Legal Opinions - U.S. District Court, Maryland: September 29, 2008

Daily Record, The (Baltimore), Sep 29, 2008

Labor & Employment

Discrimination

BOTTOM LINE: District court granted summary judgment for employer in pregnancy and sex discrimination suit brought by employee who failed to make a prima facie showing of discrimination.

CASE: Jordan v. Radiology Imaging Associates, USDMD No. RWT 06- 3410 (decided Sept. 12, 2008) (Judge Titus).

FACTS: Radiology Imaging Associates (RIA), a medical practice owned by Dr. Finzio, specialized in radiological imaging. Scott Melcher, RIA's Chief Financial Officer, reported directly to Dr. Finzio.

In 1995, Christina Jordan began working at RIA as a receptionist. Over the years, she received successive promotions. By 2004, Jordan had become the manager of billings and collections for the office. In that capacity, she supervised four team leaders and her immediate supervisor was Darlene Cadden, who reported to Melcher.

In 1999, Jordan and her husband began trying to conceive a child. After six years of fertility treatments, Jordan learned that she was pregnant on April 19, 2005. She later learned that she was carrying quadruplets. Cadden learned of the pregnancy immediately, and Melcher learned that Jordan was pregnant with multiples in either April, May, or June.

Jordan lost one fetus within a month of learning that she was pregnant. In July 2005, Jordan's doctor advised her that she would need to go on bed rest when she was 28-weeks pregnant. Jordan's doctor also advised her to work two fewer hours per day starting on August 9. RIA permitted Jordan to reduce her hours without any reduction in pay.

When Jordan informed Cadden that she would require Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA) leave, Cadden directed her to the Human Resources Department (HR). Jordan subsequently met with Meghan Kelly in HR. Although the FMLA guarantees only 12 weeks of leave per year, Jordan informed Kelly that she expected to need 16 - 20 weeks of leave. Jordan and Kelly also discussed the disability payments that Jordan would receive and the insurance premiums that Jordan would be required to pay while on leave. Kelly provided Jordan with a form, titled "Invoice," which showed the amount Jordan would need to pay in the "worst-case scenario," if she required 20 weeks of leave.

Earlier in 2005, RIA began investing in a computerized billing and collections system. The new system was known as the "Radiology Information System" (RIS). Thereafter, RIS eliminated much of the manual paperwork performed by the department of which Jordan was a manager.

After spending $600,000 to install RIS, RIA began using the system in August of 2005. Because of the efficiencies RIS created, and in order to recoup the costs of the RIS installation, RIA decided to eliminate a number of positions in the billings and collections department, including Jordan's. In fact, Jordan's position was the only management position selected for elimination, and all the eliminated employees, except Jordan, were offered comparable positions.

Jordan gave birth to triplets in late November of 2005. On December 10, 2005, she received a letter signed by Kelly on behalf of RIA indicating that the billings operation position would be eliminated effective December 2, 2005. The letter also informed Jordan that she would continue on the company health insurance until December 31, 2005, and would continue to receive her disability benefits.

In February of 2006, a full-time customer service representative position became open in RIA's billing department. The position was offered to Jordan, and Melcher suggested that Jordan be paid at the highest rate authorized for the position, which was $20 per hour. That was still less, however, than the income Jordan had been earning before her termination, and she declined the offer.

Cadden later voluntarily resigned. RIA initially advertised her position, but two team leaders reportedly advised Melcher that Cadden did not need to be replaced because the team leaders and Melcher could handle her duties. Cadden's position was subsequently eliminated.

Jordan subsequently sued RIA, Dr. Finzio and Melcher (collectively, RIA) in federal district court, alleging discrimination. At the conclusion of discovery, Jordan moved for partial summary judgment and RIA filed a cross-motion for summary judgment.

The district court denied Jordan's motion for partial summary judgment and granted RIA's motion for summary judgment.

LAW: Jordan sought partial summary judgment on her Pregnancy Discrimination Act and promissory estoppel claims.

Under the Pregnancy Discrimination Act, a pregnancy discrimination claim is "analyzed in the same manner as any other sex discrimination claim brought pursuant to Title VII." DeJarnette v. Corning, Inc., 133 F.3d 293, 297 (4th Cir. 1998).

Jordan grounded her motion for partial summary judgment on her assertion that there was direct evidence of discrimination. Direct evidence is "evidence of conduct or statements that both [1] reflect directly the alleged discriminatory attitude and [2] that bear directly on the contested employment decision." Warch v. Ohio Cas. Ins. Co., 435 F.3d 510, 520 (4th Cir. 2006). If believed, direct evidence "would prove the existence of a fact...without any inference or presumptions." O'Connor v. Consol. Coin Caterers Corp., 56 F.3d 542, 548 (4th Cir. 1995).