Stephanie Hicks v. City of Tuscaloosa, Alabama
870 F.3d 1253
| 11th Cir. | 2017Background
- Stephanie Hicks, a narcotics-task-force investigator for the Tuscaloosa Police Department, became pregnant and took 12 weeks of FMLA leave after childbirth; she returned in November 2012.
- Shortly after her return (eight days), Hicks was reassigned from the narcotics task force to patrol, losing her vehicle, weekends off, and receiving different duties and pay—reassignment recommended by a new captain.
- Hicks’s supervisor made derogatory remarks about her pregnancy/FMLA leave and discussed writing her up; she was written up soon after returning.
- Hicks requested accommodations related to breastfeeding (avoid wearing or alteration of ballistic vest; desk duty; lactation breaks); Chief Anderson offered beat assignment with lactation access, priority breaks, or a “specially fitted” vest, which Hicks found unsafe and inadequate.
- Hicks resigned, claiming constructive discharge, pregnancy discrimination under the PDA, and FMLA retaliation; a jury found for Hicks on PDA discrimination (reassignment), constructive discharge (failure to accommodate breastfeeding), and FMLA retaliation, but for the City on FMLA interference.
- The Eleventh Circuit affirmed, holding lactation/breastfeeding is a pregnancy-related condition under the PDA and that the record contained sufficient circumstantial evidence of discrimination and retaliatory motive.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether reassignment eight days after FMLA leave violated the PDA (pregnancy discrimination) | Reassignment plus derogatory comments and temporal proximity show intentional discrimination | Reassignment was for legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons (poor performance, failure to work informants) | Jury verdict upheld: evidence permitted a reasonable jury to infer intentional discrimination |
| Whether reassignment constituted FMLA retaliation | Hicks was punished for taking FMLA leave; causal connection shown by timing and comments | Actions were based on performance concerns, not retaliation | Affirmed: sufficient evidence of retaliation to support jury verdict |
| Whether employer’s refusal/offer of accommodations for breastfeeding amounted to discriminatory constructive discharge under PDA | Denial of accommodations given to others made conditions intolerable and forced resignation; breastfeeding is pregnancy-related | City offered alternatives (beat with lactation access, breaks, tailored vest); no discriminatory animus or intolerable conditions | Affirmed: breastfeeding/lactation is covered by PDA; jury reasonably found constructive discharge |
| Whether district court’s jury instructions and remedy determinations were erroneous | Hicks argued instructions proper and damages mitigated appropriately | City argued instruction wording improperly lowered plaintiff’s burden and Hicks failed to mitigate | Affirmed: instructions not an abuse of discretion; City failed to prove lack of mitigation |
Key Cases Cited
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (establishes burden-shifting framework for discrimination claims)
- Williams v. Dresser Indus., Inc., 120 F.3d 1163 (11th Cir.) (standard for reviewing JMOL; view evidence for nonmovant)
- Wascura v. City of South Miami, 257 F.3d 1238 (11th Cir.) (elements for FMLA retaliation/causation)
- Holland v. Gee, 677 F.3d 1047 (11th Cir.) (post-trial role of McDonnell Douglas and evaluating convincing mosaic of circumstantial evidence)
- Green v. Brennan, 136 S. Ct. 1769 (2016) (constructive discharge treated as tantamount to discharge under Title VII)
- E.E.O.C. v. Houston Funding II, Ltd., 717 F.3d 425 (5th Cir.) (holds lactation is a pregnancy-related medical condition under the PDA)
- Young v. United Parcel Service, Inc., 135 S. Ct. 1338 (2015) (pregnancy accommodation analysis: comparison to others similarly situated)
- California Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass’n v. Guerra, 479 U.S. 272 (discusses PDA’s purpose to protect pregnancy-related conditions)