Heather Appel v. Inspire Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
428 F. App'x 279
5th Cir.2011Background
- Appel was hired as a Territory Manager by Inspire in April 2008.
- In September 2008 Appel informed Inspire she was pregnant and high-risk; physician documented house confinement from September 16, 2008, to end of pregnancy.
- Inspire terminated Appel on September 11, 2008 and posted the job on September 23, 2008.
- Appel underwent surgery in September 2008, was on short-term disability for three months, and was formally terminated in December 2008; the position was filled in March 2009 by a non-pregnant woman.
- The district court granted summary judgment for Inspire, ruling Appel was not a qualified applicant under Title VII and was not a qualified individual with a disability under the ADA.
- Appel appeals, and the Fifth Circuit affirms the district court’s judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Title VII discrimination based on pregnancy | Appel argues pregnancy discrimination occurred. | Inspire argues Appel was unqualified due to medical restrictions; no direct evidence of discrimination. | No direct evidence; discrimination defenses fail; summary judgment upheld on qualification grounds. |
| Was Appel a qualified individual under the ADA? | Appel contends her disability (incompetent cervix) qualifies her for ADA protection. | Even with impairment, Appel could not perform essential job functions with or without accommodation. | Appel not a qualified individual; essential functions could not be performed with her restrictions; ADA claim fails. |
| Was the district court’s ruling sua sponte beyond the movant's grounds? | District court relied on grounds not requested by Inspire's motion. | The court addressed qualifications as part of the same framework; not sua sponte. | Ruling aligned with the movant’s arguments; not a sua sponte expansion. |
Key Cases Cited
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (U.S. Supreme Court, 1973) (establishes burden-shifting framework for discrimination claims)
- Laxton v. Gap Inc., 333 F.3d 572 (5th Cir. 2003) (discrimination may be shown via direct or circumstantial evidence)
- Kerstetter v. Pac. Scientific Co., 210 F.3d 431 (5th Cir. 2000) (summary judgment standard and evidence evaluation)
- Alvarado v. Texas Rangers, 492 F.3d 605 (5th Cir. 2007) (pretext and motivating factor considerations under McDonnell Douglas)
- Little v. Liquid Air Corp., 37 F.3d 1069 (5th Cir. 1994) (evidence evaluation and summary judgment mandates)