Opinion ID: 985212
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: facts

Text: After working as a dispatcher for the City for several months, Ms. Freppon began working for the City as a police officer in January 2009. At that time and 1 The district court dismissed Ms. Freppon’s state law claims without prejudice. Because Ms. Freppon has not challenged the district court’s refusal to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over her state law claims, we do not need to address them. See Phillips v. Humble, 587 F.3d 1267, 1274 (10th Cir. 2009). 2 We recite the facts in this case as we must view them: in the light most favorable to the party opposing summary judgment. See Mathews v. Denver Newspaper Agency LLP, 649 F.3d 1199, 1204 (10th Cir. 2011). -2- continuing through the events at issue in this case, Ms. Freppon was the only female police officer in the Chandler Police Department. There were six male officers in the department. Ms. Freppon sustained a foot injury while off duty in June 2010 and was off work for approximately four weeks. Toward the end of the four weeks, Ms. Freppon’s doctor released her to return to work as a police officer with a “light duty” restriction. However, when Ms. Freppon asked Chief Mattheyer if she could be placed on “light duty” until she fully recovered from the injury, he told her that the Chandler Police Department did not have any light duty for her. See Aplt. App. at 76-77 (Depo. Pages 49-51). In early August 2010, Ms. Freppon informed Chief Mattheyer that she was pregnant. On October 15, 2010, Ms. Freppon gave Chief Mattheyer a note from her doctor, which stated: “Sabrina is pregnant & shouldn’t be doing heavy physical work. She may do desk/clerical work (light duty).” Aplt. App. at 157. Chief Mattheyer told Ms. Freppon that he needed to talk with James Melson, the City Manager. Id. at 77 (Depo. Pages 51-52). After speaking with Mr. Melson, Chief Mattheyer told Ms. Freppon that there was no light duty available. Id. at 77 (Depo. Page 52), 83-84 (Depo. Pages 77-78). Ms. Freppon then complained to Chief Mattheyer that other male officers had received light duty assignments in the past. Id. at 77 (Depo. Page 52), 84 (Depo. Page 78), 91 (Depo. Pages 108-09). Chief -3- Mattheyer told Ms. Freppon that the other officers had received light duty assignments because “theirs were on-the-job injuries.” Id. at 77 (Depo. Page 52). On October 18, 2010, the City placed Ms. Freppon on involuntary unpaid FMLA leave. Id. at 7 (¶ 8), 20 (¶ 8), 83 (Depo. Pages 74-77), 158-59. The FMLA paperwork that Ms. Freppon received stated that she had “a right under the FMLA for up to 12 weeks of unpaid leave.” Id. at 159. On October 21, 2010, Ms. Freppon’s attorney sent a letter to Chief Mattheyer requesting that Ms. Freppon be given a light duty assignment due to her pregnancy. Id. at 160. The letter stated that “[s]ince the department has provided light duty assignments to male officers with temporary physical limitations, that same opportunity must be provided to female officers as well – and specifically to Ms. Freppon.” Id. On November 19, 2010, an attorney retained by the City sent a letter to Ms. Freppon’s attorney. The letter stated as follows: The City of Chandler has requested that my office respond to your letter to the City on behalf of Chandler Police Officer Sabrina Freppon requesting that Ofc. Freppon be provided a light duty assignment due to her pregnancy. Your letter advises that Ofc. Freppon is entitled to a light duty assignment because she alleges that the City previously provided light duty assignments to male officers. To its knowledge, the City of Chandler has never provided a light duty assignment to a Police Officer for a non-work related illness/injury/condition which prevented the officer from performing his/her essential job functions. The prior Police Chief had, on two occasions, modified an officer’s duties as a result of the officer’s inability to perform all of their job duties due to restrictions associated with a work related injury. In both instances, the Officer was -4- performing essential job duties associated with their position while on the modified assignment. Further, in both instances the modified duties were for a limited period of time. Finally, following the most recent instance in which a modified work schedule was permitted, a decision was made by the City and current Chief Mattheyer to discontinue offering any form of light or limited duty to Chandler Police Officers who are unable to perform all their essential duties due to a work related injury. Ofc. Freppon was advised of this decision by Chief Mattheyer in July of this year, when she requested light duty as a result of a non-work related injury she suffered, and was denied. Based on the City’s prior decision to eliminate light/limited duty in the Police Department, your client’s request is denied. Further, as it relates to the contention that the City is obligated to provide your client with a light duty assignment because of prior modified duty assignments which were provided to male officers, your client’s situation is not comparable. Your client’s condition is not work related. The City’s understanding of your client’s request is that she is requesting to be allowed to perform duties which are not essential duties of her position as a Police Officer. Finally, the requested light duty assignment would be for a far greater period of time than was provide[d] in the prior instances. Based on this understanding, the City cannot grant your client’s request for a light duty assignment. Id. at 161-62. On January 31, 2011, the City’s attorney sent another letter to Ms. Freppon’s attorney, stating the following: As you are aware, Ms. Freppon provided the City with documentation from her treating physician indicating that, due to her pregnancy, she was unable to perform certain essential functions of her position as a Patrol Officer with the Chandler Police Department. Upon receiving this documentation, the City of Chandler provided Ms. Freppon with the necessary FMLA paperwork pertaining to her extended absence from duty. The twelve (12) weeks has now expired. The City has recently received information from the Oklahoma Employment Security Commission indicating that your client has advised the State that she is no longer employed by the City of Chandler. To date, the City has not involuntarily separated -5- Ms. Freppon’s employment and has further received no paperwork from Ms. Freppon indicating that she is voluntarily separating her employment. Please advise regarding your position as to Ms. Freppon’s employment status with the City. . . . To insure the interests of all involved are protected, the City is requesting a response by February 11, 2011. Id. at 315. Finally, on March 28, 2011, James Melson, the City Manager, sent a letter to Ms. Freppon regarding “Notice of Separation.” Id. at 163. The letter read as follows: As you are aware, you have been unable to report for duty for quite some time. The City received a letter from an attorney . . . indicating that you believed you were being discriminated against on the basis of your gender. The City denied that allegation. Thereafter, the City received a notice that you had advised the State (OESC) that your employment with the City had been separated. The City, through its legal counsel, contacted your attorney at the end of January, 2011, asking for your position regarding whether you believed you were still employed despite the OESC filing. This inquiry was made since the City had not separated your employment and had received no direct notice from you that you were separating your employment. The City was thus left to conclude that you had voluntarily separated your employment based on your OESC filing. Your attorney did not respond in the time frame set forth in the City’s letter. Several attempts were made to contact your attorney by telephone, but none was successful. In light of your counsel’s failure to respond to the city refuting your assertion to the OESC that you were no longer employed, the City is left to conclude that you have indeed separated your employment. Consequently, a notation to that effect will be made in your file. Your health insurance will continue through the close of the month. You will receive paperwork from the City indicating your right to continue that health insurance, as well as other procedural issues. Should you have any City property in your possession, please arrange with Chief Mattheyer to return that property (e.g. badge, commission card, -6- uniform, etc.). If any of your personal property is located at the City, Chief Mattheyer can arrange for its return. Id. at 163. According to Ms. Freppon, in May 2011, following the birth of her baby, her “doctor released her to return to full duty without restrictions.” Id. at 8. She then attempted to return to her employment with the City’s police department, but “she was told that her employment was terminated.” Id.
Ms. Freppon subsequently filed a complaint against the City in federal district court. In June 2012, the district court entered summary judgment in favor of the City on Ms. Freppon’s Title VII pregnancy discrimination and retaliation claims. In doing so, the district court correctly recognized that Ms. Freppon asserted two distinct pregnancy discrimination claims. First, Ms. Freppon claimed that the City discriminated against her when it denied her request for a light duty assignment and forced her to take a twelve-week unpaid leave of absence under FMLA. Second, Ms. Freppon claimed that the City discriminated against her when it terminated her. The district court also correctly recognized that Ms. Freppon alleged that she was subjected to two separate adverse employment actions in retaliation for her complaint to Chief Mattheyer concerning his denial of her request for a light duty assignment. The alleged adverse actions were (1) the City denied her access to the gun range on -7- one occasion, id. at 358-59; and (2) the City forced her to take twelve weeks of unpaid FMLA leave, id. at 359.3