Arizanovska v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.
2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 11849
| 7th Cir. | 2012Background
- Arizanovska, a Macedonia-born former Wal‑Mart stocker, alleged pregnancy and national-origin discrimination and state-law claims.
- She was on the overnight stocker crew with lifting requirements up to 50 pounds; medical restrictions later limited lifting to 10–20 pounds.
- After pregnancy complications, she claimed Wal‑Mart limited her duties and ultimately required a leave of absence under its Accommodation in Employment Policy.
- Wal‑Mart proposed light-duty options or a leave; no open light-duty position existed, so she took leave per policy and later miscarried again.
- She did not return to work, filed suit alleging Title VII (Pregnancy Discrimination Act) and state-law claims; district court granted summary judgment for Wal‑Mart on all claims.
- Appeal followed the district court’s grant of summary judgment, with the Seventh Circuit affirming.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Prima facie discrimination under indirect method | Arizanovska shows protected class and adverse action | No suitable comparator outside protected class | No prima facie case; no valid comparator outside protected class |
| Discrimination proof post-pretext | Policy applied selectively due to pregnancy | Policy applied equally; no pretext shown | Summary judgment affirmed; no showing of pretext |
| Retaliation under direct method | EEOC charge caused leave of absence | Leave policy—not retaliation; no causal link | No substantial motivating factor; no direct evidence of retaliation |
| State-law claims | Various state-law claims survive | Claims fail as in federal analysis | District court correct to grant summary judgment on state-law claims |
Key Cases Cited
- Weber v. Univ. Research Ass'n, Inc., 621 F.3d 589 (7th Cir. 2010) (direct/indirect discrimination framework distinctions; prima facie elements)
- Dear v. Shinseki, 578 F.3d 609 (7th Cir. 2009) (prima facie discrimination, comparator requirement)
- Stockwell v. City of Harvey, 597 F.3d 895 (7th Cir. 2010) (shifts burden to employer after prima facie)
- McDonnell v. Cisneros, 84 F.3d 256 (9th Cir. 1996) (reaffirmation of burden-shifting framework (cited by Seventh Circuit))
- Leitgen v. Franciscan Skemp Healthcare, Inc., 630 F.3d 668 (7th Cir. 2011) (causation in retaliation; substantial factor standard)
- Barry/Serednyj v. Beverly Healthcare, LLC, 656 F.3d 540 (7th Cir. 2011) (pregnancy accommodations and non‑discriminatory policies)
- Silverman v. Bd. of Educ., 637 F.3d 729 (7th Cir. 2011) (flexible comparator analysis; similarly situated concept)
- Henry v. Jones, 507 F.3d 558 (7th Cir. 2007) (flexible approach to 'similarly-situated' comparator)
- Serednyj v. Beverly Healthcare, LLC, 656 F.3d 540 (7th Cir. 2011) (accommodations, protected activity linkage)
- Burlington N. & Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. White, 548 U.S. 53 (U.S. 2006) (materially adverse standard for retaliation)