Lexplug logoLexplug

Sylvia HAYES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. SHELBY MEMORIAL HOSPITAL, Defendant-Appellant

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
1984 U.S. App. LEXIS 24463, 34 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 444, 726 F.2d 1543 (1984)
ELI5:

Rule of Law:

An employer's fetal protection policy that applies only to one sex is facially discriminatory under Title VII, as amended by the Pregnancy Discrimination Act. To justify such a policy, the employer must prove with objective, scientific evidence that a substantial risk of harm exists, that the risk is borne only by the targeted sex, and that no less discriminatory alternatives are available.


Facts:

  • On August 11, 1980, Shelby Memorial Hospital hired Sylvia Hayes as a certified x-ray technician.
  • Hayes worked the 3-11 p.m. shift in the hospital's radiology department.
  • Two months after being hired, Hayes informed her supervisor that she was pregnant.
  • After consulting with the hospital's radiation safety director, who recommended Hayes be removed from areas with ionizing radiation, the supervisor fired Hayes.
  • The hospital claimed it fired Hayes because it was unable to find alternative employment for her.
  • During her two months of employment, Hayes wore radiation monitoring badges which showed her exposure levels were well within the maximum safety limits recommended for a fetus by the National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements (NCRP).

Procedural Posture:

  • Sylvia Hayes filed suit against Shelby Memorial Hospital in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama, alleging violations of Title VII.
  • The Hospital asserted the defenses of 'business necessity' and 'bona fide occupational qualification' (BFOQ).
  • Following a nonjury trial, the district court found for Hayes, concluding that the hospital's termination violated Title VII.
  • The district court entered a final judgment awarding damages to Hayes.
  • Shelby Memorial Hospital (as appellant) appealed the district court's judgment to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.

Locked

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 a hospital's policy of firing a pregnant x-ray technician, based on a concern for fetal health from radiation exposure, violate the Pregnancy Discrimination Act of 1978 when the employer fails to prove the risk is substantial and fails to consider less discriminatory alternatives?


Opinions:

Majority - Tuttle, Senior Circuit Judge

Yes. The hospital's policy violates the Pregnancy Discrimination Act of 1978. Firing an employee because of pregnancy is facial sex discrimination under the Act. An employer's policy that treats pregnant employees differently is presumptively discriminatory unless the employer can rebut this by proving with objective, scientific evidence that 1) a substantial risk of harm to the fetus exists and 2) the hazard applies only to pregnant women and not to men. Here, the Hospital failed to meet the first part of this test, as evidence showed Hayes's projected radiation exposure was within accepted national safety limits for a fetus. The Hospital's policy was an unnecessarily extreme measure. Furthermore, even under a disparate impact analysis, the employee can prevail by showing less discriminatory alternatives were available. The district court correctly found that the Hospital failed to explore alternatives, such as rearranging Hayes's duties or assigning her to other work, thus making the termination unlawful.



Analysis:

This decision establishes a rigorous framework for evaluating fetal protection policies under the Pregnancy Discrimination Act, treating them as presumptively illegal sex discrimination if they are not gender-neutral. It significantly raises the burden on employers, requiring them to provide objective scientific proof of a substantial, sex-specific risk before excluding pregnant women from jobs. The ruling discourages paternalistic policies based on generalized fears or financial concerns about potential lawsuits, instead pushing employers toward creating safer workplaces for all employees and exploring all feasible, less discriminatory alternatives to termination. This case strengthens protections for pregnant workers and serves as a key precedent in sex discrimination and workplace safety litigation.

G

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: Sylvia HAYES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. SHELBY MEMORIAL HOSPITAL, Defendant-Appellant (1984)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"