Kocak v. Community Health Partners of Ohio Inc., 6th Cir., No. 03-4650, March 11, 2005.

An employee who had previously resigned due to pregnancy complications was entitled to bring her pregnancy discrimination claim under Title VII as amended by the Pregnancy Discrimination Act of 1978 (PDA), the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals recently held.

In January 1999, Suzanne Kocak resigned as an obstetric nurse at Community Health Partners of Ohio Inc. (CHPO) because of complications with her pregnancy.

Later, on two occasions, Kocak reapplied for part-time positions with CHPO and was turned down. Based on the second rejection, she filed a charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and a subsequent lawsuit, alleging violation of the PDA.

The PDA prohibits discrimination against employees on the basis of pregnancy, childbirth or related medical conditions. The PDA specifically makes it illegal for a company to refuse to hire a woman because she is pregnant.

Kocak alleged that during the second application process, a CHPO personnel manager asked her whether she was pregnant or intended to have more children. In addition, Kocak testified that the same manager told her that she would not be hired because of the scheduling problems associated with her prior pregnancy.

CHPO argued that Kocak was not protected by the PDA because she was not pregnant when the company refused to rehire her. Accordingly, the lower court granted summary judgment for CHPO.

On appeal, the 6th Circuit determined that PDA protection "extends to the whole range of matters concerning the childbearing process" and prohibits an employer from discriminating against a woman "because of her capacity to become pregnant."

Although entitled to PDA protection, Kocak failed to show that CHPO refused to hire her because she might become pregnant again. The 6th Circuit concluded that the personnel manager's statements, if made, were not direct evidence of discrimination and that no inference of discrimination could be drawn from them. The company was able to show that Kocak had been unreliable and difficult to contact at home while employed at CHPO and that she was "avidly disliked" by her peers. Kocak confirmed those assertions. Therefore, summary judgment in favor of the company was affirmed.

Online Resources

New cases are posted online each week. Visit the online version of Court Report at www.shrm.org/hrnews.

RELATED ARTICLE: Professional Pointer