Conditioning light duty assignment for pregnant employee on dismissal of her EEOC charge was retaliation

Lexology.com
Sherman & Howard LLC

Theodore A. Olsen

USA

July 9 2012

In a case involving a scenario that was mishandled by the employer in too many ways to count, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals ruled recently that an employer's conversion of an unconditional light duty assignment to a pregnant employee, to an assignment conditioned on her withdrawal of her EEOC charge was a retaliatory act under Title VII^[1].

When the employer first learned of the pregnant employee's medical restrictions, she was told there were no available positions that could be accommodated for her restrictions. However, when she filed a union grievance, the general manager met with Human Resources and decided to offer her a light-duty job. (Ironically, the employer's offer of light-duty work compounded its problems in this case, as it highlighted the supervisor's earlier lie that he had found there were no such positions. The employer did not necessarily have the obligation to provide the plaintiff with light-duty work. See, "No Violation of Title VII to Deny Light-Duty Work to Pregnant Worker." However, after the employer learned of her pregnancy discrimination charge filed at the EEOC, the plaintiff was offered reemployment in a light-duty job and full back pay, conditioned on her withdrawing her EEOC charge. The Eleventh Circuit reversed a summary judgment that the employer had obtained in the district court, ruling that conditioning the reemployment offer on the plaintiff's withdrawal of her EEOC charge was, on its face, retaliatory and actionable under Title VII.

Full Story: http://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=26bb619a-fd2a-4e68-86f3-bb008ecc68a0&utm_source=Lexology+Daily+Newsfeed&utm_medium=HTML+email+-+Body+-+Federal+section&utm_campaign=Lexology+subscriber+daily+feed&utm_content=Lexology+Daily+Newsfeed+2012-07-13&utm_term=