Male and female justices on the US supreme court clashed on Wednesday over the issue of when pregnant employees can qualify for dispensation from physically strenuous duties, in a test case that the US government argues could have profound implications for workplace equality. 
 
 The case was brought by parcel delivery worker Peggy Young against UPS, which argues she should not be treated differently from non-pregnant workers who only receive similar exemption from lifting heavy packages if they suffer injuries in the workplace. 
 
 During oral arguments on Wednesday, Justice Antonin Scalia led a number of conservatives on the bench who appeared sympathetic to the company’s view, on the grounds that ignoring its usual test of whether the impairment was caused in the workplace would unfairly elevate the status of pregnant workers over others – and would conceivably entitle them to all manner of additional benefits. 
 
 “[This is] most favoured nations treatment,” Scalia told Young’s lawyer, Samuel Bagenstos, in one of several somewhat heated exchanges between the two. “It’s a most favoured nation provision. You have to give the benefits that you give to any other class of employees, right?” he added. 
 
 But Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Elena Kagan, two of the three female justices on the nine-person bench, were equally dismissive of the argument put forward by UPS, suggesting it was wrong to simply dismiss pregnancy as equivalent to an injury suffered outside the workplace. 
 
 “You said that Young’s position is most favoured nation. Well, yours is least favoured nation, right?” Ginsburg told the UPS lawyer Caitlin Halligan. 
 
 The case hinges on the interpretation of a line in the 1978 Pregnancy Discrimination Act (PDA) which says employers should treat pregnant employees the same “as other persons not so affected but similar in their ability or inability to work”. 
 
 The US government, which is one of a number of groups supporting Young’s case, says it is an important opportunity to clarify that the law was intended to support women like Young, whose doctor advised her against heavy lifting after receiving fertility treatment and who had to go on unpaid leave as a result. 
 
 “The point of the PDA is to reduce the number of women who are driven from the workforce or are forced to go months without income as a result of becoming pregnant,” said the US solicitor general, Donald Verrilli. 
 
 But the company argues it is only abiding by law in treating pregnant women the same as non-pregnant women or men. 
 
 “The policy that’s at issue here distinguishes on-the-job versus off-the-job injuries,” said Halligan. “That’s a far cry from a policy that singles out pregnant women.” 
 
 UPS has since changed its policy to allow pregnancy dispensations but is contesting the case amid fear among business groups that it could set a worrying precedent for other discrimination claims. 
 
 The case was complicated by a factual dispute over whether UPS enforces its policy against granting dispensation in non-workplace instances, such as sports injuries – a wrinkle that appeared to irritate several justices including Anthony Kennedy, who hoped for a cleaner legal test case. 
 
 The divide among justices was not simply along gender lines either. Both chief justice John Roberts and justice Sonia Sotomayor appeared at times sympathetic to both sides in the argument, making it hard to judge how the court will ultimately rule. The decision in the case is expected to be issued next year. 

 Two of the three women on the Supreme Court vigorously questioned a UPS lawyer Wednesday over the company's refusal to give lighter duty to a pregnant worker, a closely watched case with potentially broad impact for female workers and their employers. 
 
 Questions from several justices during arguments suggested the court could be searching for a middle ground in the dispute between United Parcel Service and former driver Peggy Young. 
 
 UPS declined to give the woman temporary light-duty work so she could avoid lifting heavy packages after she became pregnant in 2006. 
 
 Young was in the courtroom Wednesday to hear the justices talk about employers' responsibilities under the 36-year-old Pregnancy Discrimination Act. 
 
 With some of their male colleagues unusually quiet, Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Elena Kagan repeatedly pressed UPS lawyer Caitlin Halligan over the Atlanta-based package delivery company's refusal to find a temporary assignment for Young. 
 
 The anti-discrimination law "was supposed to be about removing stereotypes of pregnant women as marginal workers. It was supposed to be about ensuring that they wouldn't be unfairly excluded from the workplace. And what you are saying is that there's a policy that accommodates some workers but puts all pregnant women on one side of the line," Kagan said. 
 
 Defending the company's actions, Halligan said UPS did not provide light-duty work to any employees unless they were injured on the job, had a condition that was covered by the Americans With Disabilities Act or lost their federal certificate to drive a commercial vehicle. 
 
 Ginsburg challenged Halligan to come up with an example of someone who asked for lighter duty but didn't get it, other than pregnant women. 
 
 "Is there an employee who asked for a dispensation because of a medical condition that restricted her ability to lift, to any single employee?" Ginsburg asked. 
 
 Halligan replied, "There's not a name provided in the record because one was not elicited by (Young) whose burden it was." 
 
 Young's dispute with UPS arose after she gave her supervisor a doctor's note recommending that she not lift packages heavier than 20 pounds. Young said she dealt almost exclusively with overnight letters, but UPS said its drivers must be able to lift packages weighing up to 70 pounds. Young left the company in 2009. 
 
 UPS has since changed its policy and says it will voluntarily offer pregnant women light duty starting in January. 
 
 Halligan noted that nine states now have laws that require an accommodation for pregnant workers, and she urged the justices to let elected lawmakers make these kinds of policy decisions, rather than federal judges. 
 
 "I want to point out that this is an area where the democratic process is working as it should," Halligan said. 
 
 The states are: California, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Louisiana, Maryland, Minnesota, New Jersey and West Virginia. 
 
 More than 120 congressional Democrats are backing legislation that would change federal law to make explicit the requirement to accommodate pregnant women. Pennsylvania Sen. Bob Casey said the bill is modeled after the landmark Americans With Disabilities Act. 
 
 "It would make sure that pregnant workers have the same measure of protection," Casey said before the start of a rally outside the court in support of Young.
– Peggy Young requested that she be put on lighter duty when, as a UPS driver, she became pregnant in 2006 and was told by her doctor not to lift heavy packages. That request was denied—forcing Young to take unpaid leave—based on a vague law stating employers must treat pregnant women as they would "other persons not so affected but similar in their ability or inability to work." That line is now the focus of a Supreme Court case that could have major implications for workplace equality, the Guardian reports. UPS, which Young sued under the federal Pregnancy Discrimination Act, says it acted lawfully by accommodating only workers with on-the-job injuries, but not those who were pregnant or had been injured off the job, the New York Times reports. The US government supports Young's case, but justices appear to be divided. Ruth Bader Ginsburg grilled a UPS lawyer yesterday, asking for an example of any UPS worker other than a pregnant one being denied a lifting dispensation, while Elena Kagan said the law was intended to ensure pregnant women "wouldn't be unfairly excluded from the workplace." But Antonin Scalia and Stephen G. Breyer seemed to favor UPS' argument, "on the grounds that ignoring its usual test of whether the impairment was caused in the workplace would unfairly elevate the status of pregnant workers over others—and would conceivably entitle them to all manner of additional benefits," writes the Guardian. The AP reports the court may look to meet in the middle; a decision is expected next year.