Eryon Luke v. CPlace Forest Park SNF, L.L.C., dba Nottingham Regional Rehab Center

The two questions presented are:

1. Whether the analysis applied by the Fifth Circuit as articulated in the Pre-Young decision of Brady vs. Office of the Sergeant at Arms 820 F.3d 490 (D.C. Cir. 2008) which recommends that (courts focus on the pretext stage if the employer has identified a nondiscriminatory reason for the employment action) alters the new framework for analyzing claims set forth in Young thereby modifying its holding.

2. W het her who or what const itut es a comparator in the prima facie stage to determine discriminatory animus based upon Congress’ language in 42 U.S.C. Section 2000e(K) as articulated in McDonnell Douglas and further defined in Young when referring to “***(as other persons not so affected but similar in the ability or inability to work.” More specifically can a pregnant complainant be defined as a comparator to herself to show that her employer’s reason for an adverse employment action was pretextual as pronounced in of Deneen v. Northwest Airlines, Inc., 132 F.3d 431 (8th Cir. 1987). The United States Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana dismissing Plaintiff’s claim asserted