Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Houston Funding II, Ltd.
2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 10933
| 5th Cir. | 2013Background
- Venters, a Houston Funding account representative, was fired in Feb 2009 after a December 2008 maternity leave with no formal policy on leave or return date.
- Venters informed supervisors she was lactating and asked to pump at work; initial response from management was clearly hostile to accommodation.
- Houston Funding eventually sent a termination notice alleging job abandonment, effective Feb 13, 2009, while Venters claimed she was released to return to work and had been seeking an accommodation.
- EEOC sued on Venters’ behalf alleging sex discrimination including pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions under Title VII and the PDA.
- District court granted summary judgment for Houston Funding, holding lactation/breast pumping not protected as sex discrimination or PDA-related.
- Court of Appeals vacated and remanded, holding lactation/discharging for lactation can be Title VII discrimination and lactation a related medical condition under the PDA.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does firing a lactating employee violate Title VII/PDA? | Venters’ lactation-driven discharge constitutes sex discrimination. | Lactation is not a protected condition; discharge was for job abandonment. | Yes; lactation-based discharge is Title VII discrimination. |
| Is lactation a related medical condition of pregnancy under the PDA? | Lactation fits within pregnancy-related medical conditions under the PDA. | No, lactation is not a medical condition covered by the PDA. | Yes; lactation is a related medical condition under the PDA. |
| Does the EEOC establish a prima facie case and show pretext for discharge? | Discharge was due to lactation; stated reason (job abandonment) is pretext. | Discharge was for legitimate abandonment; motive not shown to be discriminatory. | Yes; triable issues on discrimination and pretext. |
Key Cases Cited
- Harper v. Thiokol Chemical Corp., 619 F.2d 489 (5th Cir. 1980) (pregnancy-related discrimination can violate Title VII as amended by the PDA)
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (U.S. 1973) (establishes the prima facie framework for Title VII discrimination claims)
- Newport News Shipbuilding & Dry Dock Co. v. EEOC, 462 U.S. 669 (U.S. 1983) (PDA amendment disapproved Gilbert rationale; pregnancy-related protections)
- Urbano v. Continental Airlines, Inc., 138 F.3d 204 (5th Cir. 1998) (PDA does not require special accommodations for pregnancy-related conditions)