Law Essay: Young V. Parcel Inc. Employment Case Brief

Young V. Parcel Inc. Employment Case Brief
Student’s Name
Institutional Affiliation
Young V. Parcel Inc. Employment Case Brief
Facts
The case, Young V. Parcel, Inc. centers on a dispute between Young (Petitioner) and Parcel, Inc. (Respondent). Young was a part-time driver for United Parcel Services (USP). She was pregnant, and her doctor advised her against lifting weights that were more than 20 pounds, yet USP required its drivers to have the ability to raise more than 70 pounds of loads. USP informed Young that she could not work due to lifting restrictions occasioned by pregnancy under her doctor’s advice. Due to this, Young filed a federal lawsuit accusing UPS of unlawfully failing to accommodate her pregnancy-occasioned restriction regarding load lifting, with the gist of her argument leveraged on discrimination. Young accuses of USP of a disparate-treatment claim of discrimination, indicating that other workers who had other work-related ‘shortcoming’ were protected by giving them lighter duties. However, UPS argued that Young did not fall within the on-the-job injury, ADA, or DOT class. Thus, it had not discriminated against her based on pregnancy, but its decision was like any other treatment of ‘other’ persons
Holding
The District Court provided summary judgment to USP, concluding, among other things, that Young was not able to make out a prima facie case regarding discrimination under McDonnell Douglas.
Rationale
The court reasoned that those whom Young had compared herself: those falling within the on-the-job, DOT, or ADA categories were too different to qualify as similar comparators.
Analysis
Young puts up only a disparate-treatment claim of discrimination, which she is obliged to provide evidence in the workplace, including policies, decisions, and practices that would protect specific features. Alternatively, she can prove by deploying the burden-shifting framework as espoused in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U. S. 792. Under the McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U. S. 792. Young has a burden of proving a prima facie case regarding discrimination. Similarly, the employer holds a right to respond through articulating legitimate and non-discriminating reasons detailing the variations in the treatment. Following employers’ articulation of non-discriminatory acts, the petitioner bears the right to confirm by evidence that indeed there was a pretext of discrimination, as ordained under Texas Dept. of Community Affairs...