Employment — pregnancy discrimination — retaliation

Listen to this article

United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit

Civil

Employment — pregnancy discrimination — retaliation

Where an employer applied its accommodation policy in the same fashion, regardless of whether an employee filed a complaint, it was not retaliatory.       “To establish the third element—i.e., a causal relation— she must show that her EEOC charge was a ‘substantial motivating factor’ in Wal-Mart’s decision to require her to take an unpaid leave of absence. Leitgen v. Franciscan Skemp Healthcare, Inc., 630 F.3d 668, 675 (7th Cir. 2011). Here, Arizanovska points to an e-mail correspondence between two of Wal-Mart’s supervisors— Christy (Personnel Manager) and Mace (Human Resources Manager). In the e-mail exchange, Christy explained to Mace that Arizanovska had filed legal action against Wal-Mart following her first pregnancy. Christy then further explained that Arizanovska was pregnant again and now had a medical restriction that prevented her from lifting more than 10 pounds. Mace responded that Arizanovska would have to take a leave of absence until she could perform her essential job functions. If this e-mail seems innocuous, it is because it is. Mace’s and Christy’s statements do nothing more than explain Wal-Mart’s Accommodation Policy, which would apply regardless of whether Arizanovska filed a claim. There is no indication that Arizanovska’s EEOC charge was a factor, much less a substantial motivating factor, for Wal-Mart to require her to take a leave of absence. We have no basis from which to infer that Wal-Mart’s motive was actually retaliatory. The district court properly granted summary judgment against Arizanovska’s retaliation claim.”

Affirmed.

11-3387 Arizanovska v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, Young, J., Bauer, J.