Peggy Young, the petitioner, employed as a part-time driver for the United Parcel Service (UPS), required that her duties included a job task of lifting parcels as much as 70 pounds. While employed, Young became pregnant and on the advice of her doctor, restricted her lifting no more than 20 pounds. Young asked UPS for accommodations no different than many other employees at UPS; some employees who had been injured on the job, lost medical certification to maintain Department of Transportation credential to drive, or were otherwise protected under the American with Disabilities Act were all given accommodations similar to what young asked.
UPS took the position that her pregnancy was not a work related injury; therefore, UPS was under no …show more content…
First, the plaintiff (Young) could use either direct of circumstantial evidence to show a discriminatory motive on the employer’s part. Alternatively, the plaintiff could also apply the “McDonnell Douglas” standard (Brody & Lonning, 2015). Under the McDonnell Douglas framework, the plaintiff has the initial burden to show a prima facie case of discrimination. McDonnell Douglas states that a plaintiff must demonstrate that he/she is a member of a protected class enumerated in Title VII. The plaintiff must also show that he/she was qualified for an available position and despite being qualified, he/she was rejected for the job; the position remained available after the plaintiff's rejection and the employer continued to seek applicants from persons with the plaintiff's qualifications. Upon satisfying the requirements, the burden shifts to the employer to show a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for their action. The plaintiff must then show the employer's reason was cause for discrimination (Practical Law, n.d.) In this case, the court stated there was “a genuine dispute as to whether UPS provided more favorable treatment to at least some employees whose situation cannot reasonably be distinguished from Young’s” (Young v UPS, 2014, pg., 14). The court also recognized that the policy of UPS to only offer accommodations to those injured on the job, were lacking DOT certification, or were protected under the ADA, exhibited a “significant burden to pregnant women” (Brody & Lonning, 2015, pg.
UPS took the position that her pregnancy was not a work related injury; therefore, UPS was under no …show more content…
First, the plaintiff (Young) could use either direct of circumstantial evidence to show a discriminatory motive on the employer’s part. Alternatively, the plaintiff could also apply the “McDonnell Douglas” standard (Brody & Lonning, 2015). Under the McDonnell Douglas framework, the plaintiff has the initial burden to show a prima facie case of discrimination. McDonnell Douglas states that a plaintiff must demonstrate that he/she is a member of a protected class enumerated in Title VII. The plaintiff must also show that he/she was qualified for an available position and despite being qualified, he/she was rejected for the job; the position remained available after the plaintiff's rejection and the employer continued to seek applicants from persons with the plaintiff's qualifications. Upon satisfying the requirements, the burden shifts to the employer to show a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for their action. The plaintiff must then show the employer's reason was cause for discrimination (Practical Law, n.d.) In this case, the court stated there was “a genuine dispute as to whether UPS provided more favorable treatment to at least some employees whose situation cannot reasonably be distinguished from Young’s” (Young v UPS, 2014, pg., 14). The court also recognized that the policy of UPS to only offer accommodations to those injured on the job, were lacking DOT certification, or were protected under the ADA, exhibited a “significant burden to pregnant women” (Brody & Lonning, 2015, pg.