Plaintiff was a sheriff's deputy assigned to the road patrol when she became pregnant. She asked to be reassigned to light duty work at road patrol wages, but was told her only options were to remain on the road patrol, take medical leave or work as a dispatcher at a $10,000 pay-cut. Plaintiff elected to take medical leave and then filed suit, alleging sex discrimination under Title VII and other claims. The District Court granted Defendants' motion for summary judgment. The Court held that Plaintiff could not make out a claim of disparate treatment, because Plaintiff did not show that comparable persons not protected under Title VII received more favorable treatment than she did. Under the Pregnancy Discrimination Act ("PDA"), 42 U.S.C. § 2000e(k), which amended Title VII, Plaintiff had to establish that as a pregnant woman she was not treated the same as "other persons not so affected but similar in their ability or inability to work." Plaintiff made no showing that other persons similar in their ability or inability to work were treated differently from her. The Court stressed that "[i]t is important to note that the inquiry in a pregnancy discrimination case is not whether the employer could have been more accommodating to its pregnant employees. Rather, all the law requires is that the employer treat its pregnant employees the same as others similar in their ability or inability to work. The PDA does not require an employer who does not provide light duty work to other temporarily disabled employees to provide it for pregnant workers."
Christine Raciti-Hur v. Donald D. Homan., et al., Civ. No. 97-CV-70197, E.D. Mich., 01/29/98, Zatkoff, J.
This article was prepared by Mark A. Goldsmith, a partner in our Litigation Department, was appeared in the July, 1998 edition of the Michigan Bar Journal.