Law Commons^™

Confusing Clarity: The Pregnancy Discrimination Act After Young V. Ups, Inc., Jessica M. Bretl

Notre Dame Law Review Reflection

On March 25, 2015, the Supreme Court issued an opinion in Young v. UPS, Inc.—the most recent case in the Court’s pregnancy discrimination jurisprudence. Young focused on an interpretation of one clause of the Pregnancy Discrimination Act (PDA) and how that interpretation would shape claims of employment discrimination by pregnant employees seeking work accommodations. This Comment argues that the majority opinion in Young did not clarify, but only muddied the waters: the Young framework presents challenges for the lower courts tasked with applying the framework and creates uncertainty for future pregnancy discrimination litigation.

Part I of this Comment provides …

Diverse Mandates Regarding The Esop Diversification Requirement Following Fifth Third Bancorp V. Dudenhoeffer, Thomas V. Bohac Jr.

Notre Dame Law Review Reflection

In Dudenhoeffer, the Court focused on the Employee Stock Ownership Plan (ESOP) as a retirement benefit plan. However, this is only one function of ESOPs. Viewed in terms of both the original intent of Congress and contemporary corporate finance, the ESOPs are designed to meet several goals, including the alignment of employee and employer interests to facilitate a wider base of capital ownership including the average employee. As the Court has lost sight of these fundamental goals, it has drifted into the fallacy of interpreting ESOPs principally as employee retirement accounts. This has led the Court to apply ERISA fiduciary …