Mila Washington v. Patrick Donahoe, 692 F. App'x 486

Washington, a USPS employee, requested shortened workdays during pregnancy but sought pay for full days.
USPS initially allowed reduced hours using "personal absence time," then reclassified much of that time as unpaid FMLA leave, requiring use of accrued paid leave to receive pay.
Washington alleged gender and pregnancy discrimination under Title VII; district court granted USPS summary judgment; she appealed.
Key disputed acts: denial of 4.61 hours personal absence, reclassification of 99.03 hours as FMLA sick leave, denial of an 8-hour paid sick-leave call-in, and revocation of the prior full-pay accommodation; USPS also investigated suspected timekeeping fraud.
Washington did not identify similarly situated non-pregnant employees treated more favorably and did not press a race claim on appeal.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Reclassification/denial of personal absence time	USPS wrongfully denied/converted personal absence to FMLA because of pregnancy	USPS policy allows requiring sick/FMLA leave for partial-day absences for FMLA-covered conditions, including pregnancy complications	Denial/reclassification lawful under policy; not direct evidence of discrimination and no circumstantial proof of disparate treatment
Denial of 8-hour sick-leave call-in	USPS denied paid sick leave for a pregnancy-related call-in	No evidence of disparate treatment; no comparable non-pregnant employees shown	Summary judgment for USPS — plaintiff offered no direct or comparator evidence
Revocation of shortened-workday accommodation	USPS improperly revoked an accommodation that paid her for shortened days	USPS provided pay for reduced hours for a period then properly used FMLA thereafter; no disparate treatment shown	No denial of accommodation; absence of similarly situated comparators defeats claim
Investigation for requesting accommodation	Investigation was retaliatory/discriminatory and adverse	Investigation was for suspected timekeeping fraud and did not materially affect employment terms	Investigation was not an adverse action and lacked evidence of discriminatory motive

Godwin v. Hunt Wesson, Inc., 150 F.3d 1217 (9th Cir. 1998) (defining direct evidence of discriminatory animus)
Hawn v. Exec. Jet Mgmt., Inc., 615 F.3d 1151 (9th Cir. 2010) (circumstantial evidence and comparator analysis for discrimination claims)
Young v. United Parcel Serv., Inc., 135 S. Ct. 1338 (U.S. 2015) (burden-shifting framework for pregnancy accommodation claims under Title VII)
Chuang v. Univ. of Cal. Davis, Bd. of Trs., 225 F.3d 1115 (9th Cir. 2000) (adverse employment action requires material effect on employment terms)
McKay v. Ingleson, 558 F.3d 888 (9th Cir. 2009) (issues not raised clearly on appeal are waived)