Penaloza v. Target Corp.
549 F. App'x 844
11th Cir.2013Background
- Penaloza, a pro se plaintiff, worked for Target and alleged pregnancy discrimination, Title VII retaliation, and FMLA interference/retaliation; she also attempted an ADA claim which the district court dismissed for failure to exhaust administrative remedies.
- Procedural posture: summary judgment granted for Target on pregnancy discrimination (PDA/Title VII and FCRA), Title VII retaliation, and FMLA claims; ADA claim dismissed under Rule 12(b)(6) for lack of EEOC exhaustion; Penaloza appealed.
- Relevant facts: Penaloza was pregnant, received reduced hours, disciplinary write-ups for absences/late arrivals, took roughly 14 weeks of leave, and was terminated after failing to return to work following that absence.
- Penaloza filed an EEOC charge alleging sex/pregnancy discrimination; she later alleged a high‑risk pregnancy and disability but did not raise disability in the EEOC charge.
- Target provided at least the statutory 12 weeks of FMLA leave (and had a voluntary 16‑week policy), and Penaloza’s termination occurred about 14 weeks after her EEOC charge and two weeks after the 12‑week FMLA period ended.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Pregnancy discrimination (PDA/Title VII & FCRA) — disparate treatment | Penaloza: reduction in hours, discipline, and termination were due to pregnancy | Target: no evidence similarly situated non‑pregnant employees were treated better | Held: Summary judgment for Target; plaintiff failed to show similarly situated comparators |
| Title VII retaliation for EEOC charge | Penaloza: termination was retaliatory after filing EEOC charge | Target: termination not causally connected; timing insufficient alone | Held: Summary judgment for Target; temporal gap (~14 weeks) insufficient to establish causation |
| FMLA interference and retaliation | Penaloza: termination interfered with/retaliated for FMLA leave request | Target: provided statutory 12 weeks; termination occurred after entitlement ended; no causal evidence | Held: Summary judgment for Target; no interference (benefit received) and no causal link for retaliation |
| ADA/disability claim — exhaustion | Penaloza: alleged pregnancy‑related high‑risk condition and lack of accommodation | Target: no disability in EEOC charge; claim not exhausted | Held: Dismissal affirmed; disability claim outside scope of EEOC charge and not administratively exhausted |
Key Cases Cited
- Rioux v. City of Atlanta, Ga., 520 F.3d 1269 (11th Cir.) (de novo review of summary judgment)
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (U.S.) (movant’s burden and nonmoving party must present specific evidentiary materials)
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (U.S.) (burden‑shifting framework for circumstantial discrimination)
- Thomas v. Cooper Lighting, Inc., 506 F.3d 1361 (11th Cir.) (temporal proximity must be ‘‘very close’’ to show causation)
- McGregor v. AutoZone, Inc., 180 F.3d 1305 (11th Cir.) (FMLA does not require leave beyond 12 weeks)
- Strickland v. Water Works & Sewer Bd., 239 F.3d 1199 (11th Cir.) (distinguishing FMLA interference and retaliation elements)
- Mulhall v. Advance Sec., 19 F.3d 586 (11th Cir.) (scope of judicial complaint limited to what can reasonably grow out of EEOC charge)
- Gregory v. Georgia Dept. of Human Resources, 355 F.3d 1277 (11th Cir.) (federal complaint may only amplify/clarify EEOC allegations; new claims not allowed)