84 F. Supp. 3d 113
D. Conn.2015Background
- Gaither, a part-time Stop & Shop employee since Oct. 2011, became pregnant and in June 2012 received a doctor’s restriction limiting lifting to 15 pounds. She was not eligible for company leave benefits as a part-time employee.
- After notifying assistant manager Nelson, Gaither alleges repeated demands to perform tasks exceeding her restriction; she presented documentation of the restriction.
- On July 29, 2012, store manager Haberern terminated Gaither, citing inability to perform lifting requirements; he sent a letter saying Stop & Shop looked forward to her return when she was "back to 100%."
- Gaither requested a medical leave of absence instead of termination; she contends she was told she would have to reapply for her job with no guarantee of rehiring.
- Gaither resumed medical ability to work after giving birth but did not reapply because she believed she would not be welcome; she subsequently suffered eviction and homelessness.
- Gaither sued under Connecticut’s Fair Employment Practices Act (CFEPA) alleging (A) termination because of pregnancy, (B) denial of reasonable pregnancy leave, and (E) failure to make reasonable efforts to transfer to a suitable temporary position. Defendant moved for summary judgment; the court denied it.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was termination because of pregnancy prohibited under CFEPA? | Gaither says termination was pregnancy-based and resulted from Stop & Shop refusing leave or transfer. | Stop & Shop says Gaither was unable to perform essential job functions due to restriction and termination was lawful. | Court: Jury could find termination was related to pregnancy; CFEPA prohibits termination because of pregnancy — summary judgment denied. |
| Was Gaither denied a reasonable leave of absence under §46a-60(a)(7)(B)? | Gaither requested leave; termination is not equivalent to leave and she was not guaranteed reinstatement. | Defendant contends termination was effectively the same as leave because it invited return when "back to 100%." | Court: Statute requires granting leave; vague invitation to reapply is not the same; factual dispute precludes summary judgment. |
| Did Stop & Shop fail to make a reasonable effort to transfer Gaither to a suitable temporary position under §46a-60(a)(7)(E)? | Gaither contends after she reported the restriction she was repeatedly required to exceed it and was effectively denied reassignment beginning June 5, 2012. | Stop & Shop argues no evidence showed belief continued employment would cause injury and no suitable position existed. | Court: A jury could find her duties risked injury and that she was effectively denied transfer; summary judgment denied. |
| Are requested remedies (back/front pay, emotional distress) barred or precluded as a matter of law? | Gaither seeks damages including lost wages and emotional distress; she explains she did not reapply because she was terminated rather than put on leave. | Defendant says its invitation to reapply and Gaither’s failure to reapply preclude back/front pay; also invokes mitigation and proximate-cause arguments for emotional distress. | Court: Offer to reapply was conditional/disputed; mitigation and causation are factual issues for trial; remedies not resolved on summary judgment. |
Key Cases Cited
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (framework for disparate-treatment claims)
- Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N.A., 534 U.S. 506 (direct evidence avoids McDonnell Douglas framework)
- General Elec. Co. v. Gilbert, 429 U.S. 125 (pre-PDA pregnancy exclusion context)
- Newport News Shipbuilding & Dry Dock Co. v. EEOC, 462 U.S. 669 (PDA interpretation: pregnancy-related conditions must not be treated less favorably)
- California Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass’n v. Guerra, 479 U.S. 272 (state laws can require greater pregnancy protections than Title VII)
- Davis v. Manchester Health Ctr., Inc., 88 Conn. App. 60 (Conn. App. Ct.) (termination for refusing assignment posing risk to pregnancy supports §46a-60(a)(7)(A) claim)
- Commission on Human Rights & Opportunities v. Truelove & Maclean, 238 Conn. 337 (Conn.) (discusses remedies and reinstatement issues under CFEPA)