A nursing home’s policy of accommodating only restrictions from work-related incidents could be pretext for pregnancy discrimination, a federal appeals court ruled, reversing summary judgment in favor of the nursing home.  Jennifer Latowski v. Northwoods Nursing Center, No. 12-2408 (6th Cir. Dec. 23, 2013).

After learning that a nursing assistant was pregnant, the nursing home requested that she provide a doctor’s note stating she had no employment restrictions.  The nursing home terminated her employment after her doctor faxed a note stating that her only restriction was no lifting over 50 pounds.  The basis for the termination was the nursing home’s policy to accommodate only those restrictions resulting from work-related incidents.

After her termination, the nursing assistant filed a charge with the EEOC and later brought suit in federal district court alleging violations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, as amended by the Pregnancy Discrimination Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), the Family and Medical Leave Act (“FMLA”), and related state claims.  The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the nursing home on all claims.

On appeal, the Sixth Circuit reversed the grant of summary judgment on the pregnancy discrimination claims.  In support of its decision, the Sixth Circuit found the nursing assistant established a prima facie case of pregnancy discrimination and noted that a reasonable jury “could easily conclude” the nursing home’s decision to “implement a policy terminating otherwise qualified workers whose doctors imposed any restrictions arising from non-workplace injuries, even if those restrictions do not limit the employees’ ability to competently perform their jobs — is so lacking in merit as to be a pretext for discrimination.” 

In addition to the policy, the Sixth Circuit considered statements by nursing home administrators regarding their concerns that by continuing to work the nursing assistant would jeopardize her health and that of her child and that her “belly would be in the way.”  The Court found these comments raised the inference that the policy was merely pretext for discriminatory animus against pregnant women. 

While it remanded the pregnancy discrimination claims to the district court, the Sixth Circuit upheld the grant of summary judgment on the other claims.  It found no evidence that the employer regarded the nursing assistant as disabled and found that the FMLA claim was not ripe and could not be proven because the nursing assistant did not request FMLA leave before her termination. 

This case highlights the importance of having counsel review workplace policies regarding leaves of absence, accommodations, and light duty, as well as training managers on their obligations under the state and federal employment laws.

Print:
Email this postTweet this postLike this postShare this post on LinkedIn
Photo of Michael R. Bertoncini Michael R. Bertoncini

Michael R. Bertoncini is a principal in the Boston, Massachusetts, office of Jackson Lewis. He is a member of the Healthcare industry group and a member of the Higher Education group.

With a background as a former Deputy General Counsel, Michael understands first-hand…

Michael R. Bertoncini is a principal in the Boston, Massachusetts, office of Jackson Lewis. He is a member of the Healthcare industry group and a member of the Higher Education group.

With a background as a former Deputy General Counsel, Michael understands first-hand the competing demands and unique challenges faced by in-house counsel. Before joining Jackson Lewis, he was responsible for all labor and employment law matters for the largest fully integrated community care hospital system in New England. Michael provides timely, practical advice that helps clients achieve their strategic goals while ensuring compliance with legal obligations.

With deep experience in a broad range of industries, Michael has a keen interest in the healthcare, higher education, museum, and arts & music sectors. He is dedicated to supporting clients in these areas, leveraging his extensive experience to address the specific challenges faced by institutions and organizations in these fields.

Michael regularly partners with clients to establish positive employee relations. In labor relations matters, he negotiates collective bargaining agreements on behalf of organized clients, represents clients in labor arbitrations and National Labor Relations Board proceedings, and counsels clients with respect to rights and obligations under collective bargaining agreements and applicable labor and employment laws. He also has extensive experience in advising organizations responding to corporate campaigns and negotiating neutrality agreements.

Michael’s privacy and data security practice focuses on advising clients on complying with HIPAA and other state and federal privacy and data security laws. He reviews and develops policies and procedures, written information security plans and integrated compliance programs to ensure his clients meet their obligations under privacy and data security laws. Michael represents clients in investigations of alleged data breaches and advises them on reporting obligations.. He also conducts workplace training programs on HIPAA compliance and related privacy and data security topics.