Laxton v. Gap Inc.
2003 U.S. App. LEXIS 11334, 333 F.3d 572, 61 Fed. R. Serv. 738 (2003)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under the Pregnancy Discrimination Act, a plaintiff can survive a motion for judgment as a matter of law by presenting sufficient evidence for a jury to disbelieve the employer's proffered legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for termination. This showing of pretext, combined with the plaintiff's prima facie case, is sufficient to support an inference of intentional discrimination without additional evidence of discriminatory animus.
Facts:
- In March 1999, Gap, Inc. recruited Joanna Laxton to be the general manager for a new Old Navy store.
- After accepting the job but before starting, Laxton learned she was pregnant.
- On June 1, 1999, Laxton informed her direct supervisor, Karen Jones, that she was pregnant and due around Thanksgiving.
- Jones reacted with visible anger, complaining about the inconvenience of Laxton needing leave during the upcoming holiday season.
- Under Laxton's management, the store opened successfully, earned strong revenues, and Laxton received monthly performance bonuses.
- Over the next six weeks, Gap management documented numerous alleged policy violations against Laxton, including closing the store early once due to a planned power outage, using an unauthorized exit, and mishandling an employee on a walkie-talkie.
- Gap also documented other minor infractions, such as spending $85 on pizza for employees (exceeding a $75 limit) and having employees wear unpurchased merchandise as part of a successful sales contest.
- On August 17, 1999, Gap terminated Laxton's employment and replaced her with a male.
Procedural Posture:
- Joanna Laxton sued Gap, Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, alleging pregnancy discrimination under Title VII.
- Following a trial, the jury returned a verdict in favor of Laxton, awarding her back pay, front pay, and damages for mental anguish and punitive damages.
- Gap filed a renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law (JMOL) and a conditional motion for a new trial.
- The district court granted Gap's motion for JMOL, setting aside the jury's verdict, and conditionally granted the motion for a new trial.
- Laxton, 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 sufficient evidence exist for a reasonable jury to find that an employer's proffered legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for terminating a pregnant employee are a pretext for discrimination in violation of the Pregnancy Discrimination Act?
Opinions:
Majority - Vance, District Judge
Yes. A plaintiff provides a legally sufficient evidentiary basis for a jury to find an employer's proffered reasons for termination were pretext for pregnancy discrimination by demonstrating that those reasons are false or unworthy of credence. Laxton successfully rebutted Gap's justification—the cumulative effect of numerous policy violations—by presenting evidence that the alleged violations were false, trivial, or arguably authorized. For instance, Laxton never actually hired the alleged 'bank robber,' the complaints against her were undocumented, and the minor spending overage on pizza occurred after she was instructed to 'do whatever it takes' for a successful weekend. The court, applying the standard from Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prods., Inc., held that this evidence of pretext, combined with her strong prima facie case (her qualifications and successful store performance), was sufficient for a jury to infer discrimination. Furthermore, the discriminatory animus shown by her supervisor, Jones, could be imputed to the final decision-makers under the 'cat's paw' theory, as they relied on information provided by Jones to build their case for termination.
Analysis:
This case reinforces the Supreme Court's holding in Reeves, clarifying for the Fifth Circuit that a plaintiff's prima facie case combined with a strong showing of pretext is sufficient to survive judgment as a matter of law in a discrimination case. It demonstrates that an employer's compilation of a 'laundry list' of minor, questionable, or unsubstantiated infractions can itself be viewed by a jury as evidence of a pretextual, predetermined decision to terminate. The decision also provides a clear application of the 'cat's paw' theory, where a biased subordinate's influence can taint the ultimate employment decision, even if the formal decision-maker is unaware of the discriminatory motive.
