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.

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

Hanenburg v. Principal Mut. Life Ins. Co., 118 F.3d 570 (8th Cir. May 20, 1997)

Keywords: Title VII (pregnancy discrimination, failure to exhaust administrative remedies) and Minnesota Human Rights Act (pregnancy discrimination, constructive discharge)

Introduction: Theresa Hanenburg sued her former employer under Title VII and the Minnesota Human Rights Act for pregnancy discrimination that allegedly resulted in her constructive discharge. The district court granted summary judgment on behalf of Principal. The Eighth Circuit Affirms.

Facts: The office in which Hanenburg worked invoked a strict attendance policy. Excessive absences impacted annual raises. Hanenburg had several pregnancies over a period of a few years. This adversely affected her pay raises. At a March of 1994 meeting, Hanenburg was advised of a below-average salary increase. At the meeting, Hanenburg announced that she was again pregnant. She asked whether next year's raise would be affected by her pregnancy, and was told that extended disability absences would negatively impact future raises. During this same period, Hanenburg's workplace behavior was closely monitored to a greater extent than other similar workers. In April of 1994, Hanenburg began disability leave due to her pregnancy. She never returned to work. On January 22, 1995, she resigned.

Law:

1. With respect to Title VII, Hanenburg failed to exhaust her administrative remedies by not filing a claim with the EEOC.
2. With respect to her claim under the Minnesota Human Rights Act, Hanenburg could have filed a formal administrative claim or filed a lawsuit within one year -- which she did.
3. Cases under the MHRA are interpreted like Title VII cases.
4. To establish a prima facie case, one factor she must establish is that she was constructively discharged.
5. A constructive discharge arises only when a reasonable person would find the conditions of employment intolerable -- and the employee must give her employer a reasonable opportunity to work out the problems prior to resigning.
6. The Eighth Circuit holds that Hanenburg did not establish either element.
7. This case summary does not address Hanenburg's claim under the Family and Medical Leave Act.
8. Click here to see actual case.