DuChateau v. Camp Dresser & McKee, Inc.
822 F. Supp. 2d 1325
S.D. Fla.2011Background
- CDM provides consulting and environmental/energy services; DuChateau worked as a project lead in Tampa and then West Palm Beach starting in 2007.
- DuChateau participated in Go Green, a Go-Program for Lockheed Martin, aiming to manage the project from CDM’s side.
- In Aug 2008, DuChateau announced maternity leave starting Jan 2009; CDM anticipated Go Green implementation timing around that period.
- After her pregnancy, a supervisor warned CDM’s lack of strong maternity-case handling; Brewer on a conference call insulted her for getting pregnant and jeopardizing Go Green.
- Wheatley was hired Sept 2008 to manage Go Green; DuChateau was reassigned as deputy program manager, with her role as a project assignment rather than a formal employment term.
- Dec 22, 2008, Plante informed DuChateau she had been removed from Go Green; she contends Wheatley removed her, Wheatley denies making a decision; she was told to resign from the project.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether FCRA pregnancy discrimination is cognizable | DuChateau claims FCRA prohibits pregnancy discrimination | CDM argues FCRA does not prohibit pregnancy discrimination | FCRA pregnancy discrimination claim granted to CDM (no claim under FCRA) |
| Whether CDM interfered with FMLA rights | DuChateau asserts failure to restore her as before leave or to an equivalent position | DuChateau was restored to the same position with same terms; no interference | CDM entitled to summary judgment on FMLA interference claim |
| Whether CDM retaliated against DuChateau for FMLA leave | Removal from Go Green and subsequent reduced hours tied to FMLA leave | Removal due to concerns about performance; legitimate non-retaliatory reason | Question of material fact exists; summary judgment denied for FMLA retaliation |
Key Cases Cited
- Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. White, 548 U.S. 53 (U.S. 2006) (retaliation claims require material adversity beyond trivial harms)
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (U.S. 1973) (establishes framework for interrogating pretext in retaliation cases)
- Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prods., Inc., 530 U.S. 133 (U.S. 2000) (pretext evidence may show concrete discriminatory motive)
- Strickland v. Water Works & Sewer Bd. of Birmingham, 239 F.3d 1199 (11th Cir. 2001) (articulates prima facie McDonnell Douglas framework in the Eleventh Circuit)
- Brungart v. BellSouth Telecomms., Inc., 231 F.3d 791 (11th Cir. 2000) (causal connection suffices if decision maker aware of protected activity)
- Combs v. Plantation Patterns, Ltd., 106 F.3d 1519 (11th Cir. 1997) (pretext requires showing weaknesses or implausibilities in employer’s reason)
- Carsillo v. City of Lake Worth, 995 So.2d 1118 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2008) (Florida Fourth DCA held FCRA prohibits pregnancy discrimination)
- O’Loughlin v. Pinchback, 579 So.2d 788 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1991) (FHRA not covering pregnancy discrimination under pre-PDA construction)
- Gilbert v. Supreme Court, 429 U.S. 125 (U.S. 1976) (pregnancy discrimination not covered by Title VII as originally enacted)
- Boone v. Total Renal Labs., Inc., 565 F. Supp. 2d 1323 (M.D. Fla. 2008) (federal courts’ interpretation of FHRA/FCRA regarding pregnancy discrimination)
- Carsillo v. City of Lake Worth, 995 So.2d 1118 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008) (pregnancy discrimination under FCRA discussed; authority cited)