Part I

2

Murphy v United Parcel Service, Inc. (1999)

Student Name

University Affiliation

Summary of the case

Murphy v united parcel services decided on the 22nd of June after being argued in April of 1999. In this case, Mr. Murphy, the petitioner, was hired as a mechanic therefore he had to get a certification of health from the Department of Transportation. Among the requirements to be satisfied was to have no diagnosis of high blood pressure which Murphy had, of he was granted certification and got the job, however, the respondent uncovered the error and fired Murphy who later challenged his dismissal. He lost the case in appellate courts and trial which he later appealed and got certiorari from the supreme court (Murphy v. United Parcel Service, Inc, n.d.).

Murphy v. UPS, Inc. (1999) No. 97-1992

UPS, Inc. hired Mr. Murphy who was a mechanic for the same position but he would also operate commercial vehicles before he was hired he was required to satisfy the requirements of the DOT, among which was having no clinical diagnosis of hypertension which might hinder one’s ability to operate said commercial machinery. Despite Murphy’s hypertension he was given certification erroneously and began his job at UPS. The argument here was if hypertension was a “substantial impairment” that might limit one’s activities to the extent that it would justify it being a disability and therefore entitled to protection under the ADA. Mr. Murphy brought the suit under the Title 1 of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 to the District Court which affirmed the Tenth Circuit while granting summary to the respondent. Sutton v United Air Lines, Inc. was cited in the affirmation which stated that an individual with a disability under the ADA should be assessed concerning any corrective measures employed, the court held that Murphy’s hypertension, as testified by a doctor was not a disability who went on to say that as long as a person diagnosed with hypertension is medicated they will function normally and could do their day to day activities rather normally thus the court affirmed that Mr. Murphy was not a person with a disability under the ADA. It went on to explain that United Postal Services did not dismiss Murphy on a fear that was unsubstantiated that he might suffer a stroke or heart attack, but because Murphy had a higher blood pressure which exceeded the DOT’s requirements for commercial vehicle drivers. (Duncan, A. 1999)

The case argued revealed that the 10th circuit concluded that Murphy as a hypertension patient was not limited to perform major life activities as a result of disability originating from treatment. As such, the court found that the side effects of the drugs and procedures used in medicating Murphy had no significant correlation with Murphy's hypertension disability. According to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ‘substantially limits’ are defined as heavily restricted inability to perform either a class job or a broad range of jobs in many classes as compared to a normal person having comparable abilities in training and skill. According to this definition, then there is no adequate information to regard Murphy as substantially limited in his life as outlined by the legal clause of the civil rights act Pp.4-8. (Nebgen, M. 1999)

Conclusion

The court maintained that in light of mitigating circumstances, a disability must be declared under ADA. Murphy was found to be not disabled by the court since he could function normally with the help of hypertension medication therefore he could still work as a mechanic, the court concluded that to be designated as disabled an employee must be unable to do more than just one task.

References

Murphy v. United Parcel Service, Inc. (n.d.). Oyez. Retrieved October 10, 2021, from https://www.oyez.org/cases/1998/97-1992

Duncan, A. (1999). Defining Disability in the ADA: Sutton v. United Airlines, Inc. La. L. Rev., 60, 967.

Nebgen, M. (1999). Narrowing the Class of Individuals with Disabilities: Sutton v. United Air Lines, Inc. McGeorge L. Rev., 31, 1129.