U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. CTI Global Solutions, Inc., 815 F. Supp. 2d 897

Background

EEOC sues CTI Global Solutions for pregnancy-based discrimination under Title VII as amended by the PDA, alleging removal of three employees from the FBI ARC project.
CTI is a government contractor staffing employees on long-term FBI ARC assignments since 1989; ARC work requires lifting and climbing duties, with specific job descriptions and orientations.
Rita Tolliver, visibly pregnant, was removed from the ARC project after CFO Whitfield observed her pregnancy; CTI executives concurred that continuing the job posed risks, with health considerations deemed irrelevant to the removal.
Anje Proctor and Alfre Tisdale applied for ARC positions; both became pregnant; CTI removed Tisdale and Proctor in mid-2009 citing pregnancy and/or inability to perform required lifting/lifting and climbing duties.
Mitigation efforts followed: Tolliver engaged in job-searching and accepted translation work at Guantánamo Bay; Proctor posted resumes and accepted occasional temporary assignments; Tisdale pursued numerous applications and ultimately took a Pentagon placement, with disputes over availability and compensation.
Procedural posture included an EEOC action filed in 2009, administrative stay due to CTI’s bankruptcy, reopening in 2010, and cross-motions for partial summary judgment addressing liability and mitigation.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Tolliver and Proctor were discriminatorily removed due to pregnancy	Direct evidence links removal to pregnancy for Tolliver and Proctor.	Removal based on job-related restrictions/health concerns, not pregnancy per se.	Grants summary judgment for Tolliver and Proctor on liability; direct evidence supports pregnancy-based discrimination.
Whether Tisdale's removal was pregnancy-based discrimination or a legitimate business decision	Direct evidence shows removal due to pregnancy; may also be pretextual under McDonnell Douglas framework.	Removal justified by Tisdale's inability to perform lifting/climbing; light-duty options were not available.	Material factual disputes preclude summary judgment on Tisdale’s liability; direct evidence present but credibility issues remain.
Whether CTI's failure-to-mitigate defense is legally valid as to Tolliver and Proctor	Even with removal, Tolliver/Proctor mitigated via resumes, networking, and alternative employment; no back pay should be reduced.	Mitigation required seeking substantially equivalent work; offers and attendance at meetings could affect damages.	Summary judgment granted for Tolliver and Proctor on mitigation; genuine disputes exist about specific offers but not sufficient to defeat mitigation as to Tolliver; partially denied for Proctor, with factual disputes remaining.
Whether CTI’s mitigation analysis for Tisdale is supported	Tisdale engaged in extensive search and accepted Pentagon placement; argues temporary offers may not be substantially equivalent.	Temporary offers and availability issues create disputes about substantial equivalence and availability after birth.	Genuine issues of material fact remain; cross-motion as to Tisdale’s mitigation denied.

Key Cases Cited

Hill v. Lockheed Martin Logistics Mgmt., 354 F.3d 277 (4th Cir. 2004) (direct vs. pretext approach for pregnancy discrimination)
O'Connor v. Consol. Coin Caterers Corp., 56 F.3d 542 (4th Cir. 1995) (direct evidence nexus and decisionmaker status)
Ford Motor Co. v. EEOC, 458 U.S. 219 (1982) (mitigation and substantially equivalent employment; cannot be forced into demotion)
Brady v. Thurston Motor Lines, 753 F.2d 1269 (4th Cir. 1985) (mitigation duties and back pay reduction framework)
Ward v. Acme Paper & Supply Co., 751 F. Supp. 2d 801 (D. Md. 2010) (light duty availability and disability discrimination in pregnancy context)
Daugherty v. Genesis Health Ventures of Salisbury, Inc., 316 F. Supp. 2d 262 (D. Md. 2004) (pregnant employee not entitled to light duty where non-pregnant employees not similarly accommodated)
Anastasio v. Schering Corp., 838 F.2d 701 (3d Cir. 1988) (mitigation considerations in discriminatory actions)
Parrish v. Immanuel Medical Center, 92 F.3d 727 (8th Cir. 1996) (substantial equivalence in mitigation evaluations)
Newhouse v. McCormick & Co., 110 F.3d 635 (8th Cir. 1997) (mitigation when new employment is substantially equivalent to prior position)