Jackson v. J.R. Simplot Co.
666 F. App'x 739
| 10th Cir. | 2016Background
- Stacey Jackson, an Operator at Simplot’s Rock Springs fertilizer plant, sought accommodation during early pregnancy after fertility treatment; her job required lifting >50 lbs and exposed employees to industrial chemicals.
- Between Dec 12, 2013 and Feb 28, 2014 Jackson’s doctor provided several letters advising limited exposure to certain chemicals and recommending light-duty/office work; a final Feb 28 letter cleared her to return to Operator duties.
- Simplot temporarily accommodated a lifting restriction in fall 2013 but, after learning of the chemical-exposure letters, refused to place Jackson in available positions because they potentially exposed her to the listed chemicals.
- Jackson filed suit alleging multiple claims; on appeal she pursues only a Pregnancy Discrimination Act (PDA) disparate-treatment claim based on Simplot’s refusal to accommodate her between Dec 12, 2013 and Feb 28, 2014.
- The district court granted summary judgment for Simplot; the Tenth Circuit reviews de novo and affirms, finding Simplot articulated a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason and Jackson failed to show pretext.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Jackson established PDA disparate-treatment | Jackson contends doctor’s letters did not impose a meaningful chemical restriction, so pregnancy was basis for adverse action | Simplot says no position met the doctor’s restrictions, so refusal was non-discriminatory accommodation decision | Court: Jackson made a prima facie case, but burden-shifting applies and employer met its production burden |
| Whether Simplot articulated legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason | — | Simplot: no available job complied with doctor’s chemical-exposure restrictions | Court: Simplot satisfied its production burden by stating lack of suitable positions |
| Whether Simplot’s reason was pretextual | Jackson: letters (and later affidavit) show no chemical restriction; company deviated from accommodation practice | Simplot: decision was based on how the letters reasonably appeared; Allen’s uncertain knowledge of exact chemical levels isn’t fatal | Court: No genuine dispute—reasonable factfinder could not find employer’s rationale unworthy of credence |
| Whether Jackson was treated differently from similarly situated employees | Jackson points to five employees given light duty for lifting limits and to alleged failure to consult enough department heads | Simplot: those employees lacked chemical-exposure restrictions; routine consultation occurred though exact heads spoken with varied | Court: Other employees not similarly situated; record does not show a policy breach sufficient to infer pretext |
Key Cases Cited
- Smothers v. Solvay Chems., Inc., 740 F.3d 530 (10th Cir. 2014) (standard for reviewing summary judgment in discrimination cases)
- Young v. United Parcel Serv., Inc., 135 S. Ct. 1338 (2015) (PDA requires pregnant employees be treated like others similar in ability to work)
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973) (burden-shifting framework for indirect evidence of discrimination)
- EEOC v. Horizon/CMS Healthcare Corp., 220 F.3d 1184 (10th Cir. 2000) (articulation of legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason and burdens)
- EEOC v. C.R. England, Inc., 644 F.3d 1028 (10th Cir. 2011) (focus on decisionmaker’s perception when assessing pretext)
- Lounds v. Lincare, Inc., 812 F.3d 1208 (10th Cir. 2015) (factors for inferring pretext from employer explanations)