EEOC v. Bob Evans Farms, LLC - United States District Court, Western District of Pennsylvania
Facts: Hayle Nadalin, nee Macioce ("Macioce") began working at a Bob Evans restaurant as a waitress in 2009. Bob /Evans used an automated computer-based scheduling system to create employee schedules based upon factors such as employees' availability and the anticipated needs of the restaurant. Subject to a manager's approval, employees could change their schedules. Jay Moreau("Moreau"), who was the General Manager of the location that Macioce worked at, had the authority to "pencil in" employees onto the finalized schedule if needed.
In July of 2014, Macioce was pregnant with a due date in September. She indicated that she wanted to work up until she gave birth to her child (which ultimately occurred on September 12). In mid July, Macioce and Moreau discussed Macioce's future work schedule. As Moreau believed Macioce's pregnancy due date was "imminent" and the delivery "could happen any day", he asked when she planned to take a leave of absence. Macioce indicated she would not take a leave of absence, intended to work until she had the baby, and did not request that her availability be changed in the automated scheduling system. Macioce further stated that Moreau said he would take her off the schedule as he did not "want to get screwed over if [she had] the baby." (Moreua apparently could not recall the specifics of this conversation). Moreau subsequently took Macioce off the automated scheduling system because she was pregnant, believed her need for leave was imminent, and wanted to ensure the restaurant's staffing needs were met (by way of a "predictable" schedule).
After Macioce went on a scheduled vacation, she was only sporadically put on the schedule to work (although she indicated she was available to work a shift and wanted to do so) via penciled in shifts. After having her baby, Macioce decided not to return to work at Bob Evans and resigned on October 27, 2016. A subsequent pregnancy discrimination suit was filed with both sides moving for summary judgment.
Holding: Generally speaking, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex. The Pregnancy Discrimination Act ("PDA") further provides that discrimination against women because of or on the basis of pregnancy, childbirth, or related conditions with respect to compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment is unlawful. Of course, note that the PDA "compels the conclusion that an employer cannot require a pregnant employee to stop working unless she is unable to work, preserving the decision to work to the woman's judgment." As has been previously established by prior caselaw, the prohibition against pregnancy discrimination is breached "whenever an employee's pregnancy [or related medical condition] is a motivating factor for the employer's adverse employment decision."
Based upon the facts of this case, the District Court held there was direct evidence of discrimination towards Macioce because of her pregnancy. While Bob Evans argued that "ill will" must be shown in order for Macioce to prevail on her claim, the Court disagreed. In a pregnancy discrimination claim such as this, the Court held sufficient evidence had been introduced to show "directly and without equivocation" that the reason for Moreau removing Macioce from the automated scheduling "was because she was pregnant and he believed her need for leave because of child birth (and nothing else) was imminent." Although Bob Evans attempted to use its "predictable" scheduling argument to justify its actions, the Court was unswayed. As the Court wrote, "[a]nticipated inconvenience" could not be used to legally justify discriminating against an employee.
Judgment: The District Court granted summary judgment in favor of the EEOC on the grounds that the actions and comments by the Bob Evans manager were sufficient to establish unlawful discrimination against an employee because of her pregnancy.
The Takeaway: In full disclosure, I grew up near a Bob Evans and it was one of my favorite restaurants (well, Bob Evans and Rax...for those who have been). In fact, whenever I get up to the north, I still make it a point and stop by Bob Evans for a quick breakfast.
With that being said, employers, take this case as a "warning" of what not to say to a pregnant employee. While some employers may somehow reach the conclusion that an employee's pregnancy is a problem or some sort of hindrance to the workplace, telling a pregnant employee they are being removed from the schedule because the employer did not want to get "screwed" is a quick way to have a lawsuit filed. As this case demonstrates (and as the Court noted in its opening sentence of the opinion), it is rare when a plaintiff is entitled to the granting of summary judgment in its favor. However, as established above, the manager's conduct and actions lent themselves to the ultimate conclusion that a violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 occurred such that summary judgment was proper in favor of the EEOC. Not even its defense of wanting a predictable schedule as the reason for removing Macioce from the automated scheduling was enough for Bob Evans to avoid summary judgment.
Majority Opinion Judge: Judge Hornak
Date: August 18, 2017
Opinion: http://hr.cch.com/eld/EEOCBobEvans081717.pdf
Comments
Post a Comment