EEOC v. Houston Funding II, Ltd. et al
Filing
23
Amended OPINION on Summary Judgment.(Signed by Judge Lynn N. Hughes) Amended to correct date and grammatical errors. Parties notified. (ghassan, )
Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission,
Plaintiff,
Civil Action Har 1,2442
versus
Houston Funding 11, Ltd., et a[.,
Defendants.
Amended Opinion on Summary Judgment
I.
Introduction.
T h e commission sued an employer, saying it fired a worker because she wanted to pump
breastFmilk while at work. T h e employer says that sex discrimination does not include that
aspect of motherhood. T h e employer will prevail.
2.
Background.
In 2006, Donnicia Venters started working for Houston Funding. O n December
I,
2008, she took a leave of absence to have a baby. T e n days later, she gave birth to a girl.
Although the company knew that she would give birth shortly, she did not talk with anyone
about how long she would be gone or when she expected to return. T h e company had no policy
on maternity leave. A few days after the birth, she talked to the vice-president, Harry Cagle, and
he asked her when she would return. She said that she did not know and that the date depended
on her doctor's advice. O n December 20, 2008, an employee in the human-resources
department sent an e-mail to Robert Fleming, a floor manager, asking him if Venters quit. I Ic
had been in contact with her and said that she had not quit and was on maternity leave.
ByJanuary of zoog, her caesarean incision was infected, complicating her recovery. On
January 9, Fleming left the company. Venters continued to call team leaders and to pay her
insurance premium at the company. Between January 7 and February 6 she talked on her
cellular telephone with workers there for I r 5 minutes, but did not talk to Cagle. During those
conversations she did not mention a date for her return, but she expressed a hope that she
would be back soon.
O n February 10, several employees, including Cagle, met; they decided to fire Venters
No written record of the meeting is available. T h e effective date of her firing was February r 3.
O n February 16, she was told by the doctor's office that she could return to work. That
day, she did not reach Cagle by telephone, but left a message that she had the doctor's approval.
The next day, she called Cagle to tell him that she was ready to return to work and wondered
if she could use a back room to pump milk. Cagle told her that they had filled her spot because
they had not heard from her and assumed that she abandoned the job. W h e n she mentioned
that she had been paying her premium, he responded that the insurance was her own business
and was not through the company. W h e n she asked for her firing date, he told her that he
would call her back with that information.
O n February 26, Venters received the letter firing her for job abandonment, dated
February 16, and sent on February 20.
3.
Discrimination.
T h e commission says that the company fired her because she wanted to pump breast,
milk.' Discrimination because ofpregnancy, childbirth, or a related medical condition is illegal.
Related conditions may include cramping, dizziness, and nausea while pregnant.'
Even if the company's claim that she was fired for abandonment is meant to hide the
real reason
-
she wanted to pump breast.milk
-
lactation is not pregnancy, childbirth, or a
related medical condition. She gave birth on December I I , 2008. After that day, she was no
longer pregnant, and her pregnancy-related conditions had ended.
Firing someone because of lactation or breast-pumping is not sex discrimination.:
42 U.S.C. § zoooe-z(a)(I) (2006); 42 U.S.C. § zoooe(k) (2006).
Cerrato v. Durbam, 941 F . Supp. 388, 393 (S.D.N.Y.1996)
Puente v. Ridge, No. M-04-267, 200 j U.S. Dist. LEXIS 46624, a t * I I - 1 2 (S.D.T ~ July
x.
6, roo5); Martinez v. NBC Inc., 49 F. Supp. rd 305, 311 (S.D.N.Y. 1999); lacobson 2,. fIesent
Assisted Living, Inc., No. CV-98-564-ST,1999 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7680, a t *2g-30 (D. Or. Apr. 9,
1999); Wallace v. Pyro Mining Co., 789 F. Supp. 867, 869 (W.D.Ky. 1990).
4.
Conclusion.
Even ifventers's claims are true, the law does not punish lactation discrimination. -!'he
EqualEmployment Opportunity Commission will take nothing from Houston Funding 11, Ltd.,
and Houston Funding Corporation.
Signed on February g, 2012, at Houston, Texas
Lynn N. Hughes
United States District Judge
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?