-------------------------

In pregnancy discrimination action, plaintiff failed to rebut both proffered reasons for her termination. Also, discriminatory comments were not sufficient to create jury question.

Wallace v. Methodist Hosp. System, 271 F.3d 212 (5th Cir. November 7, 2001) - This is a Title VII pregnancy discrimination action alleging wrongful termination. Veronica Wallace, a nurse, became pregnant three times over the course of three years. Sometime prior to taking her third maternity leave, she was terminated for: (1) insertion of a nasogastric tube without receiving a physician's order even though Hospital policy required such an order; and (2) falsifying medical records based on the fact that she wrote on the patient's chart that she had received a verbal order from a physician to insert the tube -- even though she had received no such order. The Hospital stated that either justification, alone, would have resulted in Wallace's termination. At trial, the jury found in favor of Wallace, but the judge granted the Hospital's motion for a judgment as a matter of law. The Fifth Circuit affirms. Wallace was able to establish that a non-pregnant nurse had inserted a tube without doctor's orders and was not terminated. Therefore, she presented sufficient evidence of pretext as to that proffered reason. But her problem is that the Hospital proffered two reasons for her termination -- either one of which would be sufficient for her termination. The second proffered reason was falsifying a patient's medical record and Wallace was unable to show that a non-pregnant nurse engaging in similar conduct was treated more favorably. Wallace argues that the comments made by her direct supervisor and by the head nurse constitute sufficient evidence of discrimination. But in light of Wallace's failure to rebut each of the Hospital's proffered reasons, the alleged discriminatory comments can only create a jury question if those comments satisfy the test laid out in Brown v. CSC Logic, Inc., 82 F.3d 651 (5th Cir. 1996): (1) the comments must be related to the protected class of persons of which the plaintiff is a member; (2) the comments must be proximate in time to the termination; (3) the comments must be made by an individual with authority over the employment decision at issue; and (4) the comments must be related to the employment decision at issue. The Court reviews various comments by both supervisors and holds that the Brown test has not been met. Click here to see actual case.