Holmes v. University of the District of Columbia - United States District Court for the District of Columbia
Facts: Kashawna Holmes ("Holmes") worked for the University of the District of Columbia ("University") as a Program Coordinator in March of 2013. Although her position was described as a "temporary sponsored program appointment" (with the position being contingent upon the availability of grant funding), it had been funded continuously for approximately 30 years. In November of 2013, Holmes began working for a new supervisor, Elgoria Harrison ("Harrison"), and learned of her pregnancy two months later. Upon learning of her pregnancy, doctors advised Holmes that her pregnancy was "high risk".
Although Holmes intended to keep her pregnancy to herself, at a staff meeting in early 2014, Harrison pointed to Holmes's stomach and asked "Is there something you need to tell me?" After Holmes confirmed the pregnancy, Harrison "proceeded to pepper her with questions" which Holmes stated made her uncomfortable. Several weeks later, in front of several other employees, Harrison told Holmes that Harrison "would never have considered having a baby when she was living with a roommate or in her parents' home" and "by the time [Harrison] had a baby, she was married and she and her husband had a house together." Harrison apparently knew that Holmes was neither married nor living with the child's father (who was living oversees).
In April of 2014, Holmes took a a pre-approved sick day to attend two doctors' appointments and sent an e-mail to employees she worked with (including Harrison) to notify them she would be out for the day. Two days after the appointments, Harrison replied to the e-mail and questioned whether Holmes really needed an entire day off for doctors' appointments and questioned whether Holmes was abusing her ability to take leave from work.
In July of 2014, Holmes was ordered to "complete bed rest" because of her pregnancy. She requested FMLA leave from July to September and the University approved her request. However, in August, Holmes saw that the University had advertised her job online. When Holmes contacted human resources, they expressed surprise but were unable to provide an explanation for the job posting. After Holmes gave birth to her child in early September of 2014, she noticed an e-mail from Harrison in which Harrison stated the University "was not renewing her appointment" and "her employment would end on September 30, 2014." Holmes subsequently filed suit against the University on the grounds that of pregnancy discrimination, retaliation, and interference under the DCFMLA. The University moved to dismiss all claims.
Holding: (Note, this analysis covers only the pregnancy discrimination portions of the claim brought by Holmes). In regard to the pregnancy discrimination claim, the Court noted that Holmes need not allege any facts that give rise to an inference of discrimination based upon her pregnancy by showing the University treated other similarly situated employees not in a protected class more favorably under the same factual circumstances. The Court held this evidence is not necessary at the pleading stage (and is also not necessary at trial). The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals had previously held that while pointing to similarly situated employees that the employer treated differently is one way to show an inference of discrimination, it was not the only way to prove discrimination. In reviewing the pleadings, the Court held that Holmes had presented sufficient evidence to establish that her supervisor had singled her out for her pregnancy (and a discrimination claim could proceed). Not only had Harrison made off hand remarks about Holmes being pregnant and not married (or even having a place of her own with the father of the child), but Harrison made several comments which inferred she thought Holmes was abusing the leave policy to attend doctors' appointments.
In regard to the University's argument that because Harrison knew about Holmes's pregnancy for nearly 8 months before a decision was made not to renew the appointment and therefore discrimination could not exist, the Court disagreed that this could prevent Holmes from proving her discrimination claim. In this case, the claim was not that the University retaliated against Holmes for being pregnant but instead that the University discriminated against Holmes for becoming pregnant. Based upon the facts in the case, the Court held that sufficient evidence existed that Harrison made Holmes feel uncomfortable about the pregnancy, harassed her, and accused her of abusing her leave, among other incidents.
Judgment: The District Court upheld Holmes's pregnancy discrimination claim on the grounds that she had plead sufficient facts to establish that her supervisor had created a work environment in which Holmes was singled out for her pregnancy, harassed for being pregnant and not married, and accused of abusing pre-approved leave to attend doctors' appointments.
The Takeaway: This was a very interesting case to read through, in particular because although the Court did not take a stance either way in regard to the pregnancy discrimination claim, it held that sufficient facts had been plead to allow the claim to proceed. I highlight this case for both employers and employees to take note: Although some facts must be plead to allow a claim to survive a motion to dismiss, courts often look favorably upon the party that brought the claim when determining whether sufficient facts have been plead in order to allow the case to proceed. In this instance, as the Court noted, Holmes had identified several instances in which it could appear that Harrison and the University discriminated against her because of her pregnancy. Whether a jury would agree with Holmes is unclear at this point. However, as noted, this was simply a matter of whether Holmes had plead sufficient facts to support her cause of action and survive the motion to dismiss. I agree with the Court in this instance; based upon the facts plead, if true, Holmes might have sufficient grounds to prevail upon a pregnancy discrimination claim at trial.
Majority Opinion Judge: Judge Moss
Date: March 23, 2017
Opinion: hr.cch.com/eld/HolmesUniversity032317.pdf
Comments
Post a Comment