Angela Ames v. Nationwide Mutual Insurance Co
760 F.3d 763
8th Cir.2014Background
- Angela Ames was hired as a loss-mitigation specialist at Nationwide in Oct. 2008; timely completion of work was a high priority in her department.
- Ames took maternity leave after births in May 2009 and May 2010; she was placed on bed rest in Apr. 2010 for pregnancy complications.
- On returning to work July 19, 2010, Ames sought immediate access to a lactation room but was told badge access required paperwork with a three-day processing time; a temporary wellness room was suggested but not immediately available.
- Supervisors made comments about her maternity leave and pregnancies; her supervisor Neel told her (variously) it might be best for her to go home with her babies and dictated a resignation form; Brinks told her she had backlog work and might be disciplined if she didn’t catch up.
- Ames resigned that morning and sued for sex/pregnancy discrimination under Title VII and the Iowa Civil Rights Act, alleging constructive discharge; the district court granted summary judgment to Nationwide, and Ames appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Constructive discharge — did employer deliberately create intolerable conditions? | Neel’s remarks, miscalculated FMLA leave, training a temp, lack of immediate lactation access, pressure about backlog, and being told to go home made working conditions intolerable. | Nationwide sought to accommodate Ames (corrected leave, offered extra week, offered wellness room, expedited access request) and applied neutral policies to all; Ames didn’t give reasonable time or use internal channels to remedy. | Court: No constructive discharge — employer did not intend to force resignation and Ames failed to give reasonable opportunity to remedy. |
| Actual discharge — was Ames effectively fired? | Ames’s complaint and facts suggested she was discharged. | Nationwide: argument not raised below; summary judgment record was addressed and no actual discharge claim presented to district court. | Court: Ames waived actual-discharge argument by failing to raise it in district court; appellate court declines to consider it. |
| Burden/standard for discrimination proof (direct evidence vs. McDonnell Douglas) | Ames asserted both direct evidence and McDonnell Douglas inference based on pregnancy discrimination. | Nationwide maintained no adverse employment action shown (essential element), and policies were neutral; even under inference framework, no adverse action proved. | Court: Focused on adverse-action element; because no constructive or actual discharge, Ames failed to show the required adverse employment action and summary judgment affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (framework for burden-shifting in discrimination cases)
- Elam v. Regions Fin. Corp., 601 F.3d 873 (direct-evidence and McDonnell Douglas discussion)
- Alvarez v. Des Moines Bolt Supply, Inc., 626 F.3d 410 (constructive-discharge standard)
- Trierweiler v. Wells Fargo Bank, 639 F.3d 456 (employee obligation to be reasonable before resigning)
- Schneider v. Jax Shack, Inc., 794 F.2d 383 (procedural point about raising actual-discharge theories below)
- Fercello v. County of Ramsey, 612 F.3d 1069 (intent to force resignation can be shown by foreseeability of quitting)