Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, DISCRIMINATION—E.D. Pa.: Pregnant employee fails to advance claims against battery manufacturer, (Jan 3, 2025)

By Thomas K. Lauletta, J.D.

Although she alleged other women were accommodated by being allowed to work janitorial jobs, she only assumed they were pregnant and did not know why they were moved to such positions.

A federal district court in Pennsylvania dismissed a former battery manufacturer employee’s claims for sex discrimination, disability discrimination and retaliation under Title VII and state law, as well as a claim for constructive discharge. The pregnant employee had alleged that her employer failed to provide reasonable accommodations for her complications arising out of pregnancy because of her history of miscarriages (Mena v. East Penn Manufacturing, No. 5:23-cv-02688-JMG (E.D. Pa. Dec. 30, 2024)).

Hired in 2018 by a manufacturer of lead acid batteries, the employee in this case was always exposed to lead acid in her various positions with the company. In April 2022, she found out that she was pregnant. She alleged that her OB/GYN advised her that her pregnancy was high risk. The employee stated to a medical provider that she had been persistently vomiting and sleeping poorly for weeks and that she did not want to do any heavy lifting or deal with lead and acid because of her pregnancy.

Janitorial positions. Before her pregnancy, the employee saw women working in janitorial positions within the employer’s facility. Although she did not know their individual circumstances or the circumstances surrounding their janitorial jobs, she assumed they were pregnant and had been moved to janitorial as an accommodation. Based on this observation, the employee told the employer’s nurse she also wanted to move to a different work environment or a different job, such as in the lunchroom, janitorial, or laundry.

Lifting, break accommodations. Her employer met her first accommodation request that she not be required to lift more than 25 pounds and that she be provided with three, 15-minute breaks. Feeling that her stated requirements were not being met, the employee obtained a second medical recommendation that she should not be around “chemicals such as lead and acid” and should be in a “safe” environment.

Second accommodation, resignation. The employer tried to accommodate the second request, offering to move the employee to “the dry end” of the department to avoid acid exposure. When the employee explained that the acid fumes were burdensome to her no matter where she was in her department, the employer’s nurse offered to provide her with a respirator that used charcoal filters to eliminate acid fumes. Despite this second attempt at accommodation, the employee immediately resigned her position.

Lawsuit. Subsequently, the employee brought this action against the employer for claims alleging sex discrimination, disability discrimination and retaliation under Title VII and the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act (PHRA), and a claim constructive discharge. The employer moved for summary judgment. Lacking direct evidence to support her Title VII and PHRA claims, the employee relied on the McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting framework to support her allegations.

Adverse employment action. First, the court concluded that the employee satisfied the third element of her prima facie case under Muldrow, explaining that the employee’s allegation that the employer failed to meet her two accommodation requests was sufficient to meet the requirements for the third element.

Comparators. However, the employee failed to show that the adverse employment action happened under circumstances that raised an inference of intentional discrimination. The employee’s allegations did not establish that similarly situated employees were treated more favorably than her. The employee offered pregnant women employees as the comparator, where the court stated that the correct comparator would be non-pregnant women employees. Because the fourth element of her McDonnell Douglas prima facie case was not established, the employee’s sex discrimination claim failed.

Disability discrimination. Based on its holding with respect to the sex discrimination claim that the facts did not indicate that the employer failed to accommodate the employee because of her pregnancy, the court held that her disability claim also failed.

Retaliation. Although the employee established that she engaged in a protected activity by requesting accommodations from her employer, her allegations did not establish a causal connection between this protected activity and the adverse employment decision—the alleged failure to accommodate. The employee argued that she established a temporal proximity between her requesting the accommodation, which the employer denied, and her resignation the same day. The court held that by her resignation the employee, rather than the employer, created the close proximity. Accordingly, the third element of her prima facie case was not established, and the employee’s retaliation claim failed.

Constructive discharge. The court stated that it could not find enough evidence to support a claim for constructive discharge. In so ruling, the court noted that the employer offered a solution for the plaintiff’s exposure to lead and acid—a respirator that used charcoal filters to eliminate acid fumes. The employee did not challenge the reasonableness or effectiveness of the respirator, rather that she should have been moved to a different building. But her subjective opinion about what would be the best accommodation was not enough to show that a reasonable person would have resigned, especially where the employer offered an accommodation to address their concern. Accordingly, the constructive discharge claim was not proven.

The case is No. 5:23-cv-02688-JMG.

Judge: Gallagher, J.

Attorneys: Mary E. Lemieux-Fillery (Law Offices of Eric A. Shore) for Kiara Mena. Gary D. Melchionni (Stevens & Lee) for East Penn Manufacturing.

Companies: East Penn Manufacturing

Cases: Discrimination DisabilityDiscrimination PregnancyDiscrimination SexDiscrimination Discharge Retaliation StateLawClaims PennsylvaniaNews