As a follow up to our previous articles of "ADA and Return to Work", the importance of having an interactive dialogue with workers who mention a limitation in doing their job, became more obvious in the Young vs. UPS case. This case is about a pregnant worker who sued UPS for not providing an accommodation for a lifting restriction she had while pregnant. This was an interesting case for a couple of different reasons - UPS already had policies in place to accommodate non-pregnant, injured employees. While pregnancy is not considered a "disability", there are many possibilities for "pregnancy-related disabilities" (such as temporary carpal tunnel, gestational diabetes, etc). So far, there is a ruling in the employee's favor, because UPS had so many workers who have been accommodated due to physical restrictions, the question became why not accommodate pregnant workers the same way? Although there was not enough evidence to indicate a violation of the PDA (Pregnancy Discrimination Act), the courts & EEOC did think this worker should have been treated similarly to injured workers. The case is back in the court of appeals at this time.