On April 17, 2020, the Eleventh Circuit overturned a district court decision granting summary judgment to an employer on a former employee’s pregnancy discrimination claim, applying the Supreme Court’s decision in Young v. United Parcel Service, 575 U.S. 206 (2015), which held that a plaintiff must show that the employer accommodated non-pregnant employees “similar in their ability or inability to work,” as opposed to “similarly situated” element of a prima facie case.
The case is Durham v. Rural/Metro Corporation, wherein Kimberlie Durham, who previously worked as an EMT for Rural, filed suit against the Company when it denied her request for light duty work due to lifting restrictions imposed by her physician during her pregnancy. The district court entered summary judgment in favor of Rural, finding that Durham failed to establish a prima facie case of pregnancy discrimination by pointing to similarly situated comparators. The Eleventh Circuit, relying on Young, vacated the decision, holding that in contrast to Title VII’s more general comparator analysis, “the comparator analysis under the PDA focuses on a single criterion – one’s ability to do the job.” Here, Durham’s inability to lift more than 50 pounds and her non-pregnant colleague’s inabilities to lift more than 10 or 20 pounds rendered them “equally unable” to perform the lifting duties of an EMT, and, therefore “similar in their inability to work.”
Accordingly, the Eleventh Circuit remanded the matter so that the court could analyze whether Durham presented enough evidence of pretext. A detailed analysis of the decision can be found here.