McDonnell Douglas Burden Shifting Framework Results in Employee Failing to Establish Valid PDA Claim

Jackson v. J.R. Simplot Co. - Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals

Facts:  Stacey Jackson ("Jackson") worked as an Operator for Simplot at a fertilizer plant.  Operators were required to be able to carry more than fifty pounds and could be exposed to industrial chemicals, dirt, dust, gases, fumes, and odors.  In late 2013, Jackson began fertility treatments.  She requested to be transferred to a less physically demanding job or have light duty status.  As a result of submitting a letter from her doctor imposing a lifting restriction, Simplot temporarily assigned Jackson to operate the switch engine or loader.  In this type of administrative position, these employees were also exposed to fumes, dust, and gases.  (Although at this particular plant, Simplot did not employ administrative assistants and had few office positions).  

A few weeks later, Jackson learned she was pregnant.  Her supervisor told her he could no longer accommodate her lifting restriction and referred her to Human Resources.  The Human Resources Manager gave Jackson a chemical data sheet to review with her doctor.  Over the course of the next few months, Jackson's doctor wrote several letters to Simplot and advised that Jackson should not be exposed to chemicals at work.  Finally, after a letter that stated Jackson could return to her Operator position, Simplot allowed her to return to work.  After leaving work for the remainder of her pregnancy and having exhausted her administrative remedies, Jackson sued Simplot and alleged disparate treatment in violation of the Pregnancy Discrimination Act ("PDA"), denial of rights under the Family Medical Leave Act and retaliation for exercising those rights, intentional infliction of emotional distress, breach of contract and employment policies, and breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing.  The District Court granted summary judgment in favor of Simplot on all of Jackson's claims.  Jackson appealed only on her PDA claim.

Holding:  Under the PDA, Title VII's prohibition against sex discrimination applies to discrimination based on pregnancy.  Employers are required to treat "women affected by pregnancy the same for all employment-related purposes as other persons not so affected but similar in their ability or inability to work."  Under the McDonnell Douglas burden shifting framework, Jackson was required to establish a prima facie case of discrimination by a preponderance of the evidence.  If Jackson could meet her burden, Simplot would be required to "articulate a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for the adverse action suffered by the plaintiff."  At that point, Jackson would be required to show her pregnancy was the determinative factor in Simplot's employment decision, or show Simplot's explanation for its action was merely pretext.

The Court held that Jackson had made out a prima facie case of pregnancy discrimination.  With that being said, Simplot had offered a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for refusing to allow Jackson to return to work:  There was simply no position available that met the chemical restrictions imposed by Jackson's doctor.  Although Jackson had argued that the letters from her doctor should be interpreted to mean that she had no meaningful chemical restriction that would prevent her from performing her Operator job, the Court disagreed.  Simplot's burden of proof was one of production, not persuasion.  The letters from the doctor repeatedly stated that Jackson could work around only typical, daily exposure to chemicals and could not be exposed to several chemicals (such as some of the ones on the list provided by Human Resources).

When the burden shifted back to Jackson, the Court held she had failed to show her pregnancy was the determinative factor in Simplot's adverse employment action or that Simplot's explanation for its action was merely pretext.  The essential inquiry at this stage of the McDonnell Douglas test is "whether a reasonable factfinder could rationally find the employer's rationale unworthy of credence and hence infer that the employer did not act for the asserted non-retaliatory reasons."  When the Court examined the letters from Jackson's doctor, it found that they did not clearly state that Jackson was cleared to work as an Operator.  As well, Simplot was able to establish that Jackson was different from other employees whose lifting restrictions had been accommodated.  In this instance, Jackson not only had a lifting restriction but also a restriction on being exposed to chemicals.  Consequently, she was not similarly situated to these other employees whose lifting restrictions Simplot accommodated with light duty.

Judgment:  The Court of Appeals affirmed the ruling of the lower court's granting of summary judgment in favor of the employer on the grounds that the employee had failed to prove her Pregnancy Discrimination Act claim under the McDonnell Douglas burden shifting framework.

The Takeaway:  Although this case is a few months old, I chose it for a specific reason.  The Court of Appeals issued a very streamlined opinion in which it parsed an, at times, complicated statute and applied it to the facts in this case.  Note how in this case, the Court tracked the shifting burden of proof as set forth by McDonnell Douglas to establish that while Jackson had met her initial burden of proof, Simplot had set forth a valid reason for not accommodating her request for a lifting restriction and no exposure to chemicals in the workplace.  Had Simplot had an administrative or office position at this particular plant available (that did not expose employees to chemicals), it is likely that Simplot would have been required to make an effort to accommodate Jackson and offer her this accommodation.  However, given the fact that no reasonable accommodation was available, based upon the lack of an administrative position and the inference from the doctor's letters, I think the Court got it right in this instance.

Majority Opinion Judge:  Judge Lucero

Date:  December 15, 2016

Opinion:  https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjsksu58-XTAhVB7GMKHXkLCYYQFggjMAA&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ca10.uscourts.gov%2Fopinions%2F16%2F16-8044.pdf&usg=AFQjCNErq0hq698GVHZSfKbp1M7XB7s4xQ&sig2=doM95CJQd5gHqG2OZuFmng