Opinion ID: 802080
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Pregnancy and National Origin Discrimination

Text: Arizanovska claims that she was forced out of her job at Wal-Mart as a result of pregnancy and national origin discrimination. The district court disagreed, finding that she did not make out a prima facie case of discrimination. Arizanovska may prove her discrimination case under either the direct or indirect method, Weber v. Univ. Research Ass’n, Inc., 621 F.3d 589, 592 (7th Cir. 2010), but has elected to pursue her discrimination case only under the indirect proof method. Under the indirect method, Arizanovska is required to produce evidence establishing a prima facie case of discrimination: (1) that she was a member of a protected class; (2) that she was performing her job satisfactorily; 6 No. 11-3387 (3) that she suffered an adverse employment action; and (4) that Wal-Mart treated a similarly-situated individual outside Arizanovska’s protected class more favorably. Dear v. Shinseki, 578 F.3d 605, 609 (7th Cir. 2009). If Arizanovska satisfies those elements, the burden then shifts to Wal-Mart to identify a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for the action taken. Stockwell v. City of Harvey, 597 F.3d 895, 901 (7th Cir. 2010). And if Wal-Mart advances a nondiscriminatory reason for requiring Arizanovska to take a leave of absence, summary judgment would only be erroneous if Arizanovska produced evidence that the proffered reason was a pretext for improper discrimination. Id. Wal-Mart agrees that Arizanovska is a member of a protected class but argues that Arizanovska cannot satisfy the other three prongs of the prima facie case. Summary judgment is appropriate if Arizanovska cannot demonstrate any one element of the prima facie case, so we only need address the fourth prong, an obvious loser. See Lewis v. City of Chicago, 496 F.3d 645, 652 (7th Cir. 2007). In order to meet the fourth prong of the prima facie case, Arizanovska must identify a similarly-situated employee outside her protected classes who was treated more favorably. Shinseki, 578 F.3d at 609. Arizanovska has not done this. To support both her pregnancy and national origin discrimination claims, Arizanovska contends that two pregnant, African-American employees were treated more favorably—i.e., that because of their pregnancies and race they were allowed to work in aisles with less heavy items. But the evidence contradicts that. First, No. 11-3387 7 neither of those employees was assigned to light-duty work. Second, neither employee provided Wal-Mart with temporary medical restrictions that prevented them from doing their job duties. Because there is no basis to conclude that those employees were treated more favorably, she cannot make out a prima facie case for discrimination. Moreover, with respect to her pregnancy discrimination claim, Arizanovska has not identified a similarlysituated employee outside her protected class—i.e., nonpregnant. Both of the employees she identified were pregnant, and so we cannot infer pregnancy discrimination on that basis because there is no comparison between the treatment of pregnant employees versus nonpregnant employees. The purpose of the “similarly-situated” comparator is to ensure that all other variables are discounted so that discrimination can be inferred. “If an employer takes an action against one employee in a protected class but not another outside that class, and all else is equal between the comparators, we can infer discrimination, at least provisionally at the prima facie stage of the analysis.” Silverman v. Bd. of Educ., 637 F.3d 729, 742 (7th Cir. 2011). The “similarly-situated” inquiry is a “flexible, common-sense one,” Henry v. Jones, 507 F.3d 558, 564 (7th Cir. 2007), but it at least requires that the plaintiff name a comparator outside her protected class. Arizanovska also argues that Wal-Mart’s Accommodation Policy gives preferential treatment to an employee who is injured outside of work over a pregnant woman whose condition was attained outside of work. That 8 No. 11-3387 argument, however, is really a challenge to the policy itself and is not applicable when proving a discrimination case under the indirect method. And anyway, Title VII does not require that sort of accommodation. Wal-Mart did not create a light duty position for Arizanovska because, according to its Accommodation Policy, it would not create that position for any non-pregnant employee who was under medical restrictions. That policy is consistent with Title VII’s requirements. See Serednyj v. Beverly Healthcare, LLC, 656 F.3d 540, 548 (7th Cir. 2011) (“[A]n employer is not required to provide an accommodation to a pregnant employee unless it provides the same accommodation to its similarly situated non-pregnant employees.”). In short, because Arizanovska has not shown that similarly-situated employees outside of her protected classes were treated more favorably, she has failed to establish a prima facie case of racial or national origin discrimination under the indirect method. We find, as the district court did, that summary judgment was proper. We need not reach the issue of pretext, as plaintiff has failed to state a prima facie case of discrimination. See Cowan v. Glenbrook Sec. Serv., Inc., 123 F.3d 438, 445 (7th Cir. 1997).