In Peralta v. Roros 940, Inc., 72 F. Supp. 3d 385 (E.D.N.Y. 2014), the Eastern District of New York denied defendants’ summary judgment motion as to plaintiff’s discriminatory termination (based on pregnancy) claim, but granted it as to her pregnancy-based hostile work environment claim. The defendant, a FedEx subcontractor, alleged that plaintiff, a delivery driver, was fired not because of discriminatory reasons, but because plaintiff mishandled a valuable package.
The court analyzed plaintiff’s claim of discriminatory termination under the well-known McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting framework. Under that framework:
A plaintiff terminated for misconduct can show pretext by demonstrating that “similarly situated” coworkers outside the protected class engaged in comparable misconduct but were not terminated. Employees can be “similarly situated” even if their misconduct is not “identical” in all respects. There just needs to be a reasonably close resemblance of the facts and circumstances. Important considerations include (1) whether the asserted comparators “were subject to the same workplace standards” and (2) the comparative seriousness of the alleged misconduct. The PDA also requires consideration of whether asserted comparators are similar in their ability or inability to work.
In denying defendants’ motion for summary judgment on plaintiff’s discriminatory termination claim, the court noted that “defendants’ only proffered reason for dismissing plaintiff … applied with equal force to a number of non-pregnant coworkers who had similar access to the missing package but nonetheless kept their jobs”, and that Roros – defendants’ principal – “disapproved of plaintiff’s pregnancy and … let it be known by, inter alia, telling coworkers that plaintiff was a ‘bitch’ for attending prenatal appointments, reprimanding her unnecessarily, and forcing plaintiff (but not other drivers) to make additional deliveries.”
The court, however, dismissed plaintiff’s hostile work environment claims, holding that the facts underlying her discriminatory termination claim – e.g., “episodes of name-calling (heard secondhand), undue reprimands, perceived animosity, and unwelcome work assignments” – did not “exhibit the severity or pervasiveness of an actionable hostile work environment.”