Murphy Vs. United Parcel Service Inc

Murphy Vs. United Parcel Service Inc

According to Warren (2000), The Murphy Vs. United Parcel Service (UPS) Inc. concerns the definition of disabilities in the American Disabilities Act of 1990. The petitioner (Murphy) brought the case under Title I of the ADA 1990 act after he was dismissed by United Parcel Service following a discovery that he was suffering from high blood pressure. The case was presented to the US federal district court, which granted a motion for summary judgment to UPS, implying that there were no material facts or a valid case for UPS to answer. The federal district court’s judgment was affirmed by the Appeals Court of the Tenth Circuit, implying that Murphy’s high blood pressure condition could not qualify as a disability.

I strongly agree with the judgment rendered by the appeals court. The decision by UPS to terminate Murphy was in compliance with the Department of Transportation (DOT) requirements. DOT requires potential drivers to pass a physical test, a policy meant to ensure road safety (Warren, 2000). Although Murphy passed the initial results, that could not prevent UPS from subjecting him to further examination since road safety is paramount. If UPS retained his employment, it would violate the Department of Transportation (DOT) requirements. Besides, Murphy’s high blood pressure condition rendered him unsuitable for some of UPS’s heavy and repetitive lifting.

Furthermore, the court’s decision was valid since Murphy failed to show that he was disabled under the requirements of the ADA Act. Under the ADA, a disabled person must prove that impairment limits a significant life activity, such as moving jobs, compared to an average with similar skills and abilities (Warren, 2000). Murphy was diagnosed with high blood pressure at ten years old, but he had engaged in life activities such as education and career training. He did not qualify for accommodations that the ADA Act requires companies to offer disabled individuals.

References

Warren, B. J. (2000). When Determining Whether an ADA Claimant is Disabled, the Claimant’s Impairment Must be Considered in Light of Available Corrective Measures, and Failure to Meet DOT Regulations Does Not Establish That the Claimant Was Regarded as      Disabled: Murphy v. United Parcel Service, Inc. Duquesne Law Review, 38(4), 1143.

ORDER A PLAGIARISM-FREE PAPER HERE

We’ll write everything from scratch

For this assignment, select either the Bragdon case or the Murphy case. Provide a one-paragraph summary that provides brief facts and the case outcome.

Murphy Vs. United Parcel Service Inc

Then, state whether or not you agree with the Court’s decision. Explain why you agree or disagree with it. No more than two pages, double-spaced, 12-point font. Upload your response in an MS Word document.