Federal Appeals Court Clarifies Standard for Proving Harm Caused by Discrimination

New Jersey employment law prohibits pregnancy discrimination and disability discrimination.  The United States Third Circuit Court of Appeals recently examined the standard employees must meet to prove pregnancy discrimination and disability discrimination in the case of Peifer v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole.

 

Peifer’s Employment with the Board

Samantha Peifer was an employee of the Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole.  She was an alcohol and other drugs agent, working with drug and alcohol offenders when they were on parole.  She was required to be able to perform physical activities such as chasing, apprehending and restraining offenders during escapes and arrests.

 

Peifer’s Diagnosis and the Board’s Actions

In September 2019, Peifer was diagnosed with multiple sclerosis, and the following January learned that she was pregnant.  She sent a doctor’s note informing the Board of her conditions, and formally requested that the Board accommodate her MS and pregnancy by assigning her to work on light duty, such as desk duty performed by injured employees.  The Director denied the request, explaining that light duty was only allowed for people who suffered from work-related injuries and advised her that if she could not perform the essential functions of her job she should speak with the Family and Medical Leave Coordinator to discuss unpaid leave.  Peifer again formally requested accommodations with an updated doctor’s note which listed over ninety job functions which Peifer could perform, but her request was again refused.  She therefore took a combination of unpaid leave under the FMLA and paid vacation.

Thereafter, Peifer filed a complaint with the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.  After the Board was notified of Peifer’s complaint with the EEOC, it advised her that light duty would be available.  The Board also reinstated the vacation that she used, and reimbursed her for the salary she lost during her unpaid leave.

Peifer’s doctor then told her because of COVID that she should work from home during her high risk pregnancy, and if that were not possible then her employer should provide her with Personal Protective Equipment (PPE), including a face shield and gloves.  She provided a note from the doctor with this information to her employer.  The Board provided her with the PPE but would not allow her to work from home.  Peifer then filed a second charge with the EEOC.

 

Peifer’s Resignation

Then, on June 26, 2024, Peifer resigned.  In her email advising the Board of her resignation she explained: “I am resigning solely in response to the discriminatory treatment I have been subjected to by yourself and others in my chain of command and consider myself constructively discharged.”  She then filed a third charge with the EEOC.

 

The Lawsuit

Peifer received a “right to sue” letter from the EEOC, and timely sued the Board under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and related state laws in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania for pregnancy discrimination and disability discrimination, both through constructive discharge and failure to accommodate her disability and pregnancy, and retaliation for her requests for accommodations and EEOC charges.

The Board filed a motion asking the court to dismiss her case on summary judgment.  The District Court Judge granted the motion and dismissed Peifer’s lawsuit in its entirety.  The judge found that Peifer could not prove constructive discharge because the Board had provided her with the accommodation of the PPE which her doctor said was adequate.  The judge also found that because the Board eventually granted Peifer’s requests, she could not allege adverse employment actions.

 

The Appeal

Peifer appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, which hears appeals from the United States District Courts in New Jersey, Delaware, Pennsylvania and the United States Virgin Islands.  The Third Circuit agreed with most of the District Court judge’s decision.

However, while the appeal was pending, the United States Supreme Court issued an opinion in the case of Muldrow v. City of Saint Lewis.  In that case, the Court ruled that an employee need not demonstrate that an adverse employment action was “serious and tangible” to maintain a Title VII lawsuit for sex discrimination.

[Rather,] the Court rejected that the harm must be ‘serious,’ ‘significant,’ ‘substantial,’ or ‘any similar adjective suggesting that the disadvantage to the employee must exceed a heightened bar.’  Rather, the Court explained that an adverse employment action means simply that the employee suffered ‘some harm’ to a term or condition of employment—in other words, that the employer treated the employee ‘worse’ because of a protected characteristic.

The District Court had decided that Peifer had not met her burden to demonstrate an adverse employment action because she did not suffer “’significant’ employment-related harm.”  Because the Supreme Court rejected this analysis in Muldrow for a Title VII analysis, albeit for sex discrimination, the Third Circuit determined that the Muldrow standard should apply to cases of pregnancy discrimination and disability discrimination as well.  It therefore remanded the case to the District Court to apply the Muldrow standard.

The Third Circuit also remanded the case to the District Court to determine whether the initial failure to accommodate was discriminatory.

 

Impact on New Jersey Employment Law

First, Third Circuit opinions are binding on the United States District Courts in New Jersey, and on all courts in New Jersey interpreting Federal employment law.  Thus, the lower standard in determining whether a discriminatory act or omission constitutes a violation of Title VII applies to all courts in New Jersey, both State and Federal.

Second, while the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination, a New Jersey state employment law, gives much significantly more protection to employees than Title VII, New Jersey state courts sometimes look to Federal employment law for guidance when interpreting  grey areas in the Law Against Discrimination.  Specifically, New Jersey Courts follow their own analysis of the Law Against Discrimination when Federal Courts’ interpretation would reduce the protections for employees.  But when the Federal Courts’ interpretation expands the protections for employees, New Jersey Courts will often follow it.  This means that in addition to the impacts of the Peifer and Muldrow on Title VII, it is likely that they will also impact New Jersey state courts’ interpretation of the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination.

 

Contact Us

Our New Jersey employment attorneys represent government employees, private sector employees and employers in all areas of New Jersey employment law, including disability discrimination and pregnancy discrimination.  To schedule a consultation with one of our New Jersey employment lawyers please fill out the contact form on this page or call us at (973) 890-0004.  We can help.