Skip to main content

Pregnancy Discrimination Occurs When Pregnant Employee Removed From Work Schedule


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

Opinionhttp://hr.cch.com/eld/EEOCBobEvans081717.pdf

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

NLRB: Discussion Among Employees About Tip Pooling is Protected Concerted Activity

  This Advice Memorandum from the National Labor Relations Board’s Associate General Counsel, Jayme Sophir, addressed whether employees which discussed and complained about tip pooling at work constituted protected concerted activity. In relevant part, an employer in New York operated a chain of steakhouses.  While tip pooling was in place at these steakhouses, some of the employees objected to it on the grounds that it was not transparent and improperly divided tips among the workers.  Employees were told not to complain or talk to each other about the tip pool and were told that doing so would endanger their jobs.  Despite the employer later attempting to provide some clarity as to how the tips were being divided, rancor still existed among some employees.  At one point, the employees were told by a general manager that some employees that had been talking about the tip pool were “cleared out” and the employer would continue to do so. In the Advice Memorandum, it was noted that emplo

What I’ve Been Reading This Week

A few years ago, I remember when the “Fight for $15” movement was taking off around the country.  Lo and behold, it appears that a $15/hour minimum wage is not the stopping point, which should be no surprise.  As the below article notes, New York is aggressively moving to ramp up hourly wage rates even higher.  While all the  below articles are worth a read, I called particular attention to that one. As always, below are a couple article that caught my eye this week. Disney World Workers Reject Latest Contract Offer Late last week, it was announced that workers at Disney World had rejected the most recent contract offer from the company, calling on their employer to do better.  As Brooks Barnes at The New York Times writes, the unions that represent about 32,000 workers at Disney World reported their members resoundingly rejected the 5 year contract offer which would have seen workers receive a 10% raise and retroactive increased back pay.  While Disney’s offer would have increased pa

Utah Non-Compete Bill Falters in House

Last month, a non-compete bill sponsored by Representative Brian Greene (Republican from Pleasant Grove) & up for vote in the Utah House failed to make it through the Legislature.  The bill sought to ban enforcement of non-competes if they came after a worker was already employed, given no compensation (such as a bonus or promotion) for signing the non-compete, and laid off within six months.  However, by a 22 - 49 vote, the bill was resoundingly defeated after some business groups lobbied to kill the non-compete bill.  One group in particular, The Free Enterprise Utah coalition, argued that the Utah State Legislature should hold off on any changes to non compete laws in the state until a survey about non competes was done among Utah businesses.  Representative Greene had countered this claim and argued that a survey was not needed to show that the current non compete laws in the states allowed many businesses, including some small high tech companies in the state, to per