Pregnant Employee Fired Because of Upcoming Lifting Restrictions? Beware of "Anticipatory Termination" Lawsuit

Cadenas v. Butterfield Health Care II, Inc. - US District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division

Facts:   Araceli Cadenas started work at a nursing home facility in September 2011.  The position required assisting residents with a range of motion exercises, placing and removing splints,  assisting with dressing, bathing, and eating, as well as lifting, moving, and physically transferring residents from their beds to their wheelchairs.  The position required Cadenas to push more than twenty pounds when she pushed residents in their wheelchairs.  The employer had an unwritten policy of offering light duty work to employees who had work related injuries, however.  Cadenas delivered a doctor's note to the HR Director in early May 2012 that stated Cadenas was 14 weeks pregnant and that she should not lift, push, or pull over twenty pounds beginning the 20th week of her pregnancy.  In mid May, the HR Director informed Cadenas that the doctor's note was considered a voluntary resignation as the employer did not put people on light duty that are pregnant.  The HR Director also informed Cadenas that she would not be able to continue working but could return to work after her baby was born. 

Cadenas subsequently brought a pregnancy discrimination suit against Butterfield on the grounds that she was unlawfully terminated because of her pregnancy.  Butterfield moved for summary judgment as to the discrimination claim.

Holding:  The District Court denied Butterfield's motion for summary judgment on the grounds that while Butterfield could have lawfully fired Cadenas as of the 20th week of her pregnancy, when it was undisputed she would not longer be able to effectively do her job, Cadenas could not have been lawfully terminated at the 15th week of her pregnancy.  

The Court noted that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits employment discrimination "because of or on the basis of pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions."  In this case, the Court held that the decision to fire Cadenas could be considered an 'anticipatory termination' and a jury could therefore find a violation of Title VII if the facts presented were true.  The evidence showed that Cadenas could have adequately performed her job from the 15th through the 20th week of her pregnancy.  However, Butterfield failed to present any non-discriminatory reason for terminating Cadenas when she informed them of her pregnancy.  As a result, the Court held that a reasonable jury could find that Cadenas was terminated because of her pregnancy, rather than a lawful basis.

Judgment:  The District Court denied Butterfield's motion for summary judgment and held that a reasonable jury could find that Cadenas' termination was an 'anticipatory termination' as a result of her pregnancy, in violation of Title VII.

The Takeaway:  I think this one really came down to the facts of the case:  Butterfield could not provide a reasonable explanation for why Cadenas was terminated when the facts seemed to establish that the revelation of her pregnancy was the sole justification for her termination.  Even though she could have been lawfully terminated when she could no longer perform her work, the fact that Cadenas could still do the work for another five weeks was pivotal.  Employers need to be cautious when dealing with pregnancy related issues at work...just because an employee is pregnant and might not be able to perform all required job functions in a few days, weeks, months, etc., does not mean that is automatic grounds to lawfully fire them immediately. 

Majority Opinion Judge:  Judge Tharp, Jr.

Date:  July 15, 2014

Opinion:  http://0-www.gpo.gov.librus.hccs.edu/fdsys/pkg/USCOURTS-ilnd-1_12-cv-07750/pdf/USCOURTS-ilnd-1_12-cv-07750-0.pdf