Need pdf viewer for iPad?
Visit iTunes for:
iAnnotate PDF

Garland's Digest
on employment discrimination law
online since 1997
 

 

Disclaimer: The case on which this summary is based may no longer be current law. Also, if the case was decided on summary judgment, the court recited the "facts" in the light most favorable to the non-movant, which may not be the true facts.

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

Ensley-Gaines v. Runyon, 100 F.3d 1220 (6th Cir. November 20, 1996)

Keywords: Title VII (pregnancy discrimination, unequal treatment)

Introduction: Kim Ensley-Gaines sued the United States Postal Service for failing to provide her with full-time light-duty status during her pregnancy. The district court granted the Postal Service's motion for summary judgment. The Sixth Circuit reverses that decision.

Facts: During her pregnancy, Kim Ensley-Gaines requested that she be provided full-time light-duty status. She followed the proper procedures in making this request. Her request was granted, but she was only allowed to work four hours per day; and was then sent home on either sick leave, annual leave or without pay. Ensley-Gaines could have worked eight hours per day if her supervisor had allowed her to work four hours per day while sitting.

Ensley-Gaines identified a number of co-workers who had been treated better than she was when they were temporarily disabled and asked for "light duty" or "limited duty." Light duty is available to employees whose disability is not job-related. Limited duty is available to employees whose disability is job-related. If an employee has a job-related disability, then he or she is paid regardless of whether limited duty work is available.

Law:

1. To establish a prima facie case under Title VII, Ensley-Gaines must show:
   1. she was a member of a protected class;
   2. she suffered an adverse employment action;
   3. she was qualified for the position she lost; and
   4. a comparable non-protected person was treated better.
2. The district court found that limited duty employees and light duty employees were similarly situated with respect to the physical conditions of employment, but not with respect to the terms of employment. Therefore, limited duty employees and light duty employees are not similarly situated for purposes of comparing whether a limited duty employee was treated better than Ensley-Gaines (a light duty employee).
3. Title VII generally requires that a plaintiff demonstrate that the employee who received more favorable treatment be similarly situated in all respects.
4. However, the Sixth Circuit holds that the Pregnancy Discrimination Act (which is a part of Title VII) requirement that pregnant employees be treated the same for all employment-related purposes as nonpregnant employees similarly situated applies only with respect to their ability to work. Therefore, the fact that the Postal Service distinguishes between limited duty employees and light duty employees has no significance to the application of the PDA.
5. The Sixth Circuit holds that Ensley-Gaines established a prima facie case based on the evidence that some limited duty employees and light duty employees had been treated more favorably than her.
6. The Postal Service also argues that even if Ensley-Gaines established a prima facie case that she failed to rebut the Postal Service's legitimate non-discriminatory reasons for its actions.
7. The Postal Service asserts that Ensley-Gaines' supervisor did not assign her to positions in other job areas because the supervisor thought it might violate the employment agreement and subject him to a grievance. The Postal Service also asserts that Ensley-Gaines was not permitted to sit on a stool while working because this would pose a safety hazard and would reduce efficiency. Because Ensley-Gaines has offered proof to the contrary, a reasonable trier of fact could conclude that the proffered reasons were pretextual and that the real reason was discrimination.
8. In summary, the Sixth Circuit concludes that Ensley-Gaines has established a prima facie case of discrimination; and has established genuine issues of material fact concerning whether limited duty employees and light duty employees are similarly situated in their ability or inability to work, whether other light duty or limited duty employees received more favorable treatment, and whether the Postal Service's proffered reasons for its actions were pretextual. The Sixth Circuit reverses the grant of summary judgment and remands the case back to district court.
9. Click here to see actual case.