## Facts

- Carine Armindo worked for Padlocker, Inc. as an entry-level clerical employee and was in a three-month probationary period.
- During roughly three months of employment, Armindo missed at least six full workdays: five due to pregnancy-related illness and one due to car trouble.
- Armindo was also late or left early on nine other occasions, some for pregnancy-related reasons.
- Under Padlocker’s policies, sick days accrued only after three months of employment; Armindo had not accrued paid sick leave when the absences occurred.
- Armindo was not eligible for leave under the Family and Medical Leave Act due to her short tenure, and the case proceeded only under Title VII as amended by the Pregnancy Discrimination Act (PDA).
- Padlocker terminated Armindo, citing her poor attendance record; Armindo alleged the termination was motivated by pregnancy discrimination.

## Issues

1. Whether the PDA is violated when an employer terminates an employee for excessive absences that are pregnancy-related, without evidence that nonpregnant employees with comparable absences were treated more leniently.
2. Whether Armindo produced sufficient evidence that Padlocker’s stated reason—poor attendance—was a pretext for pregnancy discrimination to defeat summary judgment.

## Decision

- The Eleventh Circuit affirmed summary judgment for Padlocker.
- The court assumed, without deciding, that Armindo established a prima facie case under the McDonnell Douglas framework.
- Padlocker met its burden by offering a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for termination: excessive absenteeism/poor attendance.
- Armindo failed to raise a triable issue of pretext because she did not show Padlocker overlooked comparable absences by nonpregnant employees.

## Legal Principles

- The PDA requires equal treatment: pregnant employees must be treated the same as nonpregnant employees who are similar in their ability or inability to work.
- An employer does not violate the PDA by terminating an employee for excessive absences, even if pregnancy-related, unless the employer treats nonpregnant employees with comparable absences more favorably.
- In a PDA case using McDonnell Douglas, once the employer articulates a legitimate reason, the plaintiff must produce evidence that the reason is false or that discrimination was the real reason.
- The PDA does not create an independent entitlement to medical leave; where no leave statute applies, the claim turns on comparative treatment under Title VII/PDA.

## Conclusion

The court held that terminating a probationary employee for excessive absenteeism did not violate the Pregnancy Discrimination Act absent evidence that similarly situated nonpregnant employees with comparable attendance problems were excused or retained, and it affirmed summary judgment for the employer.


Armindo v. Padlocker, Inc., 209 F.3d 1319 (11th Cir. 2000)