Minor, M. Jane v. Centocor Inc
457 F.3d 632 (2006)
Rule of Law:
A facially neutral and universally applied work policy does not constitute disparate treatment discrimination, even if it imposes a greater burden on one employee due to their individual circumstances. To establish a prima facie case of discrimination, a plaintiff must demonstrate they were treated less favorably than similarly situated employees outside of their protected class.
Facts:
- M. Jane Minor was a sales representative for Centocor.
- A new supervisor, Antonio Siciliano, required all sales representatives under his supervision to visit their accounts twice a month.
- This new requirement increased Minor's work hours from approximately 50-55 per week to 70-90 per week, largely due to her geographically dispersed sales territory spanning several states.
- The increased workload caused Minor to experience atrial fibrillation and depression, leading her to stop working in October 2001.
- The policy requiring frequent visits was applied to all sales representatives supervised by Siciliano, a group which included men and women, and employees both over and under the age of 40.
- Minor chose to travel her territory exclusively by car using a 'hub-and-spoke' model from her home, rather than using more efficient circle trips or air travel, which Centocor would have reimbursed.
Procedural Posture:
- M. Jane Minor filed a lawsuit against her employer, Centocor, Inc., in federal district court.
- The lawsuit alleged age discrimination under the ADEA and sex discrimination under Title VII.
- Centocor moved for summary judgment.
- The district court granted summary judgment for Centocor, ruling that Minor had not established a prima facie case because she had not suffered an 'adverse employment action.'
- Minor, as the appellant, appealed the district court's decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh 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 an employer's facially neutral policy requiring all sales representatives to visit accounts with the same frequency constitute age or sex discrimination against a plaintiff whose geographically large territory makes the policy more burdensome for her than for other representatives?
Opinions:
Majority - Easterbrook, Circuit Judge
No. A universally applied work policy does not constitute discrimination under a disparate treatment theory even if its effects are felt more acutely by one employee. To succeed, a plaintiff must show a difference in treatment compared with a member of a favored group. Here, Siciliano required all sales representatives, regardless of age or sex, to adhere to the same visit schedule. Minor’s argument that this facially equal rule affected her disproportionately is an argument for disparate impact, not disparate treatment, and fails because she only shows an impact on herself, not on the protected class as a whole. Furthermore, the court noted that part of Minor's increased workload was self-inflicted, as she chose an inefficient travel method over more efficient options that the company would have reimbursed. Because the record does not permit a conclusion that Minor was treated worse than other sales representatives on account of her age or sex, the employer's policy was not discriminatory.
Analysis:
This decision refines the concept of an 'adverse employment action' in discrimination law, shifting the focus from the label to whether a 'material difference' in employment terms is discriminatory. It establishes that a universally applied, facially neutral policy is highly defensible against a disparate treatment claim, even if it creates a significant, individualized burden. The case places a strong emphasis on comparing the plaintiff's treatment to that of similarly situated employees, reinforcing that the core of a disparate treatment claim is unequal treatment, not just negative treatment. It also signals that plaintiffs may be held accountable for choices that exacerbate their own burdens, potentially weakening their claims.
Gunnerbot
AI-powered case assistant
Loaded: Minor, M. Jane v. Centocor Inc (2006)
Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"