Stout v. Baxter Healthcare Corporation 282 F.

3d 856 (2002) Case Analysis By: Kelsey Bradford

I.

Procedure A. Plaintiff Wilma Nicole stout

B. C. D. E. Defendant Baxter Healthcare Corporation Stout sued Baxter Healthcare pursuant to Title VII of the Civil rights Act of 1964 The case originated in circuit court Baxter Baxter won at the circuit court level and then Stout appealed the ruling

II.

Facts A.
May of 1998, Stout was hired by Baxter as a material handler Stout was a probationary employee for the first 90 days of employment per Baxters standard policy Baxter evaluates all new employees during this time and they are subject to a strict attendance policy, anyone missing more than 3 days is terminated Baxter does not provide vacation time or medical leave for probationary employees Stout was pregnant during the probationary period She received positive performance reviews and maintained perfect attendance for her first 2 months Starting August 14, 1998 Stout was absent for more than 3 days after experiencing early labor She had suffered a miscarriage that left her medically unable to work for over 2 weeks Stout notified her supervisor of her condition immediately and provided medical excuse a week later Baxter terminated her on August 21 due to excess absenteeism during her probationary period A right-to-sue letter from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) was sent to Stout She sued Baxter claiming pregnancy discrimination under the PDA and alleging she was fired because of her pregnancy and that Baxters probationary attendance policy has disparate impact on pregnant employees Baxter moved to dismiss or alternatively for a summary judgment arguing that Stout failed to state a cause of action under the PDA and to create a genuine issue of material fact as to whether Baxter had discriminated against her on the basis of her pregnancy

Stout also filed a motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability arguing Baxter had failed to raise a fact issue as to whether Stout was fired because of her pregnancy and whether Baxters probationary policy had a disparate impact on pregnant women District court denied Stouts motion but granted Baxters motion for summary judgment There is no evidence that Stout (or any other pregnant probationary employee) was treated any differently than other probationary employees who missed work Stout repeatedly asserts in her brief that she was treated exactly the same as any other employee who was unable to work Her focus is on the policy and she claims that the policy affects all pregnant women and that therefore she has provided sufficient evidence to prove a prima facie disparate impact case Stout provided expert testimony that no pregnant women who give birth will be able to work for at least 2 weeks Jury agrees that this does not constitute evidence that all or substantially all pregnant women who give birth during the probationary period will be terminated Stout argues that under Garcia she has provided evidence sufficient to establish a prima facie case of pregnancy discrimination Jury declined the invitation to expand Garcia to the extent Stouts argument requires

B. I would like to know how far along in her pregnancy Stout was. III. Issues A. The precise issues are two types of discrimination: disparate treatment and prima facie disparate impact. B. I agree with the court in their statement that these claims by Stout have no merit per the facts that are given in this case. IV. Holding A. The jury affirmed the district courts granting of summary judgment for Baxter B. The court held that Stout had no merit for these claims because she had no evidence of herself or any other pregnant probationary employee being treated differently than other non-pregnant probationary employees C. Yes I agree because the company policy was clearly stated and she was let go for not being able to follow that policy and not because of her pregnancy. V. Implications

A. This case brings to light that employers must be cautious when handling situations when pregnant employees are involved, but as long as policies are followed they will be fine. B. None of Baxters policies changed as a result of this trial. C. Administrators and employers should be well aware of their attendance policies as well as protocols to follow with pregnant employees and probationary employees. D. If the case had been ruled differently Baxter would have had to adjust its attendance policy for all of the probationary employees, so it didnt seem as though they made an exception for Ms. Stout.