Opinion ID: 2757451
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Negative Performance Evaluation

Text: Torres-Skair contends that four other non-pregnant pharmacists received more favorable evaluations in 2010 despite having similar production numbers. She relies on a ranking sheet of pharmacists for average prescriptions per week over the year, which shows that one other pharmacist, Katrina Stokes, actually performed worse on this criterion (36 per week) than Torres-Skair (39 per week). The chart states, “Needs improvement = less than 38rxs/week.” Torres-Skair was the only pharmacist who received the “NI” rank for “needs improvement.” 12 Case: 13-14476 Date Filed: 12/04/2014 Page: 13 of 21 Here, Torres-Skair did not present sufficient evidence that would allow a reasonable jury to find that her pregnancy was a motivating factor in Powrie’s negative evaluation. First, the single statistic on which Torres-Skair seeks to compare herself to Stokes (and the other pharmacists) does not take into account the other criteria on which the pharmacists were evaluated, such as green lights, idle time, and other similar factors. The ranking sheet that Torres-Skair relies on covers only the prescription numbers and was not otherwise analyzed through testimony. See, e.g., Wilson, 376 F.3d at 1089 (“Statistics without any analytical foundation are virtually meaningless.”) (citation and quotation marks omitted). As a result, the court cannot ascertain whether Stokes was similarly situated to TorresSkair for purposes of her 2010 performance evaluation. Nor does the evidence allow for a meaningful comparison to the other non-pregnant pharmacists. Therefore, the district court properly found that Torres-Skair failed to show that similarly situated employees outside of her protected class were treated differently. See id. at 1091. Furthermore, Torres-Skair’s supervisors initially identified Torres-Skair’s deficient job performance well before learning that she was pregnant. Significantly, on April 15, 2010, Narducci sent an email to Powrie expressing concern about Torres-Skair’s low prescription numbers. On September 29, 2010, Powrie sent an email to Torres-Skair asking her to explain why her statistics were 13 Case: 13-14476 Date Filed: 12/04/2014 Page: 14 of 21 low the previous Friday. Then, on October 29, 2010, Powrie called Torres-Skair and, after discussing her job performance, explained to her that if Torres-Skair did not improve her performance, she might have to return to work at the call center instead of working from home, or she might be placed on a performanceimprovement plan. Following this discussion and fifty minutes into the telephone call, Torres-Skair advised Powrie for the first time that she was pregnant. Powrie informed Narducci of Torres-Skair’s pregnancy on November 1, 2010. In addition, a review of Torres-Skair’s quarterly prescription production corroborates Torres-Skair’s supervisors’ impressions that Torres-Skair’s work had, in fact, decreased. In the first quarter of 2010, Torres-Skair had 572 quarterly prescriptions; she had 519 in the second, 486 in the third, and 459 in the last—a decrease of 5% each quarter for a total decrease of 20% from the first quarter to the last, and Torres-Skair did not inform Defendant of her pregnancy until well into the last quarter of the year. While we are troubled by the comments that Torres-Skair attributes to Powrie and acknowledge that the evidence shows that Powrie thought TorresSkair’s job performance had been negatively affected by her pregnancy after learning of it, those facts alone do not create a material dispute of fact that Powrie’s negative evaluation was motivated by unlawful discrimination. “Under the PDA, the employer must ignore an employee’s pregnancy and treat her as well 14 Case: 13-14476 Date Filed: 12/04/2014 Page: 15 of 21 as it would have if she were not pregnant.” Spivey v. Beverly Enterprises, Inc., 196 F.3d 1309, 1313-14 (11th Cir. 1999) (internal quotation marks omitted). In other words, deficient job performance remains a non-discriminatory basis on which employers may make employment decisions, so long as performance standards are applied equally. 3 For these reasons, the district court properly concluded that Torres-Skair did not establish a prima facie claim based on the negative performance evaluation.