() Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
-65.28 -4.1 Td
1.2 Tw
(Defendants.) Tj
-116.34 -18 Td
173 0 Td
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
-173 -18 Td
(A) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(MERICAN) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
( C) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(IVIL) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
( L) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(IBERTIES) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
( U) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(NION) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
0 -13.2 Td
1.2 Tw
(F) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(OUNDATION) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
(; A) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(MERICAN) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
( C) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(IVIL) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
0 -13.2 Td
1.2 Tw
(L) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(IBERTIES) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
( U) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(NION) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
( F) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(OUNDATION OF) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
0 -13.2 Td
1.2 Tw
(M) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(ARYLAND) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
(; A B) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(ETTER) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
( B) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(ALANCE) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
(;) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
(E) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(QUAL) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
( R) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(IGHTS) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
( A) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(DVOCATES) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
(; L) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(EGAL) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
0 -13.2 Td
1.2 Tw
(A) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(ID) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
( S) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(OCIETY) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
( - E) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(MPLOYMENT) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
( L) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(AW) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
0 -13.2 Td
1.2 Tw
(C) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(ENTER) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
(; L) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(EGAL) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
( M) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(OMENTUM) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
(;) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
(N) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(ATIONAL) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
( P) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(ARTNERSHIP) Tj
2.12 Tw
( ) Tj
.79 Tw
(FOR) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
( W) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(OMEN) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
0 -13.2 Td
1.2 Tw
(& F) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(AMILIES) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
(; N) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(ATIONAL) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
( W) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(OMEN'S) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
0 -13.2 Td
1.2 Tw
(L) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(AW) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
( C) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(ENTER) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
(; P) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(UBLIC) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
( J) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(USTICE) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
0 -13.2 Td
1.2 Tw
(C) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(ENTER) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
(;) Tj
/F3 20 Tf 100 Tz
181.62 -8.8 Td
1.6 Ts
2 Tw
() Tj
0 Ts
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 156 664.5 cm
0 G
.9 w 0 -83.95 m 183.8 -83.95 l s
1.2 w 186.6 -263.9 m 186.6 -91.8 l s
.5 w 0 -301.35 m 173 -301.35 l s
1.2 w 186.6 -453 m 186.6 -280.9 l s
.9 w 0 -459.95 m 183.3 -459.95 l s
Q
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
ET
Q
endstream
endobj
5 0 obj
5970
endobj
3 0 obj
<<
/Type /Page
/MediaBox [0 0 612 792]
/Parent 10 0 R
/Resources <<
/Font <<
/F1 6 0 R
/F2 7 0 R
/F3 8 0 R
/F4 9 0 R
>>
/ProcSet 1 0 R
>>
/Contents 4 0 R
>>
endobj
%%Page: 2 2
12 0 obj
<<
/Length 13 0 R
>>
stream
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -8.4 Td
1.2 Tw
0 Tc
() Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
1.2 Tw
0 0 Td
183.8 0 Td
/F3 20 Tf 100 Tz
-2.18 -17.6 Td
2 Tw
() Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
-181.62 -2.8 Td
1.2 Tw
(S) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(OUTHWEST) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
( W) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(OMEN'S) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
( L) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(AW) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
( C) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(ENTER) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
(;) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
(W) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(OMEN'S) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
( L) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(AW) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
( C) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(ENTER) Tj
2.12 Tw
( ) Tj
.79 Tw
(OF) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -13.2 Td
1.2 Tw
(M) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(ARYLAND) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
(, I) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(NC) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
(.; W) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(OMEN'S) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
( L) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(AW) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
/F3 20 Tf 100 Tz
181.62 -3.7 Td
2 Tw
() Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
-181.62 -9.5 Td
1.2 Tw
(P) Tj
/F2 8.4 Tf 101.1 Tz
.79 Tw
(ROJECT) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.2 Tw
(,) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
34.596 -18 Td
(Amici Supporting Appellant.) Tj
/F3 20 Tf 100 Tz
147.024 -8.8 Td
1.6 Ts
2 Tw
() Tj
0 Ts
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
-142.878 -25.3 Td
1.2 Tw
(Appeal from the United States District Court) Tj
7.014 -12.7 Td
(for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt.) Tj
-6.072 -12.7 Td
(Deborah K. Chasanow, Chief District Judge.) Tj
56.328 -12.7 Td
(\(8:08-cv-02586-DKC\)) Tj
-10.8 -25.4 Td
(Argued: October 24, 2012) Tj
1.668 -25.6 Td
(Decided: January 9, 2013) Tj
-63.42 -25.4 Td
(Before WILKINSON, GREGORY, and DUNCAN,) Tj
89.94 -12.8 Td
(Circuit Judges.) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
-113.4 -49.6 Td
.03 Tw
(Affirmed by published opinion. Judge Duncan wrote the opin-) Tj
0 -12.7 Td
1.2 Tw
(ion, in which Judge Wilkinson and Judge Gregory joined. ) Tj
/F1 12 Tf 100 Tz
120.996 -42.8 Td
(COUNSEL) Tj
/F1 12 Tf 100 Tz
-120.996 -25.4 Td
2.26 Tw
(ARGUED:) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( Sharon Fast Gustafson, Arlington, Virginia, for) Tj
0 -12.7 Td
1.42 Tw
(Appellant. Emmett F. McGee, Jr., JACKSON LEWIS, LLP,) Tj
0 -12.8 Td
1.41 Tw
(Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee. ) Tj
/F1 12 Tf 100 Tz
(ON BRIEF:) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( Jill S. Dis-) Tj
0 -12.8 Td
5.05 Tw
(tler, JACKSON LEWIS, LLP, Baltimore, Maryland, for) Tj
0 -12.8 Td
2.75 Tw
(Appellee. Ariela M. Migdal, Lenora M. Lapidus, AMERI-) Tj
0 -12.8 Td
4.94 Tw
(CAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION, New) Tj
0 -12.8 Td
1.62 Tw
(York, New York; Deborah A. Jeon, ACLU FOUNDATION) Tj
0 -12.8 Td
1.2 Tw
(OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland, for Amici Curiae.) Tj
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 cm
0 G
.9 w 0 -7.95 m 183.8 -7.95 l s
1.2 w 186.6 -43.3 m 186.6 -15.8 l s
1.2 w 186.6 -87.8 m 186.6 -60.3 l s
.9 w 0 -94.75 m 183.3 -94.75 l s
.5 w 0 -271.75 m 300 -271.75 l s
.5 w 0 -334.05 m 300 -334.05 l s
.5 w 0 -491.75 m 300 -491.75 l s
Q
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
156 -136.5 Td
1.1 Tw
0 Tc
(2) Tj
116.7038 0 Td
(Y) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(OUNG) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( v. UPS) Tj
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0 G
.5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s
Q
endstream
endobj
13 0 obj
3501
endobj
11 0 obj
<<
/Type /Page
/MediaBox [0 0 612 792]
/Parent 10 0 R
/Resources <<
/Font <<
/F1 6 0 R
/F2 7 0 R
/F3 8 0 R
/F4 9 0 R
>>
/ProcSet 1 0 R
>>
/Contents 12 0 R
>>
endobj
%%Page: 3 3
15 0 obj
<<
/Length 16 0 R
>>
stream
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
/F1 12 Tf 100 Tz
123.666 -8.4 Td
1.2 Tw
0 Tc
(OPINION) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
-123.666 -26 Td
(DUNCAN, Circuit Judge:) Tj
12 -26 Td
3.16 Tw
(In 1978, Congress passed the Pregnancy Discrimination) Tj
-12 -13.1 Td
.06 Tw
(Act \(the "PDA"\), which amended the definition of discrimina-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.5 Tw
(tion on the basis of sex in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.05 Tw
(of 1964 \("Title VII"\) to provide that it included discrimination) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
3.01 Tw
(in employment "because of or on the basis of pregnancy,) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
8.23 Tw
(childbirth, or related medical conditions." 42 U.S.C.) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.5 Tw
() Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
1.5 Tw
(2000e\(k\). Invoking both the PDA and the Americans with) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
3.56 Tw
(Disabilities Act \(the "ADA"\), 42 U.S.C. ) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
3.56 Tw
(12101 ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(et ) Tj
(seq.) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(,) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.36 Tw
(Peggy Young \("Young"\) appeals the district court's grant of) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.47 Tw
(summary judgment for her employer, United Postal Service,) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.2 Tw
(Inc. \("UPS"\). For the reasons that follow, we affirm.) Tj
4.9 Ts
/F5 6 Tf 100 Tz
.5 Tw
(1) Tj
0 Ts
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
1.2 Tw
( ) Tj
146.502 -26.1 Td
(I.) Tj
-2.334 -26.1 Td
(A.) Tj
-132.168 -26.1 Td
1.63 Tw
(In reviewing a grant of summary judgment, we recite the) Tj
-12 -13.1 Td
.73 Tw
(facts in the light most favorable to Young as the non-moving) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.4 Tw
(party. ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Dulaney v. Packaging Corp. of America) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 673 F.3d 323,) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
1 Tw
(324-25 \(4th Cir. 2012\). Three UPS policies lie at the core of) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
.57 Tw
(this dispute. First, UPS defined among the essential functions) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
.78 Tw
(for all drivers the ability to "[l]ift, lower, push, pull, leverage) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
.49 Tw
(and manipulate . . . packages weighing up to 70 pounds," and) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
.91 Tw
(to "[a]ssist in moving packages weighing up to 150 pounds,") Tj
0 -13.2 Td
1.2 Tw
(J.A. 577.) Tj
12 -26.1 Td
2.94 Tw
(Second, the applicable Collective Bargaining Agreement) Tj
-12 -13.2 Td
1.05 Tw
(\(the "CBA"\) provides temporary alternate work \("TAW"\)) Tj
4.9 Ts
/F5 6 Tf 100 Tz
(2) Tj
0 Ts
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( to) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
.48 Tw
(employees "unable to perform their normal work assignments) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
1.48 Tw
(due to an ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(on-the-job injury) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(." J.A. 580 \(emphasis added\). To) Tj
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
10 -26 Td
4.1 Ts
/F5 6 Tf 100 Tz
3.48 Tw
(1) Tj
0 Ts
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
(The American Civil Liberties Union \(the "ACLU"\) submitted an) Tj
-10 -11.2 Td
1 Tw
(amicus brief in support of Young. ) Tj
10 -14 Td
4.1 Ts
/F5 6 Tf 100 Tz
.5 Tw
(2) Tj
0 Ts
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
1 Tw
(We use TAW and light duty work interchangeably. ) Tj
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 cm
0 G
.5 w 0 -452.55 m 300 -452.55 l s
Q
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
450.5 -136.5 Td
1.1 Tw
0 Tc
(3) Tj
-177.7962 0 Td
(Y) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(OUNG) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( v. UPS) Tj
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0 G
.5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s
Q
endstream
endobj
16 0 obj
3322
endobj
14 0 obj
<<
/Type /Page
/MediaBox [0 0 612 792]
/Parent 10 0 R
/Resources <<
/Font <<
/F1 6 0 R
/F2 7 0 R
/F4 9 0 R
/F5 17 0 R
>>
/ProcSet 1 0 R
>>
/Contents 15 0 R
>>
endobj
%%Page: 4 4
19 0 obj
<<
/Length 20 0 R
>>
stream
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -8.4 Td
.81 Tw
0 Tc
(comply with this CBA provision, UPS offers light duty work) Tj
0 -13 Td
.47 Tw
(to those employees injured while on the job or suffering from) Tj
0 -13 Td
2.1 Tw
(a permanent impairment cognizable under the ADA. Under) Tj
0 -13 Td
1.03 Tw
(UPS policy and the CBA, a pregnant employee can continue) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.67 Tw
(working as long as she can perform the essential functions of) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
0 Tw
(her job, but is ineligible for light duty work for any limitations) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.2 Tw
(arising solely as result of her pregnancy.) Tj
12 -26 Td
1.45 Tw
(Finally, a CBA provision requires UPS to give an "inside) Tj
-12 -13.1 Td
.31 Tw
(job" to drivers who have lost their certification by the Depart-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.28 Tw
(ment of Transportation \(the "DOT"\) because of a failed medi-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.73 Tw
(cal exam, a lost driver's license, or involvement in a motor) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.2 Tw
(vehicle accident as long as the driver is capable of performing) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.27 Tw
(such a job. Because an inside job often involves heavy lifting,) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.2 Tw
(it is typically not considered light duty work.) Tj
12 -26 Td
1.47 Tw
(Against this backdrop, we turn to the facts before us. We) Tj
-12 -13.1 Td
1.37 Tw
(begin with a general statement of facts, providing additional) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.2 Tw
(information as necessary to the analysis.) Tj
12 -26 Td
.36 Tw
(Young started working for UPS in 1999, and began driving) Tj
-12 -13.1 Td
.3 Tw
(a delivery truck in 2002. By 2006 and throughout the relevant) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.66 Tw
(period, Young held a position as a part-time, early morning) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.03 Tw
(driver, also known as an "air driver," apparently in reference) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.8 Tw
(to her responsibility to pick up and deliver packages that had) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.24 Tw
(arrived by air carrier the previous night. Young worked out of) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.42 Tw
(a UPS facility in Landover, Maryland known as the "D.C.) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.01 Tw
(Building." Each morning after clocking in at the D.C. Build-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.23 Tw
(ing and inspecting her delivery van, Young and other air driv-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.27 Tw
(ers would meet a shuttle from the airport bearing letters and) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.05 Tw
(packages scheduled for immediate delivery. Air drivers were) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.46 Tw
(then responsible for loading their vans and making deliveries.) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.82 Tw
(Young typically finished her work responsibilities by 9:45 or) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.8 Tw
(10 in the morning, and then proceeded to her second job at a) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.2 Tw
(flower delivery company.) Tj
12 -26 Td
.36 Tw
(In July 2006, following two unsuccessful rounds of ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(in ) Tj
(vitro) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
-12 -13.1 Td
.3 Tw
(fertilization, Young requested a leave of absence to try a third) Tj
1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
156 -136.5 Td
1.1 Tw
0 Tc
(4) Tj
116.7038 0 Td
(Y) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(OUNG) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( v. UPS) Tj
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0 G
.5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s
Q
endstream
endobj
20 0 obj
3248
endobj
18 0 obj
<<
/Type /Page
/MediaBox [0 0 612 792]
/Parent 10 0 R
/Resources <<
/Font <<
/F1 6 0 R
/F2 7 0 R
/F4 9 0 R
>>
/ProcSet 1 0 R
>>
/Contents 19 0 R
>>
endobj
%%Page: 5 5
22 0 obj
<<
/Length 23 0 R
>>
stream
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -8.4 Td
1.38 Tw
0 Tc
(round. The UPS occupational health manager, Carolyn Mar-) Tj
0 -12.3 Td
.77 Tw
(tin, granted Young's request. When Young became pregnant,) Tj
0 -12.3 Td
1.43 Tw
(she sought to extend her leave. At some point in September) Tj
0 -12.3 Td
1.27 Tw
(2006, she left with her supervisor a note from Dr. Thaddeus) Tj
0 -12.3 Td
4.16 Tw
(Mamlenski indicating that she should not lift more than) Tj
0 -12.3 Td
2.18 Tw
(twenty pounds for the first twenty weeks of her pregnancy) Tj
0 -12.3 Td
2.66 Tw
(and not more than ten pounds thereafter. Young soon fol-) Tj
0 -12.3 Td
.66 Tw
(lowed up with a phone call to Martin saying that she was not) Tj
0 -12.3 Td
1.2 Tw
(yet ready to return to work.) Tj
12 -24.5 Td
1.42 Tw
(During that September 2006 call, Martin informed Young) Tj
-12 -12.3 Td
.73 Tw
(that UPS policy would not permit her to continue working as) Tj
0 -12.3 Td
2.03 Tw
(long as she had the twenty-pound lifting restriction. Young) Tj
0 -12.3 Td
2.2 Tw
(maintains that she sought to explain to Martin that her job) Tj
0 -12.3 Td
.7 Tw
(rarely required her to lift over twenty pounds, that other UPS) Tj
0 -12.3 Td
1.27 Tw
(employees had in any case agreed to assist her, and that she) Tj
0 -12.3 Td
1.81 Tw
(was willing to do either light duty work or her regular job.) Tj
0 -12.3 Td
.45 Tw
(Young characterized the seventy-pound lifting requirement as) Tj
0 -12.3 Td
2.12 Tw
(illusory because she rarely had to transport large packages,) Tj
0 -12.3 Td
.25 Tw
(and when she did, she could use a hand truck or request assis-) Tj
0 -12.3 Td
1.2 Tw
(tance from other UPS employees.) Tj
12 -24.5 Td
.55 Tw
(On October 11, 2006, Young had a check-up with midwife) Tj
-12 -12.3 Td
3 Tw
(Cynthia Shawl. At the conclusion of her check-up, Shawl) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
2.11 Tw
(drafted and signed a short note on National Naval Medical) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
.3 Tw
(Center letterhead stating "Peggy Sue Young is currently preg-) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
.9 Tw
(nant and due to deliver on or about May 2, 2007. Due to her) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
1.67 Tw
(pregnancy it is recommended that she not lift more than 20) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
2.03 Tw
(pounds." J.A. 510 \(the "Shawl note"\). The Shawl note also) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
1.1 Tw
(indicated Shawl was available to provide further information) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
2.08 Tw
(or answer questions, and listed contact information for her.) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
.7 Tw
(Although Shawl did not typically draft such notes, she did so) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
.25 Tw
(in this instance because Young had told her she needed "a let-) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
1.2 Tw
(ter for work stating her restrictions." J.A. 656.) Tj
4.9 Ts
/F5 6 Tf 100 Tz
.5 Tw
(3) Tj
0 Ts
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
10 -24.4 Td
4.1 Ts
/F5 6 Tf 100 Tz
.9 Tw
(3) Tj
0 Ts
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
(The chronological record of medical care indicates Shawl saw Young) Tj
-10 -10.5 Td
.49 Tw
(for 40 minutes and includes the notation "Released w/o Limitations." J.A.) Tj
0 -10.5 Td
2.03 Tw
(509. Although Young emphasizes in her brief the tension between the) Tj
0 -10.5 Td
.11 Tw
(Shawl note and the "Released w/o Limitations" notation, she does not sug-) Tj
0 -10.5 Td
.05 Tw
(gest, and the record does not support, the conclusion that Martin or anyone) Tj
0 -10.5 Td
1 Tw
(at UPS ever saw the "Released w/o Limitations" notation. ) Tj
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 cm
0 G
.5 w 0 -426.05 m 300 -426.05 l s
Q
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
450.5 -136.5 Td
1.1 Tw
0 Tc
(5) Tj
-177.7962 0 Td
(Y) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(OUNG) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( v. UPS) Tj
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0 G
.5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s
Q
endstream
endobj
23 0 obj
3793
endobj
21 0 obj
<<
/Type /Page
/MediaBox [0 0 612 792]
/Parent 10 0 R
/Resources <<
/Font <<
/F1 6 0 R
/F2 7 0 R
/F5 17 0 R
>>
/ProcSet 1 0 R
>>
/Contents 22 0 R
>>
endobj
%%Page: 6 6
25 0 obj
<<
/Length 26 0 R
>>
stream
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
12 -8.4 Td
2.2 Tw
0 Tc
(At some point after her appointment with Shawl, Young) Tj
-12 -13 Td
1.66 Tw
(contacted her supervisor at the D.C. Building and requested) Tj
0 -13 Td
1.92 Tw
(to return to work. When Young informed her supervisor of) Tj
0 -13 Td
.51 Tw
(the note recommending she not lift more than twenty pounds,) Tj
0 -13 Td
.71 Tw
(her supervisor referred Young to Martin. After speaking with) Tj
0 -13 Td
1.28 Tw
(Young, Martin concluded that, based on UPS policy, Young) Tj
0 -13 Td
1.27 Tw
(was unable to perform the essential functions of her job and) Tj
0 -13 Td
.95 Tw
(was ineligible for light duty assignment. It is undisputed that) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.2 Tw
(Martin made this determination alone.) Tj
12 -26 Td
1.67 Tw
(Young and Martin spoke by phone at the end of October) Tj
-12 -13.1 Td
1.95 Tw
(2006. In the course of discussing Young's lifting limitation) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.55 Tw
(and eligibility for work, Martin explained to Young that \(1\)) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
3.28 Tw
(UPS offered light duty for those with on-the-job injuries,) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.66 Tw
(those accommodated under the ADA, and those who had lost) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.33 Tw
(DOT certification, but not for pregnancy; \(2\) Young did not) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.58 Tw
(qualify for short-term disability benefits because she had pre-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.66 Tw
(sented no note stating she could not work at all; \(3\) Young) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.55 Tw
(had exhausted her leave under the Family and Medical Leave) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
(Act \(the "FMLA"\); and \(4\) UPS policy did not permit Young) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.81 Tw
(to continue working as an air driver with her twenty-pound) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
7.28 Tw
(lifting restriction. Although Martin "empathize[d] with) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.45 Tw
([Young's] situation and would have loved to help her," J.A.) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.22 Tw
(1032, Martin believed she was required to treat Young the) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.27 Tw
(same as she would any other UPS employee who had a lifting) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.86 Tw
(restriction that did not result from an on-the-job injury or ill-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
3.9 Tw
(ness and who could not perform his or her regular job.) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
0 Tw
(According to Martin, she would have allowed Young to return) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
4.66 Tw
(to work if Young could provide a medical certification) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.75 Tw
(removing her lifting restriction and stating she could perform) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.2 Tw
(the essential functions of her job.) Tj
12 -26 Td
.27 Tw
(The parties do not dispute that Martin based her decision to) Tj
-12 -13.1 Td
.6 Tw
(disallow Young from returning to work solely on the basis of) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
3.8 Tw
(the lifting limitations imposed by Mamlenski and Shawl.) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.03 Tw
(Martin did not believe Young had any other restrictions, and) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.83 Tw
(asserts that had she considered Young disabled within the) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.33 Tw
(meaning of the ADA, she would have encouraged Young to) Tj
1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
156 -136.5 Td
1.1 Tw
0 Tc
(6) Tj
116.7038 0 Td
(Y) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(OUNG) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( v. UPS) Tj
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0 G
.5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s
Q
endstream
endobj
26 0 obj
3345
endobj
24 0 obj
<<
/Type /Page
/MediaBox [0 0 612 792]
/Parent 10 0 R
/Resources <<
/Font <<
/F1 6 0 R
/F2 7 0 R
>>
/ProcSet 1 0 R
>>
/Contents 25 0 R
>>
endobj
%%Page: 7 7
28 0 obj
<<
/Length 29 0 R
>>
stream
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -8.4 Td
.75 Tw
0 Tc
(apply for an accommodation in accordance with UPS's ADA) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.66 Tw
(policy. J.A. 575. Although Young takes issue with Martin's) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.58 Tw
(failure to contact Shawl and seek more information regarding) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.52 Tw
(the recommended lifting restriction, Young does not contro-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.2 Tw
(vert Martin's assertion.) Tj
12 -26.1 Td
1.46 Tw
(Still seeking to return to work, Young approached Myron) Tj
-12 -13.1 Td
.48 Tw
(Williams, the Capital Division Manager in the D.C. Building,) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.58 Tw
(in November 2006. According to Young, when she explained) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.37 Tw
(her desire to return to work, Williams told her she was "too) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.89 Tw
(much of a liability" while pregnant and that she "could not) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
0 Tw
(come back into the [D.C.] [B]uilding until [she] was no longer) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.2 Tw
(pregnant." J.A. 500.) Tj
12 -26.1 Td
2.71 Tw
(By November 2006, Young's FMLA leave had expired.) Tj
-12 -13.2 Td
.84 Tw
(She then went on an extended leave of absence, receiving no) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
.54 Tw
(pay and eventually losing her medical coverage by the end of) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
2.52 Tw
(the year. During this extended leave, someonethe record) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
1 Tw
(does not disclose whoat UPS ascribed Young's absence to) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
2.27 Tw
("disability" by placing the code for disability on her atten-) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
.36 Tw
(dance chart. A UPS employee explained at his deposition that) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
5.58 Tw
(the disability code does not necessarily mean that the) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
2.4 Tw
(employee is on approved disability leave; it in some cases) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
1.44 Tw
(means only that an employee is "not working because of an) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
1.2 Tw
(off the job situation." J.A. 1836.) Tj
12 -26.1 Td
.93 Tw
(Young gave birth on April 29, 2007, and returned to work) Tj
-12 -13.2 Td
1.2 Tw
(for UPS at some point thereafter.) Tj
144.498 -26.1 Td
(B.) Tj
-132.498 -26.2 Td
.25 Tw
(Young filed a charge with the Equal Employment Opportu-) Tj
-12 -13.2 Td
1.91 Tw
(nity Commission \(the "EEOC"\) on July 23, 2007, and later) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
1.22 Tw
(amended it. She alleged discrimination on the basis of race,) Tj
4.9 Ts
/F5 6 Tf 100 Tz
(4) Tj
0 Ts
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -13.2 Td
.93 Tw
(sex, and pregnancy. After the EEOC issued Young a right to) Tj
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
10 -26 Td
4.1 Ts
/F5 6 Tf 100 Tz
2.46 Tw
(4) Tj
0 Ts
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
(Young is white, and alleged that UPS permitted African-American) Tj
-10 -11.2 Td
1 Tw
(pregnant employees to work. ) Tj
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 cm
0 G
.5 w 0 -466.55 m 300 -466.55 l s
Q
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
450.5 -136.5 Td
1.1 Tw
0 Tc
(7) Tj
-177.7962 0 Td
(Y) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(OUNG) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( v. UPS) Tj
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0 G
.5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s
Q
endstream
endobj
29 0 obj
3077
endobj
27 0 obj
<<
/Type /Page
/MediaBox [0 0 612 792]
/Parent 30 0 R
/Resources <<
/Font <<
/F1 6 0 R
/F2 7 0 R
/F5 17 0 R
>>
/ProcSet 1 0 R
>>
/Contents 28 0 R
>>
endobj
%%Page: 8 8
32 0 obj
<<
/Length 33 0 R
>>
stream
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -8.4 Td
1.13 Tw
0 Tc
(sue letter in September 2008, she filed suit in October 2008.) Tj
0 -12.8 Td
.06 Tw
(In an amended complaint filed the same month, Young sought) Tj
0 -12.8 Td
1.15 Tw
(damages for sex and race discrimination under Title VII and) Tj
0 -12.8 Td
2.65 Tw
(for disability discrimination under the ADA. When Young) Tj
0 -12.8 Td
1.48 Tw
(sought to amend her complaint a third time in June 2009 to) Tj
0 -12.8 Td
.52 Tw
(add a distinct disparate impact claim, the district court denied) Tj
0 -12.8 Td
1.2 Tw
(her motion.) Tj
12 -25.5 Td
.85 Tw
(Following over eighteen months of discovery, UPS moved) Tj
-12 -12.8 Td
.06 Tw
(for summary judgment in July 2010. In addition to responding) Tj
0 -12.8 Td
2.75 Tw
(in opposition to UPS's summary judgment motion, Young) Tj
0 -12.8 Td
1.25 Tw
(also sought to compel additional discovery, asked for a con-) Tj
0 -12.8 Td
0 Tw
(tinuance under Rule 56\(d\) of the Federal Rules of Civil Proce-) Tj
0 -12.8 Td
10.18 Tw
(dure, and moved to dismiss voluntarily her race) Tj
0 -12.8 Td
1.16 Tw
(discrimination claim. In an opinion issued in February 2011,) Tj
0 -12.8 Td
3 Tw
(the district court granted summary judgment for UPS and) Tj
0 -12.8 Td
1.42 Tw
(denied Young's motions for additional discovery, a continu-) Tj
0 -12.8 Td
2.03 Tw
(ance, and a dismissal of her race discrimination claim.) Tj
4.9 Ts
/F5 6 Tf 100 Tz
(5) Tj
0 Ts
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( On) Tj
0 -12.9 Td
.36 Tw
(Young's ADA claim, the district court reasoned that UPS had) Tj
0 -12.9 Td
1.58 Tw
(not discriminated against Young either by asking for a doc-) Tj
0 -12.9 Td
2.3 Tw
(tor's note, which it was permitted to do under the circum-) Tj
0 -12.9 Td
1.2 Tw
(stances, or by deciding not to accommodate her.) Tj
12 -25.5 Td
4.51 Tw
(Applying the Title VII burden shifting analysis under) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
-12 -12.9 Td
.84 Tw
(McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 411 U.S. 792 \(1973\), to) Tj
0 -12.9 Td
1.12 Tw
(Young's PDA claim, the district court concluded Young had) Tj
0 -12.9 Td
1.41 Tw
(not shown direct evidence of discrimination; failed to estab-) Tj
0 -12.9 Td
3.22 Tw
(lish a prima facie case of sex discrimination because she) Tj
0 -12.9 Td
1 Tw
(could identify no similarly situated comparator who received) Tj
0 -12.9 Td
.8 Tw
(more favorable treatment than she did; and in any case could) Tj
0 -12.9 Td
.41 Tw
(not show that UPS's non-discriminatory rationale for its deci-) Tj
0 -12.9 Td
1.2 Tw
(sion was pretextual.) Tj
12 -25.5 Td
1.38 Tw
(The district court denied Young's motion for reconsidera-) Tj
-12 -12.9 Td
1.2 Tw
(tion in August 2011. This appeal followed.) Tj
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
10 -25.4 Td
4.1 Ts
/F5 6 Tf 100 Tz
2.72 Tw
(5) Tj
0 Ts
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
(The district court granted summary judgment in favor of UPS on) Tj
-10 -11 Td
3.38 Tw
(Young's race discrimination, and Young does not challenge this on) Tj
0 -11 Td
1 Tw
(appeal. ) Tj
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 cm
0 G
.5 w 0 -456.05 m 300 -456.05 l s
Q
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
156 -136.5 Td
1.1 Tw
0 Tc
(8) Tj
116.7038 0 Td
(Y) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(OUNG) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( v. UPS) Tj
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0 G
.5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s
Q
endstream
endobj
33 0 obj
3436
endobj
31 0 obj
<<
/Type /Page
/MediaBox [0 0 612 792]
/Parent 30 0 R
/Resources <<
/Font <<
/F1 6 0 R
/F2 7 0 R
/F4 9 0 R
/F5 17 0 R
>>
/ProcSet 1 0 R
>>
/Contents 32 0 R
>>
endobj
%%Page: 9 9
35 0 obj
<<
/Length 36 0 R
>>
stream
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
144.504 -8.4 Td
1.2 Tw
0 Tc
(II.) Tj
-132.504 -26.7 Td
3.28 Tw
(Young challenges the district court's grant of summary) Tj
-12 -13.5 Td
.53 Tw
(judgment on her ADA and PDA claims. First, she claims that) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
.87 Tw
(UPS impermissibly regarded her as disabled under the ADA.) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
1.51 Tw
(Second, Young contends that UPS discriminated against her) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
.36 Tw
(on the basis of pregnancy in violation of the PDA.) Tj
4.9 Ts
/F5 6 Tf 100 Tz
(6) Tj
0 Ts
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( In consid-) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
.88 Tw
(ering these arguments, we review the district court's grant of) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
.03 Tw
(summary judgment de novo, and construe all the documentary) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
.83 Tw
(evidence and inferences available therefrom in the light most) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
.7 Tw
(favorable to Young. ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(See ) Tj
(Henry v. Purnell) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 652 F.3d 524, 531) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
1.33 Tw
(\(4th Cir. 2011\) \(en banc\). Summary judgment is appropriate) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
.85 Tw
(if UPS establishes "that there is no genuine dispute as to any) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
.64 Tw
(material fact." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56\(a\). Thus, a genuine issue of) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
2.71 Tw
(material fact, and not simply "the mere existence of ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(some) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -13.5 Td
.63 Tw
(alleged factual dispute between the parties," ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Anderson v. Lib-) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
1.83 Tw
(erty Lobby) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 477 U.S. 242, 247 \(1986\), is required to defeat) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
1.2 Tw
(UPS's motion. We turn first to Young's ADA claim.) Tj
144.168 -26.7 Td
(A.) Tj
-132.168 -26.6 Td
.1 Tw
(The ADA prohibits discrimination against "a qualified indi-) Tj
-12 -13.5 Td
1.48 Tw
(vidual on the basis of disability." 42 U.S.C. ) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
1.48 Tw
(12112\(a\).) Tj
4.9 Ts
/F5 6 Tf 100 Tz
(7) Tj
0 Ts
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( To) Tj
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
10 -26.4 Td
4.1 Ts
/F5 6 Tf 100 Tz
.07 Tw
(6) Tj
0 Ts
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
(Young also makes two arguments we need not consider at length. First,) Tj
-10 -11.4 Td
.6 Tw
(she contends that the district court erred by denying her motion to amend) Tj
0 -11.3 Td
.88 Tw
(her complaint to include a disparate impact claim. ) Tj
/F4 10 Tf 100 Tz
(See) Tj
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
( Appellant's Br. at) Tj
0 -11.3 Td
1.27 Tw
(65-66. We review a district court's decision to deny a motion to amend) Tj
0 -11.3 Td
.86 Tw
(for abuse of discretion, ) Tj
/F4 10 Tf 100 Tz
(Matrix Capital Mgmt. Fund, LP v. BearingPoint,) Tj
0 -11.3 Td
1.96 Tw
(Inc.) Tj
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
(, 576 F.3d 172, 192 \(4th Cir. 2009\), and find no such abuse here.) Tj
0 -11.3 Td
1.94 Tw
(Young failed to satisfy the good cause standard under Fed. R. Civ. P.) Tj
0 -11.3 Td
.64 Tw
(16\(b\)\(4\) to modify the scheduling order. J.A. 126. Second, Young asserts) Tj
0 -11.3 Td
1.29 Tw
(error in the district court's decision to deny her motion to compel addi-) Tj
0 -11.3 Td
.47 Tw
(tional discovery. The district court had permitted over eighteen months of) Tj
0 -11.3 Td
.72 Tw
(discovery, and had already twice granted Young's motions to compel. Its) Tj
0 -11.3 Td
.98 Tw
(decision to cut off discovery when it did was not an abuse of discretion.) Tj
10 -14.2 Td
4.1 Ts
/F5 6 Tf 100 Tz
1.08 Tw
(7) Tj
0 Ts
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
(Congress amended the ADA in 2008 in order to expand the category) Tj
-10 -11.3 Td
1.56 Tw
(of individuals who fall within its ambit. ) Tj
/F4 10 Tf 100 Tz
(See) Tj
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
( ADA Amendments Act of) Tj
0 -11.3 Td
2.2 Tw
(2008 \(the "ADAAA"\), Pub. L. No. 110-325, 122 Stat. 3553; ) Tj
/F4 10 Tf 100 Tz
(see also) Tj
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 cm
0 G
.5 w 0 -316.35 m 300 -316.35 l s
Q
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
450.5 -136.5 Td
1.1 Tw
0 Tc
(9) Tj
-177.7962 0 Td
(Y) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(OUNG) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( v. UPS) Tj
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0 G
.5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s
Q
endstream
endobj
36 0 obj
4140
endobj
34 0 obj
<<
/Type /Page
/MediaBox [0 0 612 792]
/Parent 30 0 R
/Resources <<
/Font <<
/F1 6 0 R
/F2 7 0 R
/F4 9 0 R
/F5 17 0 R
>>
/ProcSet 1 0 R
>>
/Contents 35 0 R
>>
endobj
%%Page: 10 10
38 0 obj
<<
/Length 39 0 R
>>
stream
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -8.4 Td
2.26 Tw
0 Tc
(establish disability discrimination, Young must demonstrate) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
1.6 Tw
(that \(1\) she had a disability as defined in the ADA; \(2\) she) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
.98 Tw
(was a "qualified individual," which entails being able to per-) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
1.18 Tw
(form the essential functions of her job; and \(3\) UPS took an) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
2.07 Tw
(adverse action against her on account of her disability. ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(See) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
.73 Tw
(Martinson v. Kinney Shoe Corp.) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 104 F.3d 683, 686 \(4th Cir.) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
1.71 Tw
(1997\). Young's claim fails because she cannot establish the) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
1.2 Tw
(first of these elements.) Tj
4.9 Ts
/F5 6 Tf 100 Tz
.5 Tw
(8) Tj
0 Ts
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
12 -26.7 Td
.75 Tw
(The ADA provides three avenues for establishing the exis-) Tj
-12 -13.5 Td
2.15 Tw
(tence of a disability: "\(A\) a physical or mental impairment) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
1.95 Tw
(that substantially limits one or more major life activities of) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
1.6 Tw
(such individual; \(B\) a record of such an impairment; or \(C\)) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
2.97 Tw
(being regarded as having such an impairment." 42 U.S.C.) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
.41 Tw
() Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
.41 Tw
(12102\(1\). Young does not press the argument that her preg-) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
4.9 Tw
(nancy alone establishes disability. ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(See, e.g.) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Wenzlaff v.) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
1.93 Tw
(NationsBank) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 940 F. Supp. 889, 890 \(D. Md. 1996\) \("With) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
.36 Tw
(near unanimity, federal courts have held that pregnancy is not) Tj
0 -13.5 Td
2.92 Tw
(a `disability' under the ADA."\). Rather, she contends that) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
.28 Tw
(UPS regarded her pregnancy-related work limitations as such.) Tj
12 -26.7 Td
1 Tw
(A "regarded as" disabled claim "includes the circumstance) Tj
-12 -13.4 Td
1.37 Tw
(when the employer `mistakenly believes that an actual, non-) Tj
/F4 10 Tf 100 Tz
0 -26.3 Td
.62 Tw
(Reynolds v. American Nat'l Red Cross) Tj
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
(, ___ F.3d ___, No. 11-2278, 2012) Tj
0 -11.3 Td
1.85 Tw
(WL 6062702, at *5 \(4th Cir. Dec. 7, 2012\) \("In passing the ADAAA,) Tj
0 -11.3 Td
.9 Tw
(Congress was concerned `lower courts have incorrectly found in individ-) Tj
0 -11.3 Td
.02 Tw
(ual cases that people with a range of substantially limiting impairments are) Tj
0 -11.3 Td
2.78 Tw
(not people with disabilities.'" \(quoting ADAAA, 122 Stat. at 3553\)\).) Tj
0 -11.3 Td
1.7 Tw
(Because Young filed her claim before the effective date of the amend-) Tj
0 -11.3 Td
2.46 Tw
(ments, which Congress did not make retroactive, ) Tj
/F4 10 Tf 100 Tz
(Reynolds) Tj
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
(, 2012 WL) Tj
0 -11.3 Td
1.46 Tw
(6062702, at *6 \(ADAAA not retroactive to cases filed before its enact-) Tj
0 -11.3 Td
.93 Tw
(ment\); ) Tj
/F4 10 Tf 100 Tz
(see also ) Tj
(Boitnott v. Corning Inc.) Tj
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
(, 669 F.3d 172, 174 n.3 \(4th Cir.) Tj
0 -11.3 Td
1.45 Tw
(2012\) \(same\), we do not consider how, if at all, the ADAAA's amend-) Tj
0 -11.3 Td
1 Tw
(ments would affect Young's ADA claim. ) Tj
10 -14.2 Td
4.1 Ts
/F5 6 Tf 100 Tz
1.1 Tw
(8) Tj
0 Ts
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
(Because Young's claim founders at the first prong, we do not decide) Tj
-10 -11.3 Td
1 Tw
(whether Young was a "qualified individual" or whether the ADA's "rea-) Tj
0 -11.3 Td
.95 Tw
(sonable accommodation" requirement attaches to those who are regarded) Tj
0 -11.3 Td
1 Tw
(as disabled. ) Tj
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 cm
0 G
.5 w 0 -316.45 m 300 -316.45 l s
Q
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
156 -136.5 Td
1.1 Tw
0 Tc
(10) Tj
116.7038 0 Td
(Y) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(OUNG) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( v. UPS) Tj
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0 G
.5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s
Q
endstream
endobj
39 0 obj
4031
endobj
37 0 obj
<<
/Type /Page
/MediaBox [0 0 612 792]
/Parent 30 0 R
/Resources <<
/Font <<
/F1 6 0 R
/F2 7 0 R
/F4 9 0 R
/F5 17 0 R
>>
/ProcSet 1 0 R
>>
/Contents 38 0 R
>>
endobj
%%Page: 11 11
41 0 obj
<<
/Length 42 0 R
>>
stream
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -8.4 Td
2.51 Tw
0 Tc
(limiting impairment substantially limits one or more major) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
2.01 Tw
(life activities.'" ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Wilson v. Phoenix Specialty Mfg. Co., Inc.) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(,) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
3.66 Tw
(513 F.3d 378, 384-85 \(4th Cir. 2008\) \(quoting ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Sutton v.) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
1.26 Tw
(United Air Lines, Inc.) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 527 U.S. 471, 489 \(1999\)\). Thus, the) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
.21 Tw
(employer "must believe . . . that [an individual] has a substan-) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
.25 Tw
(tially limiting impairment when, in fact, the impairment is not) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
.74 Tw
(so limiting." ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Sutton) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 527 U.S. at 489. Major life activities are) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
1.43 Tw
("those activities that are of central importance to daily life,") Tj
0 -13.4 Td
2.96 Tw
(such as walking, seeing, and hearing. ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Toyota Motor Mfg.,) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
4.91 Tw
(Kentucky, Inc. v. Williams) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 534 U.S. 184, 197 \(2002\).) Tj
4.9 Ts
/F5 6 Tf 100 Tz
(9) Tj
0 Ts
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -13.4 Td
.4 Tw
(Finally, where an employee relies on a "regarded as" disabled) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
3.01 Tw
(theory, we focus "on the reactions and perceptions of the) Tj
0 -13.4 Td
2.17 Tw
(employer's decisionmakers . . . ." ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Wilson) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 513 F.3d at 385) Tj
0 -13.3 Td
1.53 Tw
(\(quoting ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Runnebaum v. NationsBank of Md., N.A.) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 123 F.3d) Tj
0 -13.3 Td
1.87 Tw
(156, 172-73 \(4th Cir.1997\), ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(abrogated on other grounds by) Tj
0 -13.3 Td
1.41 Tw
(Bragdon v. Abbott) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 524 U.S. 624 \(1998\)\) \(internal alteration) Tj
0 -13.3 Td
1.2 Tw
(omitted\).) Tj
12 -26.5 Td
1 Tw
(Young identifies three actions on Carolyn Martin's part as) Tj
-12 -13.3 Td
1.83 Tw
(evidence that UPS regarded her as disabled: soliciting from) Tj
0 -13.3 Td
1.6 Tw
(Young a doctor's opinion that she was no longer under any) Tj
0 -13.3 Td
3.88 Tw
(lifting limitations; preventing Young from working based) Tj
0 -13.3 Td
3.65 Tw
(only on the Shawl note without independently evaluating) Tj
0 -13.3 Td
1.22 Tw
(Young's ability to work or contacting Shawl for more infor-) Tj
0 -13.3 Td
2.5 Tw
(mation; and improperly relying on a mistaken belief about) Tj
0 -13.3 Td
1.2 Tw
(Young's capacity for work. We briefly consider each.) Tj
12 -26.5 Td
.61 Tw
(The argument that Martin improperly solicited the doctor's) Tj
-12 -13.3 Td
0 Tw
(opinion is unclear. The record reflects no evidence that Young) Tj
0 -13.3 Td
.22 Tw
(provided such an opinion to anyone.) Tj
4.9 Ts
/F5 6 Tf 100 Tz
(10) Tj
0 Ts
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( The only doctor's notes) Tj
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
10 -26.3 Td
4.1 Ts
/F5 6 Tf 100 Tz
.25 Tw
(9) Tj
0 Ts
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
(Both ) Tj
/F4 10 Tf 100 Tz
(Toyota Motor Mfg.) Tj
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
( and ) Tj
/F4 10 Tf 100 Tz
(Sutton) Tj
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
( interpret the ADA before the 2008) Tj
-10 -11.3 Td
1.2 Tw
(amendments. Although the ADAAA effectively overruled the interpreta-) Tj
0 -11.3 Td
.2 Tw
(tion offered in these cases, we consider them because we analyze Young's) Tj
0 -11.3 Td
1 Tw
(claims under the pre-2008 ADA. ) Tj
/F4 10 Tf 100 Tz
(See ) Tj
(supra) Tj
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
( note 7. ) Tj
10 -14.1 Td
4.1 Ts
/F5 6 Tf 100 Tz
1.4 Tw
(10) Tj
0 Ts
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
(The district court had the same concern, noting that Young had not) Tj
-10 -11.3 Td
2.05 Tw
(pleaded in her amended complaint the claim that UPS had improperly) Tj
0 -11.3 Td
1 Tw
(solicited a doctor's note from her. J.A. 417. ) Tj
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 cm
0 G
.5 w 0 -407.05 m 300 -407.05 l s
Q
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
445 -136.5 Td
1.1 Tw
0 Tc
(11) Tj
-172.2962 0 Td
(Y) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(OUNG) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( v. UPS) Tj
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0 G
.5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s
Q
endstream
endobj
42 0 obj
4176
endobj
40 0 obj
<<
/Type /Page
/MediaBox [0 0 612 792]
/Parent 30 0 R
/Resources <<
/Font <<
/F1 6 0 R
/F2 7 0 R
/F4 9 0 R
/F5 17 0 R
>>
/ProcSet 1 0 R
>>
/Contents 41 0 R
>>
endobj
%%Page: 12 12
44 0 obj
<<
/Length 45 0 R
>>
stream
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -8.4 Td
.1 Tw
0 Tc
(in the record are those from Dr. Mamlenski and midwife Cyn-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
4.62 Tw
(thia Shawl, suggesting Young lift no more than twenty) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
4.25 Tw
(pounds. Thus, to the extent Young either claims Martin) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.06 Tw
(improperly solicited the Shawl note or takes issue with Mar-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.33 Tw
(tin's request that Young provide medical certification that she) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.11 Tw
(was no longer under the lifting restrictions indicated in the) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.18 Tw
(notes from Mamlenski and Shawl, we agree with the district) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.48 Tw
(court's view that "[b]ecause UPS possessed objective facts) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.77 Tw
(suggesting Young might have lost the ability to perform cen-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.06 Tw
(tral job functions, it had a legitimate reason to seek some veri-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.18 Tw
(fication that Young had recovered her ability to perform those) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.51 Tw
(duties." J.A. 420; ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(see also ) Tj
(Porter v. U.S. Alumoweld Co.) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 125) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.12 Tw
(F.3d 243, 247 \(4th Cir. 1997\) \(holding employer's medical) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.32 Tw
(inquiry was job-related and consistent with business necessity) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.33 Tw
(when employee returned to job involving lifting after back) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.2 Tw
(surgery\).) Tj
12 -26 Td
1.5 Tw
(Young's second contentionthat UPS had a duty to seek) Tj
-12 -13.1 Td
4.45 Tw
(additional information from her healthcare providers and) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
5.21 Tw
(independently evaluate her ability to workis similarly) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.47 Tw
(unavailing. In Young's view, UPS should have engaged in an) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.2 Tw
(interactive process to determine whether Young was capable) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.81 Tw
(of performing her job. Although the ADA does advise an) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
1.84 Tw
(employer to initiate "an informal, interactive process" when) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
1.16 Tw
(determining whether an individual with a disability needs an) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
.85 Tw
(accommodation, ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(see) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( 29 C.F.R. ) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
.85 Tw
(1630.2\(o\)\(3\), no such coun-) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
2.25 Tw
(sel applies to the determination of whether an employee is) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
2.66 Tw
(disabled in the first instance. Young presents no rationale,) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
.21 Tw
(compelling or otherwise, for concluding that an employer acts) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
2.24 Tw
(inappropriately in relying on the employee's own objective) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
2.04 Tw
(medical evidence. ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Cf. ) Tj
(Breitkreutz v. Cambrex Charles City,) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
2.03 Tw
(Inc.) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 450 F.3d 780, 784 \(8th Cir. 2006\) \("If a restriction is) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
.81 Tw
(based upon the recommendations of physicians, then it is not) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
.85 Tw
(based upon myths or stereotypes about the disabled and does) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
1.2 Tw
(not establish a perception of disability."\).) Tj
4.9 Ts
/F5 6 Tf 100 Tz
.5 Tw
(11) Tj
0 Ts
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
10 -26 Td
4.1 Ts
/F5 6 Tf 100 Tz
1.28 Tw
(11) Tj
0 Ts
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
(Although the two documents produced by Cynthia Shawlthe "Re-) Tj
-10 -11.2 Td
1.05 Tw
(leased w/o Limitations" notation and the Shawl notestand in consider-) Tj
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 cm
0 G
.5 w 0 -466.55 m 300 -466.55 l s
Q
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
156 -136.5 Td
1.1 Tw
0 Tc
(12) Tj
116.7038 0 Td
(Y) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(OUNG) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( v. UPS) Tj
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0 G
.5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s
Q
endstream
endobj
45 0 obj
3792
endobj
43 0 obj
<<
/Type /Page
/MediaBox [0 0 612 792]
/Parent 30 0 R
/Resources <<
/Font <<
/F1 6 0 R
/F2 7 0 R
/F4 9 0 R
/F5 17 0 R
>>
/ProcSet 1 0 R
>>
/Contents 44 0 R
>>
endobj
%%Page: 13 13
47 0 obj
<<
/Length 48 0 R
>>
stream
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
12 -8.4 Td
.21 Tw
0 Tc
(Finally, Young fails to marshal evidence creating a genuine) Tj
-12 -14.2 Td
1.27 Tw
(issue of material fact on the question of whether Martin had) Tj
0 -14.2 Td
4.85 Tw
(a mistaken belief regarding Young's capacity for work.) Tj
0 -14.2 Td
.14 Tw
(Young offers no evidence indicating Martin believed Young's) Tj
0 -14.2 Td
.77 Tw
(pregnancy substantially limited one or more of her major life) Tj
0 -14.2 Td
3.95 Tw
(activities. The most the record establishes is that Martin) Tj
0 -14.2 Td
.92 Tw
(believed Young to be pregnant and under a temporary lifting) Tj
0 -14.2 Td
0 Tw
(restriction on account of her pregnancy, based on the evidence) Tj
0 -14.2 Td
4.05 Tw
(Young herself provided. Given the relatively manageable) Tj
0 -14.2 Td
.55 Tw
(weight restrictiontwenty poundsand the short duration of) Tj
0 -14.2 Td
1.71 Tw
(the restriction, there is no evidence that Young's pregnancy) Tj
0 -14.2 Td
4.41 Tw
(or her attendant lifting limitation constituted a disability) Tj
0 -14.2 Td
2.7 Tw
(within the meaning of the ADA. ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(See ) Tj
(Williams v. Channel) Tj
0 -14.2 Td
.9 Tw
(Master Satellite Sys., Inc.) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 101 F.3d 346, 349 \(4th Cir. 1996\)) Tj
0 -14.2 Td
.55 Tw
(\("[W]e hold, as a matter of law, that a twenty-five pound lift-) Tj
0 -14.2 Td
3.55 Tw
(ing limitationparticularly when compared to an average) Tj
0 -14.2 Td
.43 Tw
(person's abilitiesdoes not constitute a significant restriction) Tj
0 -14.2 Td
.88 Tw
(on one's ability to lift, work, or perform any other major life) Tj
0 -14.2 Td
.34 Tw
(activity."\), ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(abrogated on other grounds by ) Tj
(Baird ex rel. Baird) Tj
0 -14.2 Td
.63 Tw
(v. Rose) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 192 F.3d 462, 470 \(4th Cir. 1999\); ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Pollard v. High's) Tj
0 -14.2 Td
8.91 Tw
(of Baltimore) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 281 F.3d 462, 468 \(4th Cir. 2002\)) Tj
0 -14.2 Td
3.62 Tw
(\("[T]emporary impairments usually do not fall within the) Tj
0 -14.1 Td
1.24 Tw
(ADA's definition of `disability.'"\). Because Young points to) Tj
0 -14.1 Td
(no more than the objective fact of her pregnancy, and offers) Tj
0 -14.1 Td
.16 Tw
(no evidence tending to show that Martin subjectively believed) Tj
0 -14.1 Td
.36 Tw
(Young to be disabled, Young cannot adduce evidence to raise) Tj
0 -14.1 Td
1.2 Tw
(a factual issue on her "regarded as" claim.) Tj
4.9 Ts
/F5 6 Tf 100 Tz
.5 Tw
(12) Tj
0 Ts
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
0 -27.9 Td
1.2 Tw
(able tension, nothing in the record indicates anyone from UPS ever saw) Tj
0 -12 Td
3.4 Tw
(the former document. Having no reason to believe Young's doctor-) Tj
0 -12 Td
.98 Tw
(recommended lifting restriction had abated, Martin was under no obliga-) Tj
0 -12 Td
1 Tw
(tion to consult with Shawl or otherwise seek out more information. ) Tj
10 -15 Td
4.1 Ts
/F5 6 Tf 100 Tz
.64 Tw
(12) Tj
0 Ts
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
(The fact that Young was coded as "disabled" standing alone does not) Tj
-10 -12 Td
.18 Tw
(alter this conclusion because there is no evidence in the record linking this) Tj
0 -12 Td
.25 Tw
(coding to a decisionmaker who worked with Young. ) Tj
/F4 10 Tf 100 Tz
(See ) Tj
(Wilson) Tj
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
(, 513 F.3d) Tj
0 -12 Td
1 Tw
(at 385. ) Tj
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 cm
0 G
.5 w 0 -389.75 m 300 -389.75 l s
Q
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
445 -136.5 Td
1.1 Tw
0 Tc
(13) Tj
-172.2962 0 Td
(Y) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(OUNG) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( v. UPS) Tj
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0 G
.5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s
Q
endstream
endobj
48 0 obj
3765
endobj
46 0 obj
<<
/Type /Page
/MediaBox [0 0 612 792]
/Parent 49 0 R
/Resources <<
/Font <<
/F1 6 0 R
/F2 7 0 R
/F4 9 0 R
/F5 17 0 R
>>
/ProcSet 1 0 R
>>
/Contents 47 0 R
>>
endobj
%%Page: 14 14
51 0 obj
<<
/Length 52 0 R
>>
stream
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
144.498 -8.4 Td
1.2 Tw
0 Tc
(B.) Tj
-132.498 -24.6 Td
.48 Tw
(We turn next to the heart of Young's appeal, that UPS vio-) Tj
-12 -12.4 Td
2.67 Tw
(lated the Pregnancy Discrimination Act. Although not free) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
1.62 Tw
(from ambiguity, Young's core contention appears to be that) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
2.84 Tw
(the UPS policy limiting light duty work to some employ-) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
.38 Tw
(eesthose injured on-the-job, disabled within the meaning of) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
1.25 Tw
(the ADA, or who have lost their DOT certificationbut not) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
.41 Tw
(to pregnant workers like Young violates the PDA's command) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
.44 Tw
(to treat pregnant employees the same "as other persons not so) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
1.67 Tw
(affected but similar in their ability or inability to work." 42) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
1 Tw
(U.S.C. ) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
1 Tw
(2000e\(k\). In a similar vein, the ACLU amicus brief) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
1.14 Tw
(argues that the PDA requires employers like UPS to provide) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
2.2 Tw
(pregnant workers like Young light duty work so long as it) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
.27 Tw
(does so for any other workers similar in their ability or inabil-) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
1.16 Tw
(ity to work even though it concededly does not do so for all) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
1.2 Tw
(nonpregnant employees.) Tj
12 -24.7 Td
2.7 Tw
(We analyze a PDA claim as a sex discrimination claim) Tj
-12 -12.4 Td
2.18 Tw
(under Title VII. ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(DeJarnette v. Corning Inc.) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 133 F.3d 293,) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
1.21 Tw
(297 \(4th Cir. 1998\) \("A claim of discrimination on the basis) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
2.07 Tw
(of pregnancy must be analyzed in the same manner as any) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
.51 Tw
(other sex discrimination claim brought pursuant to Title VII.") Tj
0 -12.4 Td
2.17 Tw
(\(quoting ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Boyd v. Harding Academy) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 88 F.3d 410, 413 \(6th) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
1.37 Tw
(Cir. 1996\) \(internal alteration omitted\)\)\). Applying the usual) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
2.18 Tw
(Title VII analytical construct for sex discrimination claims,) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
1.88 Tw
(we first consider whether Young has shown any direct evi-) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
.33 Tw
(dence of discrimination. ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Evans v. Techs. Applications & Serv.) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
.75 Tw
(Co.) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 80 F.3d 954, 959 \(4th Cir. 1996\). In the absence of that,) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
1.75 Tw
(we apply the familiar burden shifting framework articulated) Tj
0 -12.4 Td
3.04 Tw
(in ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(McDonnell Douglas) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( and subsequent cases. As Young's) Tj
0 -12.5 Td
.46 Tw
(counsel clarified at oral argument, Young challenges the UPS) Tj
0 -12.5 Td
.33 Tw
(policy as both direct evidence of discrimination and under the) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -12.5 Td
1.78 Tw
(McDonnell Douglas) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( framework. Accordingly, we assess the) Tj
0 -12.5 Td
1.2 Tw
(policy in both contexts.) Tj
145.5 -24.7 Td
(1.) Tj
-133.5 -24.7 Td
0 Tw
(In asserting direct evidence of discrimination, Young points) Tj
-12 -12.5 Td
2.25 Tw
(to both the UPS policy and to disparaging comments from) Tj
1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
156 -136.5 Td
1.1 Tw
0 Tc
(14) Tj
116.7038 0 Td
(Y) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(OUNG) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( v. UPS) Tj
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0 G
.5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s
Q
endstream
endobj
52 0 obj
3532
endobj
50 0 obj
<<
/Type /Page
/MediaBox [0 0 612 792]
/Parent 49 0 R
/Resources <<
/Font <<
/F1 6 0 R
/F2 7 0 R
/F4 9 0 R
>>
/ProcSet 1 0 R
>>
/Contents 51 0 R
>>
endobj
%%Page: 15 15
54 0 obj
<<
/Length 55 0 R
>>
stream
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -8.4 Td
.25 Tw
0 Tc
(Myron Williams as indicative of UPS's general corporate ani-) Tj
0 -13 Td
.26 Tw
(mus against pregnant employees. Evidence is direct if it "both) Tj
0 -13 Td
1.25 Tw
(reflect[s] directly the alleged discriminatory attitude and . . .) Tj
0 -13 Td
5.35 Tw
(bear[s] directly on the contested employment decision.") Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -13 Td
2.45 Tw
(Warch v. Ohio Cas. Ins. Co.) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 435 F.3d 510, 520 \(4th Cir.) Tj
0 -13 Td
.43 Tw
(2006\) \(quoting ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Taylor v. Virginia Union Univ.) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 193 F.3d 219,) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.39 Tw
(232 \(4th Cir. 1999\) \(en banc\)\). Thus, evidence is direct if it) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.58 Tw
(establishes discriminatory motive with no need for an infer-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.84 Tw
(ence or a presumption. We first consider the challenge to the) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.2 Tw
(UPS policy.) Tj
145.836 -26 Td
(a.) Tj
-133.836 -26 Td
1 Tw
(Young contends that the UPS policy that does not provide) Tj
-12 -13.1 Td
.33 Tw
(light duty work to pregnant workers but does for certain other) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.24 Tw
(employees constitutes direct evidence of discrimination. It is) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.25 Tw
(certainly true that an explicit policy excluding pregnant work-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
4.9 Tw
(ers would violate antidiscrimination law. ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(See) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( 29 C.F.R.) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.44 Tw
() Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
1.44 Tw
(1604.10\(a\) \("A written or unwritten employment policy or) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
5.11 Tw
(practice which excludes from employment applicants or) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.34 Tw
(employees because of pregnancy, childbirth or related medi-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.19 Tw
(cal conditions is in prima facie violation of title VII."\). But no) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.62 Tw
(such policy exists here. By limiting accommodations to those) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.63 Tw
(employees injured on the job, disabled as defined under the) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
4.41 Tw
(ADA, and stripped of their DOT certification, UPS has) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.03 Tw
(crafted a pregnancy-blind policy, and Young does not contend) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.54 Tw
(otherwise. Such a policy is at least facially a "neutral and) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.92 Tw
(legitimate business practice," and not evidence of UPS's dis-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.47 Tw
(criminatory animus toward pregnant workers. ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Merritt v. Old) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
3 Tw
(Dominion Freight Line, Inc.) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 601 F.3d 289, 297 \(4th Cir.) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.2 Tw
(2010\).) Tj
12 -26 Td
.11 Tw
(Young and the ACLU argue, however, that UPS's policy of) Tj
-12 -13.1 Td
1.66 Tw
(accommodating certain employees but not pregnant workers) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.17 Tw
(who are otherwise allegedly similar in their ability or inability) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.93 Tw
(to work nonetheless runs afoul of the PDA. In particular, the) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.07 Tw
(ACLU contends that the PDA explicitly alters the traditional) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.25 Tw
(sex discrimination analysis under Title VII by restricting the) Tj
1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
445 -136.5 Td
1.1 Tw
0 Tc
(15) Tj
-172.2962 0 Td
(Y) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(OUNG) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( v. UPS) Tj
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0 G
.5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s
Q
endstream
endobj
55 0 obj
3426
endobj
53 0 obj
<<
/Type /Page
/MediaBox [0 0 612 792]
/Parent 49 0 R
/Resources <<
/Font <<
/F1 6 0 R
/F2 7 0 R
/F4 9 0 R
/F5 17 0 R
>>
/ProcSet 1 0 R
>>
/Contents 54 0 R
>>
endobj
%%Page: 16 16
57 0 obj
<<
/Length 58 0 R
>>
stream
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -8.4 Td
1.28 Tw
0 Tc
(basis upon which employers may compare pregnant workers) Tj
0 -13.3 Td
1.91 Tw
(with nonpregnant workers. At its core, this argument posits) Tj
0 -13.3 Td
1.72 Tw
(that the PDA creates a cause of action distinct from that of) Tj
/F5 6 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -13.3 Td
0 Tw
() Tj
( ) Tj
(703\(a\)) Tj
4.9 Ts
/F5 6 Tf 100 Tz
(13) Tj
0 Ts
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( by compelling employers to grant pregnant employ-) Tj
0 -13.3 Td
1.02 Tw
(ees a "most favored nation" status with others based on their) Tj
0 -13.3 Td
1.41 Tw
(ability to work, regardless of whether such status was avail-) Tj
0 -13.3 Td
5 Tw
(able to the universemale and femaleof nonpregnant) Tj
0 -13.3 Td
.87 Tw
(employees. Considering the history and structure of the PDA) Tj
0 -13.3 Td
.37 Tw
(and the consequences of interpreting it in this way, we cannot) Tj
0 -13.3 Td
1.2 Tw
(agree.) Tj
12 -26.4 Td
.33 Tw
(Passed in 1978 to overrule the Supreme Court's decision in) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
-12 -13.3 Td
2.84 Tw
(General Electric Co. v. Gilbert) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 429 U.S. 125 \(1976\), the) Tj
0 -13.3 Td
2.66 Tw
(PDA added pregnancy-related discrimination to Title VII's) Tj
0 -13.3 Td
2.83 Tw
(general prohibition on sex discrimination. Congress placed) Tj
0 -13.3 Td
.62 Tw
(the entirety of the PDA into the "Definitions" section of Title) Tj
0 -13.3 Td
1.2 Tw
(VII:) Tj
22 -26.3 Td
1.04 Tw
(The terms "because of sex" or "on the basis of sex") Tj
0 -13.3 Td
1.13 Tw
(include, but are not limited to, because of or on the) Tj
0 -13.3 Td
3.45 Tw
(basis of pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical) Tj
0 -13.3 Td
.05 Tw
(conditions; and women affected by pregnancy, child-) Tj
0 -13.3 Td
1.71 Tw
(birth, or related medical conditions shall be treated) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
6.66 Tw
(the same for all employment-related purposes,) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
3.78 Tw
(including receipt of benefits under fringe benefit) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
.96 Tw
(programs, as other persons not so affected but simi-) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
1.2 Tw
(lar in their ability or inability to work . . . .) Tj
-22 -26.3 Td
2.65 Tw
(42 U.S.C. ) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
2.65 Tw
(2000e\(k\). As the Supreme Court subsequently) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
.86 Tw
(recognized, the PDA "makes clear that it is discriminatory to) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
2.45 Tw
(treat pregnancy-related conditions less favorably than other) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
.15 Tw
(medical conditions." ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Newport News Shipbuilding & Dry Dock) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
1.2 Tw
(Co. v. EEOC) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 462 U.S. 669, 684 \(1983\).) Tj
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
10 -26 Td
4.1 Ts
/F5 6 Tf 100 Tz
(13) Tj
0 Ts
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
(Section 703\(a\) prohibits employers from discriminating against "any) Tj
-10 -11.2 Td
1.54 Tw
(individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privi-) Tj
0 -11.2 Td
.69 Tw
(leges of employment [) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
.69 Tw
(] because of such individual's . . . sex." 42 U.S.C.) Tj
0 -11.2 Td
1 Tw
() Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
1 Tw
(2000e-2\(a\)\(1\). ) Tj
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 cm
0 G
.5 w 0 -444.15 m 300 -444.15 l s
Q
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
156 -136.5 Td
1.1 Tw
0 Tc
(16) Tj
116.7038 0 Td
(Y) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(OUNG) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( v. UPS) Tj
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0 G
.5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s
Q
endstream
endobj
58 0 obj
3509
endobj
56 0 obj
<<
/Type /Page
/MediaBox [0 0 612 792]
/Parent 49 0 R
/Resources <<
/Font <<
/F1 6 0 R
/F2 7 0 R
/F4 9 0 R
/F5 17 0 R
>>
/ProcSet 1 0 R
>>
/Contents 57 0 R
>>
endobj
%%Page: 17 17
60 0 obj
<<
/Length 61 0 R
>>
stream
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
12 -8.4 Td
6.46 Tw
0 Tc
(In addition to including pregnancy-related conditions) Tj
-12 -13 Td
1.4 Tw
(within the definition of sex discrimination in its first clause,) Tj
0 -13 Td
1.88 Tw
(the PDA's second clause provides that "women affected by) Tj
0 -13 Td
1.09 Tw
(pregnancy . . . shall be treated the same for all employment-) Tj
0 -13 Td
.3 Tw
(related purposes . . . as other persons not so affected but simi-) Tj
0 -13 Td
.37 Tw
(lar in their ability or inability to work." 42 U.S.C. ) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
.37 Tw
(2000e\(k\).) Tj
0 -13 Td
1.46 Tw
(Standing alone, the second clause's plain language is unam-) Tj
0 -13 Td
1.22 Tw
(biguous. ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(See ) Tj
(Int'l Union v. Johnson Controls) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 499 U.S. 187,) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.23 Tw
(204-05 \(1991\) \("The second clause could not be clearer: it) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.16 Tw
(mandates that pregnant employees `shall be treated the same) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.45 Tw
(for all employment-related purposes' as nonpregnant employ-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.04 Tw
(ees similarly situated with respect to their ability to work.") Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.91 Tw
(\(quoting ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(California Fed. Savings and Loan Ass'n. v. Guerra) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(,) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
3.16 Tw
(479 U.S. 272, 297 \(1987\) \(White, J., dissenting\) \(internal) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.03 Tw
(alterations omitted\)\)\). But the second clause does not stand) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.22 Tw
(alone; it follows the first clause. Confusion arises when trying) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.44 Tw
(to reconcile language in the first clause suggesting the PDA) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.14 Tw
(simply expands the category of sex discrimination \(without) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
3.53 Tw
(otherwise altering Title VII\), and language in the second) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.45 Tw
(clause suggesting the statute requires differentperhaps even) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.2 Tw
(preferentialtreatment for pregnant workers.) Tj
12 -26 Td
1.55 Tw
(Although the second clause can be read broadly, we con-) Tj
-12 -13.1 Td
2.47 Tw
(clude that its placement in the definitional section of Title) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.03 Tw
(VII, and grounding within the confines of sex discrimination) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.06 Tw
(under ) Tj
0 Tw
( ) Tj
1.06 Tw
(703, make clear that it does not create a distinct and) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.46 Tw
(independent cause of action. We further note the anomalous) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
3.66 Tw
(consequences a contrary position would cause: pregnancy) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.52 Tw
(would be treated more favorably than any other basis, includ-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
4.54 Tw
(ing non-pregnancy-related sex discrimination, covered by) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.2 Tw
(Title VII.) Tj
12 -26 Td
1.1 Tw
(Most courts to have considered the potential incongruence) Tj
-12 -13.1 Td
1.5 Tw
(between the PDA's first and second clauses have concluded) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.13 Tw
(similarly. ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(See ) Tj
(Troupe v. May Dep't Stores Co.) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 20 F.3d 734,) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.35 Tw
(738 \(7th Cir. 1994\) \("The Pregnancy Discrimination Act does) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
3.53 Tw
(not, despite the urgings of feminist scholars . . . require) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.2 Tw
(employers to offer maternity leave or take other steps to make) Tj
1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
445 -136.5 Td
1.1 Tw
0 Tc
(17) Tj
-172.2962 0 Td
(Y) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(OUNG) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( v. UPS) Tj
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0 G
.5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s
Q
endstream
endobj
61 0 obj
3614
endobj
59 0 obj
<<
/Type /Page
/MediaBox [0 0 612 792]
/Parent 49 0 R
/Resources <<
/Font <<
/F1 6 0 R
/F2 7 0 R
/F4 9 0 R
>>
/ProcSet 1 0 R
>>
/Contents 60 0 R
>>
endobj
%%Page: 18 18
63 0 obj
<<
/Length 64 0 R
>>
stream
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -8.4 Td
2.22 Tw
0 Tc
(it easier for pregnant women to work. Employers can treat) Tj
0 -13 Td
1.14 Tw
(pregnant women as badly as they treat similarly affected but) Tj
0 -13 Td
2.37 Tw
(nonpregnant employees . . . ." \(citation omitted\)\); ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(see also) Tj
0 -13 Td
1.62 Tw
(Serednyj v. Beverly Healthcare, LLC) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 656 F.3d 540, 548-49) Tj
0 -13 Td
1.76 Tw
(\(7th Cir. 2011\); ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Reeves v. Swift Transp. Co.) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 446 F.3d 637,) Tj
0 -13 Td
1.3 Tw
(641 \(6th Cir. 2006\); ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Spivey v. Beverly Enter., Inc.) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 196 F.3d) Tj
0 -13 Td
2.07 Tw
(1309, 1312-13 \(11th Cir. 1999\); ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Urbano v. Cont'l Airlines,) Tj
0 -13 Td
.94 Tw
(Inc.) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 138 F.3d 204, 207-08 \(5th Cir. 1998\) \("By defining sex) Tj
0 -13 Td
.1 Tw
(discrimination under Title VII to include pregnancy, Congress) Tj
0 -13 Td
1.52 Tw
(intended to do no more than `re-establish principles of Title) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.27 Tw
(VII law as they had been understood prior to the ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Gilbert) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( deci-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.07 Tw
(sion,' and ensure that female workers would not be treated) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
3.18 Tw
(`differently from other employees simply because of their) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
4.91 Tw
(capacity to bear children.'" \(citations omitted\)\); ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(but see) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
3.7 Tw
(Ensley-Gaines v. Runyon) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 100 F.3d 1220, 1226 \(6th Cir.) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.13 Tw
(1996\) \("[W]hen a Title VII litigant alleges discrimination on) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.88 Tw
(the basis of pregnancy in violation of the PDA, in order to) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.81 Tw
(establish a prima facie case of discrimination, she must dem-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.91 Tw
(onstrate only that another employee who is similarly situated) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.81 Tw
(in her or his ability or inability to work received more favor-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.55 Tw
(able benefits."\). These courts reason that to find otherwise) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
3.07 Tw
(would be to transform an antidiscrimination statute into a) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.66 Tw
(requirement to provide accommodation to pregnant employ-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
4.75 Tw
(ees, perhaps even at the expense of other, nonpregnant) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.2 Tw
(employees.) Tj
12 -26 Td
.92 Tw
(Interpreting the PDA in the manner Young and the ACLU) Tj
-12 -13.1 Td
5.28 Tw
(urge would require employers to provide, for example,) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
3.83 Tw
(accommodation or light duty work to a pregnant worker) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
4.45 Tw
(whose restrictions arise from her \(off-the-job\) pregnancy) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
4.32 Tw
(while denying any such accommodation to an employee) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.18 Tw
(unable to lift as a result of an off-the-job injury or illness.) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.28 Tw
(Under this interpretation, a pregnant worker who, like Young,) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.74 Tw
(was placed under a lifting restriction by her healthcare pro-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.27 Tw
(vider and could not work could claim that the PDA requires) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
3.85 Tw
(that she receive whatever accommodation or benefits are) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
3.24 Tw
(accorded to an individual accommodated under the ADA,) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.33 Tw
(because the pregnant worker and the other individual are sim-) Tj
1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
156 -136.5 Td
1.1 Tw
0 Tc
(18) Tj
116.7038 0 Td
(Y) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(OUNG) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( v. UPS) Tj
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0 G
.5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s
Q
endstream
endobj
64 0 obj
3750
endobj
62 0 obj
<<
/Type /Page
/MediaBox [0 0 612 792]
/Parent 49 0 R
/Resources <<
/Font <<
/F1 6 0 R
/F2 7 0 R
/F4 9 0 R
>>
/ProcSet 1 0 R
>>
/Contents 63 0 R
>>
endobj
%%Page: 19 19
66 0 obj
<<
/Length 67 0 R
>>
stream
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -8.4 Td
.43 Tw
0 Tc
(ilar in their ability or inability to worki.e., they both cannot) Tj
0 -13 Td
.33 Tw
(work. By contrast, a temporary lifting restriction placed on an) Tj
0 -13 Td
2.03 Tw
(employee who injured his back while picking up his infant) Tj
0 -13 Td
1.51 Tw
(child or on an employee whose lifting limitation arose from) Tj
0 -13 Td
.55 Tw
(her off-the-job work as a volunteer firefighter would be ineli-) Tj
0 -13 Td
.46 Tw
(gible for any accommodation. Such an interpretation does not) Tj
0 -13 Td
.81 Tw
(accord with Congress's intent in enacting the PDA, ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(see ) Tj
(Arm-) Tj
0 -13 Td
3.87 Tw
(strong v. Flowers Hosp.) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 33 F.3d 1308, 1317 \(11th Cir.) Tj
0 -13 Td
.71 Tw
(1994\)\("Statements in the legislative history make it clear that) Tj
0 -13 Td
.87 Tw
(the PDA does not require employers to extend any benefit to) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.27 Tw
(pregnant women that they do not already provide to other dis-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.01 Tw
(abled employees."\), and would thus imbue the PDA with a) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.55 Tw
(preferential treatment mandate that Congress neither intended) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.42 Tw
(nor enacted, ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(see ) Tj
(Urbano) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 138 F.3d at 208 \("[Plaintiff]'s claim) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.83 Tw
(is thus not a request for relief from discrimination, but rather) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1 Tw
(a demand for preferential treatment; it is a demand not satis-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.2 Tw
(fied by the PDA."\).) Tj
12 -26 Td
1.42 Tw
(We are unpersuaded that ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Ensley-Gaines) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, on which Young) Tj
-12 -13.1 Td
1.48 Tw
(and the ACLU as amicus rely, effects the watershed change) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.81 Tw
(they ascribe to it. Although the court in ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Ensley-Gaines) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( stated) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.04 Tw
(the second clause "explicitly alters the analysis to be applied) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.93 Tw
(in pregnancy discrimination cases," 100 F.3d at 1226, it ana-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.47 Tw
(lyzed the plaintiff's challenge to the United States Postal Ser-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1 Tw
(vice's policya policy akin to the one challenged herenot) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.53 Tw
(as direct evidence of sex discrimination, but as circumstantial) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
5.06 Tw
(evidence under the ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(McDonnell Douglas) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( framework. ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(See) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.12 Tw
(Reeves) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 446 F.3d at 641 n.1 \(noting ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Ensley-Gaines) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( primarily) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.92 Tw
(concerned whether the plaintiff had established a prima facie) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.15 Tw
(case under the Title VII analysis\). Moreover, given the trou-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.82 Tw
(bling consequences just outlined of interpreting the PDA in) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.41 Tw
(this broad manner, ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(see ) Tj
(Urbano) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 138 F.3d at 208 \("The impact) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.47 Tw
(of ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Ensley-Gaines) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( is unequivocally to treat pregnant employ-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.47 Tw
(ees who need light duty work better than other employees) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.58 Tw
(with a similar medical need whose conditions arose off-the-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.67 Tw
(job."\), it is unsurprising that no other circuit has followed) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -13.1 Td
1.61 Tw
(Ensley-Gaines) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(. We are similarly compelled to disagree with) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.2 Tw
(its analysis.) Tj
1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
445 -136.5 Td
1.1 Tw
0 Tc
(19) Tj
-172.2962 0 Td
(Y) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(OUNG) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( v. UPS) Tj
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0 G
.5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s
Q
endstream
endobj
67 0 obj
3960
endobj
65 0 obj
<<
/Type /Page
/MediaBox [0 0 612 792]
/Parent 68 0 R
/Resources <<
/Font <<
/F1 6 0 R
/F2 7 0 R
/F4 9 0 R
>>
/ProcSet 1 0 R
>>
/Contents 66 0 R
>>
endobj
%%Page: 20 20
70 0 obj
<<
/Length 71 0 R
>>
stream
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
12 -8.4 Td
.6 Tw
0 Tc
(We therefore adhere to the majority view that where a pol-) Tj
-12 -13 Td
2.2 Tw
(icy treats pregnant workers and nonpregnant workers alike,) Tj
0 -13 Td
.7 Tw
(the employer has complied with the PDA. The UPS policy at) Tj
0 -13 Td
1 Tw
(issue is not direct evidence of pregnancy-based sex discrimi-) Tj
0 -13 Td
1.2 Tw
(nation.) Tj
145.5 -26 Td
(b.) Tj
-133.5 -26 Td
3.11 Tw
(We next consider whether Myron Williams's comments) Tj
-12 -13 Td
2.86 Tw
(demonstrate "corporate animus" on the part of UPS tanta-) Tj
0 -13 Td
1.42 Tw
(mount to direct evidence of discrimination.) Tj
4.9 Ts
/F5 6 Tf 100 Tz
(14) Tj
0 Ts
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( Young focused) Tj
0 -13 Td
4 Tw
(below on Williams's comments alone, but now contends) Tj
0 -13 Td
.47 Tw
(those comments amount to evidence of UPS's "corporate ani-) Tj
0 -13 Td
.2 Tw
(mus." The district court rejected her previous argument on the) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.81 Tw
(ground that Williams wielded no decisionmaking power over) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
3.51 Tw
(Young.) Tj
4.9 Ts
/F5 6 Tf 100 Tz
(15) Tj
0 Ts
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(See) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( J.A. 402; ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(see also ) Tj
(Hill v. Lockheed Martin) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.55 Tw
(Logistics Mgmt., Inc.) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 354 F.3d 277, 288-89 \(4th Cir. 2004\)) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.71 Tw
(\(noting that although "the person allegedly acting pursuant to) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.75 Tw
(a discriminatory animus need not be the `formal decision-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.66 Tw
(maker' to impose liability upon an employer for an adverse) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.21 Tw
(employment action," the plaintiff must present "sufficient evi-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.03 Tw
(dence to establish that the subordinate was the one `princi-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.75 Tw
(pally responsible' for, or the `actual decisionmaker' behind,) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
3.2 Tw
(the action"\). Young's argument on appeal that Williams's) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.11 Tw
(comments manifest UPS's corporate animus towards pregnant) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.5 Tw
(workers finds no support in the record; Williams's statements) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
3.07 Tw
(stand alone as the only explicit evidence of a pregnancy-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
8.54 Tw
(related comment, derogatory or otherwise. Moreover,) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
0 Tw
(Young's reliance on ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Merritt) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 601 F.3d 289, and ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Staub v. Proc-) Tj
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
10 -25.8 Td
4.1 Ts
/F5 6 Tf 100 Tz
.45 Tw
(14) Tj
0 Ts
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
(Although Williams denies telling Young that her pregnancy made her) Tj
-10 -11.2 Td
.96 Tw
(a liability and that she should return home until she was no longer preg-) Tj
0 -11.2 Td
2.29 Tw
(nant, the procedural posture of this case requires us to accept as true) Tj
0 -11.2 Td
1 Tw
(Young's account. ) Tj
10 -13.9 Td
4.1 Ts
/F5 6 Tf 100 Tz
.45 Tw
(15) Tj
0 Ts
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
(In fact, Young argues that "it is misguided to look to ) Tj
/F4 10 Tf 100 Tz
(either) Tj
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
( Martin ) Tj
/F4 10 Tf 100 Tz
(or) Tj
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
-10 -11.2 Td
1.1 Tw
(Williams as `the' decisionmaker;" each of them was simply "enforc[ing]) Tj
0 -11.2 Td
3.24 Tw
([UPS's] standing policy by announcing that Young must go home.") Tj
0 -11.2 Td
1.21 Tw
(Appellant's Br. at 54. Thus, Young's "corporate animus" argument is in) Tj
0 -11.2 Td
1 Tw
(essence another attack on UPS's policy. ) Tj
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 cm
0 G
.5 w 0 -385.55 m 300 -385.55 l s
Q
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
156 -136.5 Td
1.1 Tw
0 Tc
(20) Tj
116.7038 0 Td
(Y) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(OUNG) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( v. UPS) Tj
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0 G
.5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s
Q
endstream
endobj
71 0 obj
3907
endobj
69 0 obj
<<
/Type /Page
/MediaBox [0 0 612 792]
/Parent 68 0 R
/Resources <<
/Font <<
/F1 6 0 R
/F2 7 0 R
/F4 9 0 R
/F5 17 0 R
>>
/ProcSet 1 0 R
>>
/Contents 70 0 R
>>
endobj
%%Page: 21 21
73 0 obj
<<
/Length 74 0 R
>>
stream
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -8.4 Td
.23 Tw
0 Tc
(tor Hosp.) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 131 S. Ct. 1186 \(2011\), is inapposite as those cases) Tj
0 -12.9 Td
1 Tw
(involved non-decisionmaker colleagues whose pervasive ani-) Tj
0 -12.9 Td
2 Tw
(mus for the plaintiff influenced the ultimate decisionmaker.) Tj
0 -12.9 Td
.75 Tw
(No such evidence exists here: Williams neither possessed the) Tj
0 -12.9 Td
.66 Tw
(authority to make determinations about Young's employment) Tj
0 -12.9 Td
1.2 Tw
(nor sought to influence Martin, who did.) Tj
4.9 Ts
/F5 6 Tf 100 Tz
.5 Tw
(16) Tj
0 Ts
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
145.5 -25.6 Td
1.2 Tw
(2.) Tj
-133.5 -25.6 Td
1.85 Tw
(Because Young presents no direct evidence of pregnancy) Tj
-12 -12.9 Td
.85 Tw
(discrimination, we next consider whether she offers evidence) Tj
0 -12.9 Td
.07 Tw
(sufficient to make out a prima facie case under the ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(McDonnell) Tj
0 -12.9 Td
4.45 Tw
(Douglas) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( framework. Under this framework, Young must) Tj
0 -12.9 Td
.27 Tw
(establish a prima facie case of sex discrimination on her preg-) Tj
0 -12.9 Td
.08 Tw
(nancy claim by showing "\(1\) membership in a protected class;) Tj
0 -12.9 Td
3.78 Tw
(\(2\) satisfactory job performance; \(3\) adverse employment) Tj
0 -12.9 Td
1.75 Tw
(action; and \(4\) that similarly-situated employees outside the) Tj
0 -12.9 Td
.6 Tw
(protected class received more favorable treatment." ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Gerner v.) Tj
0 -12.9 Td
3.54 Tw
(Cnty. of Chesterfield) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 674 F.3d 264, 266 \(4th Cir. 2012\)) Tj
0 -13 Td
1 Tw
(\(quoting ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(White v. BFI Waste Servs., LLC) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 375 F.3d 288, 295) Tj
0 -13 Td
4.05 Tw
(\(4th Cir.2004\)\) \(internal alterations omitted\).) Tj
4.9 Ts
/F5 6 Tf 100 Tz
(17) Tj
0 Ts
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( Again, the) Tj
0 -13 Td
1.2 Tw
(focus of her challenge is the UPS policy.) Tj
12 -25.6 Td
.1 Tw
(Young fell within the protected class, raised at least a genu-) Tj
-12 -13 Td
.3 Tw
(ine issue of material fact regarding her job performance,) Tj
4.9 Ts
/F5 6 Tf 100 Tz
(18) Tj
0 Ts
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( and) Tj
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
10 -25.6 Td
4.1 Ts
/F5 6 Tf 100 Tz
.81 Tw
(16) Tj
0 Ts
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
(The single statement Young offers from a co-worker suggesting "no-) Tj
-10 -11 Td
.92 Tw
(body would have stopped" a manager like Williams from placing Young) Tj
0 -11 Td
.28 Tw
(on light duty because "[t]hat is just how it works," ) Tj
/F4 10 Tf 100 Tz
(see) Tj
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
( J.A. 539, is insuffi-) Tj
0 -11 Td
1.31 Tw
(cient to create a genuine issue of disputed material fact. Even assuming) Tj
0 -11 Td
2.28 Tw
(Williams did have such authority to decide whether Young should be) Tj
0 -11 Td
1.73 Tw
(given light duty, Young offers no reason to conclude that he would or) Tj
0 -11 Td
.28 Tw
(should have interpreted UPS policy regarding the availability of light duty) Tj
0 -11 Td
1 Tw
(for pregnant employees any differently than Martin did. ) Tj
10 -13.8 Td
4.1 Ts
/F5 6 Tf 100 Tz
1.17 Tw
(17) Tj
0 Ts
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
(We have also described the fourth prong as considering whether the) Tj
-10 -11 Td
3.03 Tw
(allegedly adverse employment action occurred "under circumstance[s]) Tj
0 -11 Td
.12 Tw
(giving rise to an inference of unlawful discrimination." ) Tj
/F4 10 Tf 100 Tz
(Mackey v. Shalala) Tj
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
(,) Tj
0 -11 Td
1 Tw
(360 F.3d 463, 468 \(4th Cir. 2004\). ) Tj
10 -13.8 Td
4.1 Ts
/F5 6 Tf 100 Tz
.07 Tw
(18) Tj
0 Ts
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
(UPS argues that Young cannot satisfy the second element of the prima) Tj
-10 -11 Td
.18 Tw
(facie case because the lifting restriction rendered her unqualified for an air) Tj
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 cm
0 G
.5 w 0 -329.35 m 300 -329.35 l s
Q
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
445 -136.5 Td
1.1 Tw
0 Tc
(21) Tj
-172.2962 0 Td
(Y) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(OUNG) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( v. UPS) Tj
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0 G
.5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s
Q
endstream
endobj
74 0 obj
4197
endobj
72 0 obj
<<
/Type /Page
/MediaBox [0 0 612 792]
/Parent 68 0 R
/Resources <<
/Font <<
/F1 6 0 R
/F2 7 0 R
/F4 9 0 R
/F5 17 0 R
>>
/ProcSet 1 0 R
>>
/Contents 73 0 R
>>
endobj
%%Page: 22 22
76 0 obj
<<
/Length 77 0 R
>>
stream
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -8.4 Td
1.91 Tw
0 Tc
(suffered an adverse employment action when she could not) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1 Tw
(continue working. Thus, the dispute here centers on the final) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.61 Tw
(element of the prima facie case: whether similarly-situated) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2.24 Tw
(employees outside the protected class received more favor-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.33 Tw
(able treatment than Young, or more broadly, whether UPS's) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.08 Tw
(decision to prevent Young from either receiving an accommo-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.54 Tw
(dation or returning to work occurred "under circumstance[s]) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
5.11 Tw
(giving rise to an inference of unlawful discrimination.") Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -13.1 Td
3.58 Tw
(Mackey) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 360 F.3d at 468. In particular, Young and UPS) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.34 Tw
(sharply disagree about who constitutes an appropriate "com-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
1.2 Tw
(parator" in this context.) Tj
12 -26.1 Td
1.91 Tw
(At bottom Young seeks to compare herself to employees) Tj
-12 -13.1 Td
2.03 Tw
(accommodated under the ADA, drivers who have lost their) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
.38 Tw
(DOT certification for medical reasons, and employees injured) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
.57 Tw
(on the job. As we have already noted, however, these accom-) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
2.28 Tw
(modations were created by a neutral, pregnancy-blind poli-) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
1.83 Tw
(cya policy she can attack indirectly no more successfully) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
1.2 Tw
(than she could directly.) Tj
12 -26.2 Td
1.71 Tw
(Moreover, we conclude that a pregnant worker subject to) Tj
-12 -13.2 Td
1.04 Tw
(a temporary lifting restriction is not similar in her "ability or) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
.01 Tw
(inability to work" to an employee disabled within the meaning) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
1.22 Tw
(of the ADA or an employee either prevented from operating) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
.33 Tw
(a vehicle as a result of losing her DOT certification or injured) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
.23 Tw
(on the job. Young is dissimilar to an employee disabled under) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
.03 Tw
(the ADA for the same reason she herself was not disabled: her) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
1.16 Tw
(lifting limitation was temporary and not a significant restric-) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
2.9 Tw
(tion on her ability to perform major life activities. She is) Tj
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
0 -26 Td
1.58 Tw
(driver position. ) Tj
/F4 10 Tf 100 Tz
(See) Tj
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
( Appellant's Br. at 48-51. UPS raised this argument) Tj
0 -11.2 Td
.71 Tw
(below, ) Tj
/F4 10 Tf 100 Tz
(see) Tj
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
( J.A. 168-69, but the district court did not address it. Although) Tj
0 -11.2 Td
1.63 Tw
(there is \(out-of-circuit\) case law supporting UPS's position, ) Tj
/F4 10 Tf 100 Tz
(see ) Tj
(Spivey) Tj
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
(,) Tj
0 -11.2 Td
.51 Tw
(196 F.3d at 1312 \("The [twenty-five pound] lifting restriction imposed on) Tj
0 -11.2 Td
1.52 Tw
([the plaintiff] clearly prevented her from performing the responsibilities) Tj
0 -11.2 Td
0 Tw
(required of this position."\), the record also indicates Young may have been) Tj
0 -11.2 Td
.17 Tw
(able to perform satisfactorily even with the restriction. At a minimum, this) Tj
0 -11.2 Td
1.17 Tw
(is a disputed issue of material fact inappropriate for a court to decide at) Tj
0 -11.2 Td
1 Tw
(the summary judgment stage. ) Tj
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 cm
0 G
.5 w 0 -388.15 m 300 -388.15 l s
Q
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
156 -136.5 Td
1.1 Tw
0 Tc
(22) Tj
116.7038 0 Td
(Y) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(OUNG) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( v. UPS) Tj
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0 G
.5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s
Q
endstream
endobj
77 0 obj
3758
endobj
75 0 obj
<<
/Type /Page
/MediaBox [0 0 612 792]
/Parent 68 0 R
/Resources <<
/Font <<
/F1 6 0 R
/F2 7 0 R
/F4 9 0 R
/F5 17 0 R
>>
/ProcSet 1 0 R
>>
/Contents 76 0 R
>>
endobj
%%Page: 23 23
79 0 obj
<<
/Length 80 0 R
>>
stream
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -8.4 Td
.33 Tw
0 Tc
(unlike employees guaranteed an inside job or light duty under) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
.63 Tw
(the CBA provision) Tj
4.9 Ts
/F5 6 Tf 100 Tz
(19) Tj
0 Ts
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( for drivers who have lost DOT certifica-) Tj
0 -13.1 Td
2 Tw
(tion for at least two reasons. First, no legal obstacle stands) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
1.47 Tw
(between her and her work. A driver who has lost his or her) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
.08 Tw
(DOT certification is legally disabled from operating a vehicle;) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
.12 Tw
(Young's physical impairment only restricted her ability to lift.) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
.45 Tw
(Second, as the district court observed, "those with DOT certi-) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
3.58 Tw
(fication maintained the ability to perform any number of) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
3.52 Tw
(demanding physical tasks, while Young labored under an) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
3.3 Tw
(apparent inability to perform tasks involving lifting." J.A.) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
.13 Tw
(411. Finally, Young is not similar to employees injured on the) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
.46 Tw
(job because, quite simply, her inability to work does not arise) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
.62 Tw
(from an on-the-job injury. The CBA provision requiring UPS) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
1.47 Tw
(to accommodate those employees injured while carrying out) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
.2 Tw
(job duties for the company but not while pursuing other activ-) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
3 Tw
(ities reasonably places a heightened obligation on UPS to) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
0 Tw
(accommodate the former group. The PDA does not render this) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
1.2 Tw
(distinction unlawful.) Tj
12 -26.2 Td
2.05 Tw
(We are also unpersuaded that Martin's decision occurred) Tj
-12 -13.2 Td
1.22 Tw
(under circumstances "giving rise to an inference of unlawful) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
4.58 Tw
(discrimination." ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(Mackey) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
(, 360 F.3d at 468. According to) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
1.9 Tw
(Young, these circumstances consist of \(1\) Martin's solicita-) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
2.33 Tw
(tion of a doctor's note from Young identifying her restric-) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
.84 Tw
(tions; \(2\) Martin's statement that UPS policy did not provide) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
.16 Tw
(light duty for pregnant workers; and \(3\) Williams's comments) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
.7 Tw
(about Young as a liability while pregnant. However, with the) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
1.62 Tw
(exception of Williams's comments, which played no role in) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
1.03 Tw
(Martin's decision, these facts fail to demonstrate the specific) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
.53 Tw
(animus Young ascribes to them. Even assuming Martin solic-) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
1.63 Tw
(ited a note from Young, there is no indication that this was) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
2.88 Tw
(not done with all employees returning from leave, or that) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
2.53 Tw
(Martin did so ) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
(because) Tj
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
( Young was pregnant. And Martin's) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
2.41 Tw
(statement about UPS's policy providing light duty in three) Tj
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
10 -26 Td
4.1 Ts
/F5 6 Tf 100 Tz
.05 Tw
(19) Tj
0 Ts
/F2 10 Tf 100 Tz
(Although Young also contends that the CBA was negotiated and inter-) Tj
-10 -11.2 Td
.03 Tw
(preted with discriminatory animus, she presents no support for this conten-) Tj
0 -11.2 Td
1 Tw
(tion in the record. ) Tj
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 cm
0 G
.5 w 0 -455.35 m 300 -455.35 l s
Q
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
445 -136.5 Td
1.1 Tw
0 Tc
(23) Tj
-172.2962 0 Td
(Y) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(OUNG) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( v. UPS) Tj
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0 G
.5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s
Q
endstream
endobj
80 0 obj
3712
endobj
78 0 obj
<<
/Type /Page
/MediaBox [0 0 612 792]
/Parent 68 0 R
/Resources <<
/Font <<
/F1 6 0 R
/F2 7 0 R
/F4 9 0 R
/F5 17 0 R
>>
/ProcSet 1 0 R
>>
/Contents 79 0 R
>>
endobj
%%Page: 24 24
82 0 obj
<<
/Length 83 0 R
>>
stream
q
BT
0 Tr
0 g
1 0 0 1 156 643.5 Tm
/F2 12 Tf 100 Tz
0 -8.4 Td
.53 Tw
0 Tc
(instancesbut not for pregnancyis simply one of fact. One) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
1.32 Tw
(may characterize the UPS policy as insufficiently charitable,) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
1.47 Tw
(but a lack of charity does not amount to discriminatory ani-) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
1.2 Tw
(mus directed at a protected class of employees.) Tj
12 -26.2 Td
.57 Tw
(Accordingly, we conclude that Young cannot establish that) Tj
-12 -13.2 Td
2.45 Tw
(similarly situated employees received more favorable treat-) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
1.7 Tw
(ment than she did, and therefore cannot establish the fourth) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
.62 Tw
(element of the prima facie case for pregnancy discrimination.) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
2 Tw
(While not unsympathetic to Young's circumstances, we are) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
.14 Tw
(nevertheless concerned about the problematic potential of cre-) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
.39 Tw
(ating rights not grounded in the text and structure of Title VII) Tj
0 -13.2 Td
1.2 Tw
(as a whole.) Tj
142.506 -26.2 Td
(III.) Tj
-130.506 -26.2 Td
(We therefore affirm the decision of the district court.) Tj
/F4 12 Tf 100 Tz
228.684 -26.2 Td
(AFFIRMED) Tj
1 0 0 1 0 792 Tm
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
156 -136.5 Td
1.1 Tw
0 Tc
(24) Tj
116.7038 0 Td
(Y) Tj
/F2 7.7 Tf 101.2 Tz
.79 Tw
(OUNG) Tj
/F2 11 Tf 100 Tz
0 Ts
1.1 Tw
( v. UPS) Tj
ET
Q
q
1 0 0 1 0 792 cm
0 G
.5 w 156 -140.25 m 456 -140.25 l s
Q
endstream
endobj
83 0 obj
1463
endobj
81 0 obj
<<
/Type /Page
/MediaBox [0 0 612 792]
/Parent 68 0 R
/Resources <<
/Font <<
/F1 6 0 R
/F2 7 0 R
/F4 9 0 R
>>
/ProcSet 1 0 R
>>
/Contents 82 0 R
>>
endobj
1 0 obj
[ /PDF /Text ]
endobj
84 0 obj
<<
/Type /Encoding
/Differences [ 219 /Zcaron 135 /ccedilla 152 /ydieresis 243 /atilde 140 /icircumflex
31 /threesuperior 136 /ecircumflex 146 /thorn 138 /egrave 30 /twosuperior 130 /eacute
254 /otilde 155 /Aacute 147 /ocircumflex 217 /yacute 129 /udieresis 247 /threequarters
131 /acircumflex 190 /Eth 137 /edieresis 151 /ugrave 223 /trademark 149 /ograve 215 /scaron
228 /Idieresis 218 /uacute 133 /agrave 210 /ntilde 134 /aring 220 /zcaron 226 /Icircumflex
209 /Ntilde 150 /ucircumflex 159 /Ecircumflex 224 /Iacute 128 /Ccedilla 153 /Odieresis
214 /Scaron 176 /Edieresis 229 /Igrave 132 /adieresis 236 /Ograve 181 /Egrave 242 /Ydieresis
221 /registered 237 /Otilde 244 /onequarter 240 /Ugrave 239 /Ucircumflex 145 /Thorn
25 /divide 158 /Atilde 238 /Uacute 231 /Ocircumflex 29 /logicalnot 143 /Aring 139 /idieresis
252 /iacute 160 /aacute 27 /plusminus 26 /multiply 154 /Udieresis 28 /minus 204 /onesuperior
144 /Eacute 156 /Acircumflex 222 /copyright 157 /Agrave 148 /odieresis 253 /oacute 127 /degree
141 /igrave 201 /mu 230 /Oacute 192 /eth 142 /Adieresis 216 /Yacute 255 /brokenbar 246 /onehalf
]
>>
endobj
85 0 obj
<<
/Type /FontDescriptor
/FontName /Times-Bold
/Flags 34
/FontBBox [ -168 -218 1000 935 ]
/MissingWidth 250
/StemV 139.00
/StemH 69.50
/ItalicAngle 0.00
/CapHeight 676
/XHeight 461
/Ascent 676
/Descent -205
/Leading 0
/MaxWidth 0
/AvgWidth 0
>>
endobj
6 0 obj
<<
/Type /Font
/Subtype /Type1
/Name /F1
/BaseFont /Times-Bold
/FirstChar 0
/LastChar 255
/Widths [ 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250
250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 570 570 570 570 570 300 300
250 333 555 500 500 1000 833 333 333 333 500 570 250 333 250 278
500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 333 333 570 570 570 500
930 722 667 722 722 667 611 778 778 389 500 778 667 944 722 778
611 778 722 556 667 722 722 1000 722 722 667 333 278 333 581 500
333 500 556 444 556 444 333 500 556 278 333 556 278 833 556 500
556 556 444 389 333 556 500 722 500 500 444 394 220 394 520 400
722 556 444 500 500 500 500 444 444 444 444 278 278 278 722 722
667 611 556 500 500 500 556 556 500 778 722 722 722 722 722 667
500 333 500 500 167 500 500 500 500 278 500 500 333 333 556 556
667 500 500 500 250 667 540 350 333 500 500 500 1000 1000 722 500
500 333 333 333 333 333 333 333 333 556 333 333 300 333 333 333
1000 722 556 250 250 250 556 389 722 500 556 667 444 747 747 1000
389 1000 389 300 389 389 778 778 667 778 1000 330 778 778 722 722
722 722 722 500 750 278 750 750 278 500 722 556 278 500 500 220 ]
/Encoding 84 0 R
/FontDescriptor 85 0 R
>>
endobj
86 0 obj
<<
/Type /Encoding
/Differences [ 219 /Zcaron 135 /ccedilla 152 /ydieresis 243 /atilde 140 /icircumflex
31 /threesuperior 136 /ecircumflex 146 /thorn 138 /egrave 30 /twosuperior 130 /eacute
254 /otilde 155 /Aacute 147 /ocircumflex 217 /yacute 129 /udieresis 247 /threequarters
131 /acircumflex 190 /Eth 137 /edieresis 151 /ugrave 223 /trademark 149 /ograve 215 /scaron
228 /Idieresis 218 /uacute 133 /agrave 210 /ntilde 134 /aring 220 /zcaron 226 /Icircumflex
209 /Ntilde 150 /ucircumflex 159 /Ecircumflex 224 /Iacute 128 /Ccedilla 153 /Odieresis
214 /Scaron 176 /Edieresis 229 /Igrave 132 /adieresis 236 /Ograve 181 /Egrave 242 /Ydieresis
221 /registered 237 /Otilde 244 /onequarter 240 /Ugrave 239 /Ucircumflex 145 /Thorn
25 /divide 158 /Atilde 238 /Uacute 231 /Ocircumflex 29 /logicalnot 143 /Aring 139 /idieresis
252 /iacute 160 /aacute 27 /plusminus 26 /multiply 154 /Udieresis 28 /minus 204 /onesuperior
144 /Eacute 156 /Acircumflex 222 /copyright 157 /Agrave 148 /odieresis 253 /oacute 127 /degree
141 /igrave 201 /mu 230 /Oacute 192 /eth 142 /Adieresis 216 /Yacute 255 /brokenbar 246 /onehalf
]
>>
endobj
87 0 obj
<<
/Type /FontDescriptor
/FontName /Times-Roman
/Flags 34
/FontBBox [ -168 -218 1000 898 ]
/MissingWidth 250
/StemV 84.00
/StemH 42.00
/ItalicAngle 0.00
/CapHeight 662
/XHeight 450
/Ascent 683
/Descent -217
/Leading 0
/MaxWidth 0
/AvgWidth 0
>>
endobj
7 0 obj
<<
/Type /Font
/Subtype /Type1
/Name /F2
/BaseFont /Times-Roman
/FirstChar 0
/LastChar 255
/Widths [ 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250
250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 564 564 564 564 564 300 300
250 333 408 500 500 833 778 333 333 333 500 564 250 333 250 278
500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 278 278 564 564 564 444
921 722 667 667 722 611 556 722 722 333 389 722 611 889 722 722
556 722 667 556 611 722 722 944 722 722 611 333 278 333 469 500
333 444 500 444 500 444 333 500 500 278 278 500 278 778 500 500
500 500 333 389 278 500 500 722 500 500 444 480 200 480 541 400
667 500 444 444 444 444 444 444 444 444 444 278 278 278 722 722
611 556 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 722 722 722 722 722 722 611
444 333 500 500 167 500 500 500 500 180 444 500 333 333 556 556
611 500 500 500 250 611 453 350 333 444 444 500 1000 1000 722 444
500 333 333 333 333 333 333 333 333 500 333 333 300 333 333 333
1000 722 500 250 250 250 556 389 722 500 500 611 444 760 760 980
333 889 333 276 333 333 722 722 611 722 889 310 722 722 722 722
722 667 722 444 750 278 750 750 278 500 722 500 278 500 500 200 ]
/Encoding 86 0 R
/FontDescriptor 87 0 R
>>
endobj
88 0 obj
<<
/Type /Encoding
/Differences [ 240 /apple ]
>>
endobj
89 0 obj
<<
/Type /FontDescriptor
/FontName /Symbol
/Flags 4
/FontBBox [ -180 -293 1090 1010 ]
/MissingWidth 250
/StemV 85.00
/StemH 42.50
/ItalicAngle 0.00
/CapHeight 0
/XHeight 0
/Ascent 0
/Descent 0
/Leading 0
/MaxWidth 0
/AvgWidth 0
>>
endobj
8 0 obj
<<
/Type /Font
/Subtype /Type1
/Name /F3
/BaseFont /Symbol
/FirstChar 0
/LastChar 255
/Widths [ 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250
250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250
250 333 713 500 549 833 778 439 333 333 500 549 250 549 250 278
500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 278 278 549 549 549 444
549 722 667 722 612 611 763 603 722 333 631 722 686 889 722 722
768 741 556 592 611 690 439 768 645 795 611 333 863 333 658 500
500 631 549 549 494 439 521 411 603 329 603 549 549 576 521 549
549 521 549 603 439 576 713 686 493 686 494 480 200 480 549 250
250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250
250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250
250 620 247 549 167 713 500 753 753 753 753 1042 987 603 987 603
400 549 411 549 549 713 494 460 549 549 549 549 1000 603 1000 658
823 686 795 987 768 768 823 768 768 713 713 713 713 713 713 713
768 713 790 250 250 250 549 250 713 603 603 1042 987 603 987 603
494 329 790 790 786 713 384 384 384 384 384 384 494 494 494 494
790 329 274 686 686 686 384 384 384 384 384 384 494 494 494 250 ]
/Encoding 88 0 R
/FontDescriptor 89 0 R
>>
endobj
90 0 obj
<<
/Type /Encoding
/Differences [ 219 /Zcaron 135 /ccedilla 152 /ydieresis 243 /atilde 140 /icircumflex
31 /threesuperior 136 /ecircumflex 146 /thorn 138 /egrave 30 /twosuperior 130 /eacute
254 /otilde 155 /Aacute 147 /ocircumflex 217 /yacute 129 /udieresis 247 /threequarters
131 /acircumflex 190 /Eth 137 /edieresis 151 /ugrave 223 /trademark 149 /ograve 215 /scaron
228 /Idieresis 218 /uacute 133 /agrave 210 /ntilde 134 /aring 220 /zcaron 226 /Icircumflex
209 /Ntilde 150 /ucircumflex 159 /Ecircumflex 224 /Iacute 128 /Ccedilla 153 /Odieresis
214 /Scaron 176 /Edieresis 229 /Igrave 132 /adieresis 236 /Ograve 181 /Egrave 242 /Ydieresis
221 /registered 237 /Otilde 244 /onequarter 240 /Ugrave 239 /Ucircumflex 145 /Thorn
25 /divide 158 /Atilde 238 /Uacute 231 /Ocircumflex 29 /logicalnot 143 /Aring 139 /idieresis
252 /iacute 160 /aacute 27 /plusminus 26 /multiply 154 /Udieresis 28 /minus 204 /onesuperior
144 /Eacute 156 /Acircumflex 222 /copyright 157 /Agrave 148 /odieresis 253 /oacute 127 /degree
141 /igrave 201 /mu 230 /Oacute 192 /eth 142 /Adieresis 216 /Yacute 255 /brokenbar 246 /onehalf
]
>>
endobj
91 0 obj
<<
/Type /FontDescriptor
/FontName /Times-Italic
/Flags 98
/FontBBox [ -169 -217 1010 883 ]
/MissingWidth 250
/StemV 76.00
/StemH 38.00
/ItalicAngle -15.50
/CapHeight 653
/XHeight 441
/Ascent 683
/Descent -205
/Leading 0
/MaxWidth 0
/AvgWidth 0
>>
endobj
9 0 obj
<<
/Type /Font
/Subtype /Type1
/Name /F4
/BaseFont /Times-Italic
/FirstChar 0
/LastChar 255
/Widths [ 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250
250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 675 675 675 675 675 300 300
250 333 420 500 500 833 778 333 333 333 500 675 250 333 250 278
500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 333 333 675 675 675 500
920 611 611 667 722 611 611 722 722 333 444 667 556 833 667 722
611 722 611 500 556 722 611 833 611 556 556 389 278 389 422 500
333 500 500 444 500 444 278 500 500 278 278 444 278 722 500 500
500 500 389 389 278 500 444 667 444 444 389 400 275 400 541 400
667 500 444 500 500 500 500 444 444 444 444 278 278 278 611 611
611 611 500 500 500 500 500 500 444 722 722 611 611 611 611 611
500 389 500 500 167 500 500 500 500 214 556 500 333 333 500 500
611 500 500 500 250 611 523 350 333 556 556 500 889 1000 722 500
500 333 333 333 333 333 333 333 333 500 333 333 300 333 333 333
889 667 500 250 250 250 500 389 556 444 500 556 389 760 760 980
333 889 333 276 333 333 722 722 556 722 944 310 722 722 722 722
722 667 556 500 750 278 750 750 278 500 667 500 278 500 500 275 ]
/Encoding 90 0 R
/FontDescriptor 91 0 R
>>
endobj
92 0 obj
<<
/Type /Encoding
/Differences [ 219 /Zcaron 135 /ccedilla 152 /ydieresis 243 /atilde 140 /icircumflex
31 /threesuperior 136 /ecircumflex 146 /thorn 138 /egrave 30 /twosuperior 130 /eacute
254 /otilde 155 /Aacute 147 /ocircumflex 217 /yacute 129 /udieresis 247 /threequarters
131 /acircumflex 190 /Eth 137 /edieresis 151 /ugrave 223 /trademark 149 /ograve 215 /scaron
228 /Idieresis 218 /uacute 133 /agrave 210 /ntilde 134 /aring 220 /zcaron 226 /Icircumflex
209 /Ntilde 150 /ucircumflex 159 /Ecircumflex 224 /Iacute 128 /Ccedilla 153 /Odieresis
214 /Scaron 176 /Edieresis 229 /Igrave 132 /adieresis 236 /Ograve 181 /Egrave 242 /Ydieresis
221 /registered 237 /Otilde 244 /onequarter 240 /Ugrave 239 /Ucircumflex 145 /Thorn
25 /divide 158 /Atilde 238 /Uacute 231 /Ocircumflex 29 /logicalnot 143 /Aring 139 /idieresis
252 /iacute 160 /aacute 27 /plusminus 26 /multiply 154 /Udieresis 28 /minus 204 /onesuperior
144 /Eacute 156 /Acircumflex 222 /copyright 157 /Agrave 148 /odieresis 253 /oacute 127 /degree
141 /igrave 201 /mu 230 /Oacute 192 /eth 142 /Adieresis 216 /Yacute 255 /brokenbar 246 /onehalf
]
>>
endobj
93 0 obj
<<
/Type /FontDescriptor
/FontName /Helvetica-Bold
/Flags 32
/FontBBox [ -170 -228 1003 962 ]
/MissingWidth 250
/StemV 140.00
/StemH 70.00
/ItalicAngle 0.00
/CapHeight 718
/XHeight 532
/Ascent 718
/Descent -207
/Leading 0
/MaxWidth 0
/AvgWidth 0
>>
endobj
17 0 obj
<<
/Type /Font
/Subtype /Type1
/Name /F5
/BaseFont /Helvetica-Bold
/FirstChar 0
/LastChar 255
/Widths [ 278 278 278 278 278 278 278 278 278 278 278 278 278 278 278 278
278 278 278 278 278 278 278 278 278 584 584 584 584 584 333 333
278 333 474 556 556 889 722 278 333 333 389 584 278 333 278 278
556 556 556 556 556 556 556 556 556 556 333 333 584 584 584 611
975 722 722 722 722 667 611 778 722 278 556 722 611 833 722 778
667 778 722 667 611 722 667 944 667 667 611 333 278 333 584 556
278 556 611 556 611 556 333 611 611 278 278 556 278 889 611 611
611 611 389 556 333 611 556 778 556 556 500 389 280 389 584 400
722 611 556 556 556 556 556 556 556 556 556 278 278 278 722 722
667 667 611 611 611 611 611 611 556 778 722 722 722 722 722 667
556 333 556 556 167 556 556 556 556 238 500 556 333 333 611 611
667 556 556 556 278 667 556 350 278 500 500 556 1000 1000 722 611
611 333 333 333 333 333 333 333 333 611 333 333 333 333 333 333
1000 722 611 278 278 278 667 556 667 556 611 611 500 737 737 1000
278 1000 278 370 278 278 778 778 611 778 1000 365 778 778 722 722
722 889 667 556 834 278 834 834 278 611 944 611 278 611 611 280 ]
/Encoding 92 0 R
/FontDescriptor 93 0 R
>>
endobj
10 0 obj
<<
/Kids [3 0 R 11 0 R 14 0 R 18 0 R 21 0 R 24 0 R]
/Count 6
/Type /Pages
/Parent 94 0 R
>>
endobj
30 0 obj
<<
/Kids [27 0 R 31 0 R 34 0 R 37 0 R 40 0 R 43 0 R]
/Count 6
/Type /Pages
/Parent 94 0 R
>>
endobj
49 0 obj
<<
/Kids [46 0 R 50 0 R 53 0 R 56 0 R 59 0 R 62 0 R]
/Count 6
/Type /Pages
/Parent 94 0 R
>>
endobj
68 0 obj
<<
/Kids [65 0 R 69 0 R 72 0 R 75 0 R 78 0 R 81 0 R]
/Count 6
/Type /Pages
/Parent 94 0 R
>>
endobj
94 0 obj
<<
/Kids [10 0 R 30 0 R 49 0 R 68 0 R]
/Count 24
/Type /Pages
/MediaBox [0 0 612 792]
>>
endobj
2 0 obj
<<
/Type /Catalog
/Pages 94 0 R
>>
endobj
95 0 obj
<<
/CreationDate (Monday January 7, 2013 09:28:25)
/Creator (VERSACOMP R05.2)
/Producer (ECMP5)
>>
endobj
xref
0 96
0000000000 65535 f
0000095597 00000 n
0000108369 00000 n
0000006096 00000 n
0000000044 00000 n
0000006073 00000 n
0000097062 00000 n
0000099714 00000 n
0000101268 00000 n
0000103915 00000 n
0000107789 00000 n
0000009896 00000 n
0000006310 00000 n
0000009872 00000 n
0000013519 00000 n
0000010112 00000 n
0000013495 00000 n
0000106566 00000 n
0000017069 00000 n
0000013736 00000 n
0000017045 00000 n
0000021152 00000 n
0000017274 00000 n
0000021128 00000 n
0000024788 00000 n
0000021358 00000 n
0000024764 00000 n
0000028144 00000 n
0000024982 00000 n
0000028120 00000 n
0000107905 00000 n
0000031871 00000 n
0000028350 00000 n
0000031847 00000 n
0000036313 00000 n
0000032088 00000 n
0000036289 00000 n
0000040648 00000 n
0000036532 00000 n
0000040624 00000 n
0000045128 00000 n
0000040867 00000 n
0000045104 00000 n
0000049224 00000 n
0000045347 00000 n
0000049200 00000 n
0000053293 00000 n
0000049443 00000 n
0000053269 00000 n
0000108022 00000 n
0000057129 00000 n
0000053512 00000 n
0000057105 00000 n
0000060847 00000 n
0000057336 00000 n
0000060823 00000 n
0000064660 00000 n
0000061066 00000 n
0000064636 00000 n
0000068578 00000 n
0000064879 00000 n
0000068554 00000 n
0000072620 00000 n
0000068785 00000 n
0000072596 00000 n
0000076872 00000 n
0000072827 00000 n
0000076848 00000 n
0000108139 00000 n
0000081071 00000 n
0000077079 00000 n
0000081047 00000 n
0000085572 00000 n
0000081290 00000 n
0000085548 00000 n
0000089634 00000 n
0000085791 00000 n
0000089610 00000 n
0000093650 00000 n
0000089853 00000 n
0000093626 00000 n
0000095417 00000 n
0000093869 00000 n
0000095393 00000 n
0000095630 00000 n
0000096782 00000 n
0000098282 00000 n
0000099434 00000 n
0000100930 00000 n
0000101002 00000 n
0000102480 00000 n
0000103632 00000 n
0000105130 00000 n
0000106282 00000 n
0000108256 00000 n
0000108425 00000 n
trailer
<<
/Size 96
/Root 2 0 R
/Info 95 0 R
>>
startxref
108562
%%EOF
2 0 obj
<>/OCGs[107 0 R]>>/Pages 94 0 R/Type/Catalog>>
endobj
3 0 obj
<>/Font<>/ProcSet[/PDF/Text]/XObject<>>>/Type/Page>>
endobj
6 0 obj
<>
endobj
7 0 obj
<>
endobj
8 0 obj
<>
endobj
9 0 obj
<>
endobj
95 0 obj
<>
endobj
96 0 obj
<>
endobj
97 0 obj
<>/Font<>>>/Fields 109 0 R>>
endobj
98 0 obj
<>stream
Monday January 7, 2013 09:28:25
ECMP5
VERSACOMP R05.2
2014-08-04T11:22:29-04:00
2014-08-04T11:22:29-04:00
application/pdf
uuid:8aa3b2c6-8b74-4661-b6fa-90daff393e53
uuid:10ab029f-c2a7-4270-b3d8-6559847054a7
endstream
endobj
99 0 obj
<>stream
BT
/T1_0 12 Tf
1.2 Tw 271.326 656.1 Td
(PUBLISHED)Tj
/T1_0 19 Tf
1.9 Tw 84.2 Tz -114.766 -40 Td
(UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS)Tj
/T1_0 12 Tf
1.2 Tw 100 Tz 66.136 -18 Td
(FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT)Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
0 Tw -66.696 -18 Td
( )Tj
/T1_2 20 Tf
2 Tw 181.62 -17.6 Td
(\374)Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
1.2 Tw -181.62 -2.8 Td
(P)Tj
/T1_1 8.4 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.1 Tz 1 0 0 1 156 664.5 Tm
6.672 -104.8 Td
(EGGY)Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
1.2 Tw 100 Tz ( Y)Tj
/T1_1 8.4 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.1 Tz (OUNG)Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
1.2 Tw 100 Tz (,)Tj
/T1_3 12 Tf
74.316 -18 Td
(Plaintiff-Appellant,)Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
1.512 -18 Td
(v.)Tj
-82.5 -18 Td
(U)Tj
/T1_1 8.4 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.1 Tz (NITED)Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
1.2 Tw 100 Tz ( P)Tj
/T1_1 8.4 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.1 Tz (ARCEL)Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
1.2 Tw 100 Tz ( S)Tj
/T1_1 8.4 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.1 Tz (ERVICE)Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
1.2 Tw 100 Tz (, I)Tj
/T1_1 8.4 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.1 Tz (NC)Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
1.2 Tw 100 Tz (.,)Tj
/T1_3 12 Tf
75.024 -18 Td
(Defendant-Appellee,)Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
3.312 -18 Td
(and)Tj
-78.336 -18 Td
(U)Tj
/T1_1 8.4 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.1 Tz (NITED)Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
1.2 Tw 100 Tz ( P)Tj
/T1_1 8.4 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.1 Tz (ARCEL)Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
1.2 Tw 100 Tz ( S)Tj
/T1_1 8.4 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.1 Tz (ERVICE)Tj
2.12 Tw ( )Tj
0.79 Tw (OF)Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
1.2 Tw 100 Tz 0 -13.2 TD
(A)Tj
/T1_1 8.4 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.1 Tz (MERICA)Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
1.2 Tw 100 Tz (, I)Tj
/T1_1 8.4 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.1 Tz (NC)Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
1.2 Tw 100 Tz (.; UPS H)Tj
/T1_1 8.4 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.1 Tz (EALTH)Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
1.2 Tw 100 Tz T*
(P)Tj
/T1_1 8.4 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.1 Tz (ROGRAM)Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
1.2 Tw 100 Tz (; AETNA L)Tj
/T1_1 8.4 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.1 Tz (IFE)Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
1.2 Tw 100 Tz ( I)Tj
/T1_1 8.4 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.1 Tz (NSURANCE)Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
1.2 Tw 100 Tz T*
(C)Tj
/T1_1 8.4 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.1 Tz (OMPANY)Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
1.2 Tw 100 Tz (; AETNA D)Tj
/T1_1 8.4 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.1 Tz (ISABILITY)Tj
2.12 Tw ( )Tj
0.79 Tw (AND)Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
1.2 Tw 100 Tz T*
(A)Tj
/T1_1 8.4 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.1 Tz (BSENCE)Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
1.2 Tw 100 Tz ( M)Tj
/T1_1 8.4 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.1 Tz (ANAGEMENT)Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
1.2 Tw 100 Tz (,)Tj
218.07 -12.6 Td
(No. 11-2078)Tj
/T1_2 20 Tf
2 Tw -36.45 -1.3 Td
(\375)Tj
/T1_3 12 Tf
1.2 Tw -65.28 -4.1 Td
(Defendants.)Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
-116.34 -36 Td
(A)Tj
/T1_1 8.4 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.1 Tz (MERICAN)Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
1.2 Tw 100 Tz ( C)Tj
/T1_1 8.4 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.1 Tz (IVIL)Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
1.2 Tw 100 Tz ( L)Tj
/T1_1 8.4 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.1 Tz (IBERTIES)Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
1.2 Tw 100 Tz ( U)Tj
/T1_1 8.4 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.1 Tz (NION)Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
1.2 Tw 100 Tz T*
(F)Tj
/T1_1 8.4 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.1 Tz (OUNDATION)Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
1.2 Tw 100 Tz (; A)Tj
/T1_1 8.4 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.1 Tz (MERICAN)Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
1.2 Tw 100 Tz ( C)Tj
/T1_1 8.4 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.1 Tz (IVIL)Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
1.2 Tw 100 Tz T*
(L)Tj
/T1_1 8.4 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.1 Tz (IBERTIES)Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
1.2 Tw 100 Tz ( U)Tj
/T1_1 8.4 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.1 Tz (NION)Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
1.2 Tw 100 Tz ( F)Tj
/T1_1 8.4 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.1 Tz (OUNDATION OF)Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
1.2 Tw 100 Tz T*
(M)Tj
/T1_1 8.4 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.1 Tz (ARYLAND)Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
1.2 Tw 100 Tz (; A B)Tj
/T1_1 8.4 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.1 Tz (ETTER)Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
1.2 Tw 100 Tz ( B)Tj
/T1_1 8.4 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.1 Tz (ALANCE)Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
1.2 Tw 100 Tz (;)Tj
T*
(E)Tj
/T1_1 8.4 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.1 Tz (QUAL)Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
1.2 Tw 100 Tz ( R)Tj
/T1_1 8.4 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.1 Tz (IGHTS)Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
1.2 Tw 100 Tz ( A)Tj
/T1_1 8.4 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.1 Tz (DVOCATES)Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
1.2 Tw 100 Tz (; L)Tj
/T1_1 8.4 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.1 Tz (EGAL)Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
1.2 Tw 100 Tz T*
(A)Tj
/T1_1 8.4 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.1 Tz (ID)Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
1.2 Tw 100 Tz ( S)Tj
/T1_1 8.4 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.1 Tz (OCIETY)Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
1.2 Tw 100 Tz ( - E)Tj
/T1_1 8.4 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.1 Tz (MPLOYMENT)Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
1.2 Tw 100 Tz ( L)Tj
/T1_1 8.4 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.1 Tz (AW)Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
1.2 Tw 100 Tz T*
(C)Tj
/T1_1 8.4 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.1 Tz (ENTER)Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
1.2 Tw 100 Tz (; L)Tj
/T1_1 8.4 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.1 Tz (EGAL)Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
1.2 Tw 100 Tz ( M)Tj
/T1_1 8.4 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.1 Tz (OMENTUM)Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
1.2 Tw 100 Tz (;)Tj
T*
(N)Tj
/T1_1 8.4 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.1 Tz (ATIONAL)Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
1.2 Tw 100 Tz ( P)Tj
/T1_1 8.4 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.1 Tz (ARTNERSHIP)Tj
2.12 Tw ( )Tj
0.79 Tw (FOR)Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
1.2 Tw 100 Tz ( W)Tj
/T1_1 8.4 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.1 Tz (OMEN)Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
1.2 Tw 100 Tz T*
(& F)Tj
/T1_1 8.4 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.1 Tz (AMILIES)Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
1.2 Tw 100 Tz (; N)Tj
/T1_1 8.4 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.1 Tz (ATIONAL)Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
1.2 Tw 100 Tz ( W)Tj
/T1_1 8.4 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.1 Tz (OMEN'S)Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
1.2 Tw 100 Tz T*
(L)Tj
/T1_1 8.4 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.1 Tz (AW)Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
1.2 Tw 100 Tz ( C)Tj
/T1_1 8.4 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.1 Tz (ENTER)Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
1.2 Tw 100 Tz (; P)Tj
/T1_1 8.4 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.1 Tz (UBLIC)Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
1.2 Tw 100 Tz ( J)Tj
/T1_1 8.4 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.1 Tz (USTICE)Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
1.2 Tw 100 Tz T*
(C)Tj
/T1_1 8.4 Tf
0.79 Tw 101.1 Tz (ENTER)Tj
/T1_1 12 Tf
1.2 Tw 100 Tz (;)Tj
/T1_2 20 Tf
2 Tw 1.6 Ts 181.62 -8.8 Td
(\376)Tj
ET
q
1 0 0 1 156 664.5 cm
0.9 w
q 1 0 0 1 0 -83.95 cm
0 0 m
183.8 0 l
h
S
Q
Q
q
1 0 0 1 156 664.5 cm
1.2 w
q 1 0 0 1 186.6 -263.9 cm
0 0 m
0 172.1 l
h
S
Q
Q
q
1 0 0 1 156 664.5 cm
0.5 w
q 1 0 0 1 0 -301.35 cm
0 0 m
173 0 l
h
S
Q
Q
q
1 0 0 1 156 664.5 cm
1.2 w
q 1 0 0 1 186.6 -453 cm
0 0 m
0 172.1 l
h
S
Q
Q
q
1 0 0 1 156 664.5 cm
0.9 w
q 1 0 0 1 0 -459.95 cm
0 0 m
183.3 0 l
h
S
Q
Q
/Artifact <>BDC
q
1 0 0 1 205.3235016 814 cm
/GS0 gs
0 Tw 0 Ts /Fm0 Do
Q
EMC
endstream
endobj
100 0 obj
<>>>/Resources 102 0 R/Subtype/Form>>stream
0 g 0 G 0 i 0 J []0 d 0 j 1 w 10 M 0 Tc 0 Tw 100 Tz 0 TL 0 Tr 0 Ts
BT
/TimesNewRoman 10 Tf
0 g
100.676 -7.842 Td
( ) Tj
0 -12 Td
( ) Tj
0 -12 Td
( ) Tj
0 -12 Td
( ) Tj
-100.676 -12 Td
(Certiorari ) Tj
41.372 0 Td
(granted ) Tj
32.486 0 Td
(by ) Tj
12.5 0 Td
(Supreme ) Tj
38.047 0 Td
(Court, ) Tj
27.778 0 Td
(July ) Tj
19.17 0 Td
(1, ) Tj
10 0 Td
(2014) Tj
ET
endstream
endobj
101 0 obj
<>
endobj
102 0 obj
<>
endobj
103 0 obj
<>
endobj
104 0 obj
<>
endobj
105 0 obj
<>stream
HViTS=7 A0F& D@dn"2|8H&aJ" )*V
E UDe^Y7go !Y ݶ
# @y dyFkdž `4 TJ_3~v/ 8:GѠPp@z/ז4(ogb`k ptG^J 6!4Uw$}FpwF fr1 0q
?#^.'@ m Ke h&ԱfZ) ZzbDwTt=B~}lS.92%'ԯ5N3K\=H|="a+;