Young V. Parcel Inc. Employment Case Brief Law Research Paper

Young V. Parcel Inc. Employment Case Brief
Student’s Name
Institutional Affiliation
Young Vs. Parcel Inc. Employment Case Brief
Facts
The case, Young V. Parcel, Inc. centers on a dispute between Young (Petitioner) and Parcel, Inc. (Respondent). The petitioner was a 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, as a respondent, informed the petitioner, Young that she was not supposed to implement tasks as typically owing to lifting restrictions occasioned by pregnancy under her doctor’s advice.
She was sent on leave resulting in loss of benefits, including pay and medical cover due to weight lifting restrictions. Due to this, Young filed a federal lawsuit accusing UPS of unlawfully failing to accommodate her pregnancy-occasioned restriction regarding load lifting. Her argument was anchored on discrimination that she was denied light duty accommodation that other USP employees routinely access with the same lifting restrictions.
Young accuses USP of a disparate-treatment claim of discrimination, indicating that other workers with work-related ‘shortcoming’ were protected by giving them lighter duties. However, UPS argued that Young did qualify to be categorized within the custody of the American Disability Act (ADA), on-the-job injury, or DOT class. While leveraging on the summary decision, UPS argued that Young failed to demonstrate that UPS's decision was based on her pregnancy or treated discriminatively and contrastingly from other workers experiencing similar scenarios in UPS. Thus, it had not discriminated against her based on pregnancy, but its decision was like any other treatment of ‘other’ persons. Although Young crafts a prima facie case of bias by the mere fact that she was treated differently from other co-employees who may have similar shortcomings in work as provided by Pregnancy Discrimination Act (PDA) and ADA, she failed to satisfy the court under McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green’s framework of proof of discrimination.
Issues
The case attempts to determine whether UPS's decision or action towards Young on the matter of pregnancy constitutes an act of intentional discrimination or not. The case attempts to prove whether intentional discrimination under the UPS policy and decisions on pregnant women.
Decision
Rule
The District Court provided summary judgment to USP, concluding, among other things, that Young was not able to create a prima facie case regarding discriminatory treatment under McDonnell Douglas. The court reasoned the comparators; including on-the-job injuries or ADA categories were incongruous to Young’s case. The court dismissed Young’s argument that she was entitled to similar accommodation accorded to other workers facing the same restrictions. Equally, the court rejected UPS’s counterargument, which leveraged on ‘pregnancy-blind’ practices. The Fourth Circuit provided various affirmations inter alia a pregnant employee who seeks to demonstrate disparate treatment by alluding to discriminatory evidence by applying M...