Legg v. Ulster County
17-2861(L)
| 2d Cir. | Oct 29, 2020Background
- Ann Marie Legg, a corrections officer at Ulster County Jail, requested light-duty work during pregnancy in July 2008; the Sheriff’s Office had a 2007 Policy that provided light duty only for on-the-job injuries.
- The County denied Legg’s request, offered full-duty work (with inmate contact) or leave and state disability benefits; Legg submitted conflicting doctor’s notes about restrictions and briefly worked non-inmate posts before being returned to full duty.
- Legg sued under Title VII as amended by the Pregnancy Discrimination Act (PDA) alleging disparate treatment and disparate impact; district court granted JMOL on disparate treatment at the first trial; this court vacated and remanded after Young v. UPS.
- At retrial (2016) the jury found for the County on disparate treatment; the disparate impact claim was tried to the bench and dismissed in 2017 for insufficient evidence that pregnant women were similarly unable to perform full duty compared to officers with on-the-job injuries.
- The Second Circuit affirmed, concluding Legg failed to meet the prima facie evidentiary requirement under the PDA—she did not show that pregnant officers were actually similar in their ability or inability to work to injured officers.
- The court emphasized the probative value of concrete medical evidence where similarity in ability-to-work is central, and found the record (conflicting notes, lack of clinical detail, isolated post-incident complications) insufficient to overturn the district court’s factual findings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the County’s Policy gives rise to a disparate impact claim under the PDA | Legg: Policy denies pregnant officers needed accommodations and thus has an adverse impact on pregnant employees similar in ability to injured officers | County: Policy is facially neutral and applies only to on-the-job injuries; no evidence pregnant officers were unable to work full duty | Held: Legg failed to prove pregnant officers were similar in ability/inability to work to injured officers; disparate impact claim dismissed |
| Whether the district court’s factual findings were clearly erroneous | Legg: Additional facts (October reassignment request, post-incident complications) show she couldn’t perform full duty and the court overlooked evidence | County: Evidence was conclusory and contradictory; district court credibility determinations were proper | Held: No clear error; even considering overlooked facts, evidence was insufficient (medical documentation lacking) to meet prima facie burden |
Key Cases Cited
- Young v. United Parcel Service, Inc., 135 S. Ct. 1338 (2015) (facially neutral accommodation policies can support PDA disparate treatment inferences when they impose significant burdens on pregnant workers)
- Legg v. Ulster Cty., 820 F.3d 67 (2d Cir. 2016) (remanding initial JMOL in light of Young)
- Chin v. Port Auth. of N.Y. & N.J., 685 F.3d 135 (2d Cir. 2012) (framework for disparate impact claims under Title VII)
- Atl. Specialty Ins. Co. v. Coastal Envt'l Grp., Inc., 945 F.3d 53 (2d Cir. 2019) (bench-trial factual findings reviewed for clear error)
- Bradley v. Pizzaco of Nebraska, Inc., 939 F.2d 610 (8th Cir. 1991) (medical evidence probative in disparate impact challenges)
- Lynch v. Freeman, 817 F.2d 380 (6th Cir. 1987) (medical evidence used to show disparate impact on a protected group)