Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Houston Funding II, Ltd.
717 F.3d 425, 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 10933, 2013 WL 2360114 (2013)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Discharging a female employee because she is lactating or expressing breast milk constitutes sex discrimination in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended by the Pregnancy Discrimination Act (PDA), because lactation is a medical condition related to pregnancy and childbirth.
Facts:
- Donnicia Venters worked as an account representative for Houston Funding.
- In December 2008, Venters took a leave of absence to give birth to her child.
- During her leave, Venters informed her supervisor, Robert Fleming, that she was breastfeeding and asked him to inquire if she could use a breast pump at work upon her return.
- Fleming relayed the request to the company's partner, Harry Cagle, who allegedly responded negatively, stating, "NO. Maybe she needs to stay home longer."
- On February 17, 2009, Venters called Cagle to inform him she was medically cleared to return to work and again asked if she could use a back room to pump milk.
- Following a long pause, Cagle told Venters that her position had been filled.
- On February 20, 2009, Houston Funding sent Venters a termination letter, backdated to February 16, stating the reason for discharge was job abandonment.
Procedural Posture:
- Donnicia Venters filed a charge of sex discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC).
- The EEOC filed a lawsuit against Houston Funding on Venters' behalf in a federal district court (the court of first instance), alleging unlawful sex discrimination under Title VII.
- Houston Funding moved for summary judgment, arguing that Title VII does not protect against discrimination based on lactation.
- The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Houston Funding.
- The EEOC, as the plaintiff-appellant, appealed the district court's judgment to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does terminating a female employee because she is lactating or expressing breast milk constitute sex discrimination in violation of Title VII?
Opinions:
Majority - E. Grady Jolly
Yes. Discharging a female employee because she is lactating or expressing breast milk constitutes sex discrimination in violation of Title VII. The Pregnancy Discrimination Act (PDA) amended Title VII to specify that discrimination 'on the basis of sex' includes discrimination 'on the basis of pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions.' The court reasons that lactation is a physiological process directly caused by hormonal changes associated with pregnancy and childbirth, and therefore qualifies as a 'related medical condition' under the plain meaning of the statute. Taking an adverse employment action based on lactation imposes a burden upon women that male employees cannot suffer, which is the essence of sex-based discrimination. This interpretation is consistent with precedent like Harper v. Thiokol Chemical Corp., which found it discriminatory to require women to have a normal menstrual cycle post-pregnancy before returning to work.
Concurring - Edith H. Jones
The judgment is correct, but two points require clarification. First, this holding should not be interpreted as creating a requirement for employers to provide special accommodations, such as facilities or designated break times, for pumping milk. Based on precedent like Urbano v. Continental Airlines, Inc., the PDA does not mandate special accommodations, only non-discrimination. Second, the majority opinion's reference in a footnote to an unpublished case, Puente v. Ridge, is improper as unpublished opinions are non-precedential and add nothing to the legal analysis.
Analysis:
This decision significantly clarifies the scope of the Pregnancy Discrimination Act (PDA) by explicitly including lactation as a 'related medical condition.' It establishes binding precedent in the Fifth Circuit that an adverse employment action based on an employee's status as a lactating mother is a form of sex discrimination. The ruling provides a clear cause of action for women who are fired for needing to express breast milk, strengthening protections for new mothers in the workplace. However, as the concurrence emphasizes, the decision carefully distinguishes between discriminatory discharge and an employer's affirmative duty to accommodate, leaving the issue of required accommodations unaddressed by this ruling.
