Analysis: The recent Tennessee Court of Appeals
decision, Pierce v.
City of Humboldt, Tennessee, 2013 WL 1190823, No. W2012-00217-COA-R3-CV
(Tenn.Ct.App. 2013)
dealt with an alleged pregnancy discrimination situation. In this case a police officer asserted she
was discriminated against and terminated due to her pregnancy. We are not going to discuss the specifics of
this case for the purpose of this post because I want to simply highlight the
required elements for a pregnancy discrimination case in Tennessee.
This lawsuit was brought under the
Tennessee Human Rights Act found in T.C.A. § 4-21-101 et. seq. Under the Tennessee Human Rights Act,
terminating employment based on an employee’s sex is a “discriminatory
practice” that is prohibited by the Tennessee Human Rights Act. Pierce at 9. The Tennessee Human Rights Act was designed
to prevent discrimination based on federal statutes including the Pregnancy
Discrimination Act of 1978. Pierce at 9. As a result, under Tennessee law “an unlawful
employment practice occurs whenever pregnancy alone is a motivating factor for
an adverse employment action.” Pierce at 10.
There are two ways
to establish pregnancy discrimination in Tennessee. The first is to produce sufficient evidence
that a specific adverse employment action was caused by intentional
discrimination.
This method
focuses primarily on the discriminatory conduct. Employees using this method may present
either direct or circumstantial evidence of intentional discrimination or a
combination of both. Direct evidence of
intentional discrimination includes an acknowledgment by an employer of
discriminatory intent. Circumstantial evidence of discrimination includes
ambiguous statements, suspicious timing, or instances in which similarly
situated, non-pregnant employees received systematically better treatment.
Spann v. Abraham,
36 S.W.3d 452, 464 (Tenn.Ct.App. 1999).
The second method to establish a pregnancy
discrimination claim, is by the indirect method. In order to establish the indirect method, the
plaintiff must establish four specific elements:
(1) she was
pregnant; (2) she was qualified for her job; (3) she was subjected to an
adverse employment action; and (4) there is a nexus between her pregnancy and
the adverse employment action. As in a
gender discrimination claim, the fourth element “requires proof that the
employer treated non-pregnant employees better.
Pierce at 10 (citing Spann at 468). Ultimately, the appellate
court found in the Pierce case that the evidence presented at the trial
court was sufficient to defeat a motion for summary judgment and therefore this
case should not be dismissed at this time.
Follow me on Twitter at @jasonalee for updates from the Tennessee Defense Litigation
blog.
|