35.2 Given the case above, breifly identify the Issue, the Legal Rule (Legal Tes

Question

35.2 Given the case above, breifly identify the Issue, the Legal Rule (Legal Test), the Facts Applied to the Test (Analysis), and the Conclusion/ Holding of the case.

Young v. United Parcel Service, Inc. Supreme Court of the United States,-U.S.135 S.Ct. 1338, 191 L.Ed.2d 279 (2015) Background and Facts Peggy Young was a driver for United Parcel Service, Inc. (UPS). When she became pregnant, her doctor advised her not to lift more than twenty pounds. UPS required drivers to lift up to seventy pounds and told Young that she could not work under a lifting restriction. She filed a suit in a federal district court against UPS, claiming an unlawful refusal to accommodate her pregnancy-related lifting restriction. She alleged that UPS had multiple light-duty-for-injury categories to accommodate individuals whose non-pregnancy-related disabilities created work restrictions similar to hers. UPS responded that, because Young did not fall into any of those categories, it had not discrimi- nated against her. The court issued a summary judgment in UPS's favor. The U.S. Court of Appeals of the Fourth Circuit affirmed the judgment. Young appealed to the United States Supreme Court. In the Language of the Court Justice BREYER delivered the opinion of the Court. A plaintiffalleging that the denial of an accommodation constituted disparate treatment under the Pregnancy Discrimination Act" "*may make out a prima facie case by showing that she belongs to * * * A

Explanation / Answer

35.2 Given the case above, breifly identify the Issue, the Legal Rule (Legal Test), the Facts Applied to the Test (Analysis), and the Conclusion/ Holding of the case.

Young v. United Parcel Service, Inc. Supreme Court of the United States,-U.S.135 S.Ct. 1338, 191 L.Ed.2d 279 (2015) Background and Facts Peggy Young was a driver for United Parcel Service, Inc. (UPS). When she became pregnant, her doctor advised her not to lift more than twenty pounds. UPS required drivers to lift up to seventy pounds and told Young that she could not work under a lifting restriction. She filed a suit in a federal district court against UPS, claiming an unlawful refusal to accommodate her pregnancy-related lifting restriction. She alleged that UPS had multiple light-duty-for-injury categories to accommodate individuals whose non-pregnancy-related disabilities created work restrictions similar to hers. UPS responded that, because Young did not fall into any of those categories, it had not discrimi- nated against her. The court issued a summary judgment in UPS's favor. The U.S. Court of Appeals of the Fourth Circuit affirmed the judgment. Young appealed to the United States Supreme Court. In the Language of the Court Justice BREYER delivered the opinion of the Court. A plaintiffalleging that the denial of an accommodation constituted disparate treatment under the Pregnancy Discrimination Act" "*may make out a prima facie case by showing that she belongs to * * * A

Related Questions

Navigate

• Browse (All)
• Browse 3
• Subjects

---

---

Integrity-first tutoring: explanations and feedback only — we do not complete graded work. Learn more.