Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ared-4_05-cv-00770/USCOURTS-ared-4_05-cv-00770-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 29:2601 Violation of the Family and Medical Leave Act-1993

---

1

Doc. No. 70.

2

Doc. No. 71.

3

Doc. No. 63.

4

Clark v. Runyon, 218 F.3d 915, 918 (8th Cir. 2000).

1

 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

 EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS

 WESTERN DIVISION

TAMMY DENSMORE 

 PLAINTIFF

v. 4:05CV00770-WRW

PILGRIM’S PRIDE CORPORATION DEFENDANT

ORDER

Pending is Defendant Pilgrim’s Pride Corporation’s Motion for Reconsideration.1 Plaintiff

Tammy Densmore filed a Response.2

An Order was entered in this case, denying in part and granting in part, Defendant’s

Motion for Summary Judgment.3 Defendant asks that I reconsider my finding regarding

Plaintiff’s pregnancy discrimination claim, and argues that I should have dismissed the claim

because non-pregnant employees, who allegedly received more favorable treatment, were not

similarly situated to Plaintiff in all relevant respects.4

When determining whether a non-protected employee is similarly situated to a protected

employee, the individuals used for comparison must have dealt with the same supervisor, have

Case 4:05-cv-00770-BRW Document 72 Filed 01/05/07 Page 1 of 2
5

Clark, 218 F.3d at 918 (8th Cir. 2000) citing Lynn v. Deaconess Med. Ctr.-W. Campus,

160 F.3d 484, 487-88 (8th Cir. 1998).

6

Doc. No. 16, Ex. 17.

2

been subject to the same standards, and engaged in the same conduct without any mitigating or

distinguishing circumstances.5

 Defendant argues that Plaintiff did not engage in the same conduct as the comparison

employees, because she had already been suspended for absenteeism and had signed a return-towork agreement.6

 According to Defendant, the return-to-work agreement represented Plaintiff’s

last chance to correct her absenteeism. Thus, Defendant argues that the comparison employees

had not engaged in the same level of misconduct. I disagree.

There is evidence that the return-to-work agreement was the result of a grievance process

that ended in Plaintiff’s favor. A jury could conclude that the return-to-work agreement was

designed to place Plaintiff in the same position as her co-employees with respect to accumulating

any further absences. In view of this, there is enough evidence to create an issue of material fact

that Plaintiff’s pregnancy was a motivating factor in her termination. 

Defendant’s Motion for Reconsideration is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED this 5th day of January 2007.

 /s/Wm. R. Wilson, Jr.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 4:05-cv-00770-BRW Document 72 Filed 01/05/07 Page 2 of 2