## Facts

- Katie Falk worked as a 911 police dispatcher for the City of Glendale from June 2008 until late 2010.
- After returning from maternity leave in September 2010, Falk was breastfeeding and requested a private sanitary space and breaks to express breast milk during shifts.
- Falk alleged the department was understaffed and patrol officers refused to cover dispatch, so her requests were not accommodated despite repeated reports to supervisors and involvement by the police chief.
- Falk alleged she was forced to work without pumping, resulting in a soiled bra and breast infections on three occasions.
- Falk alleged her sergeant mocked her lactation by laughing and making “moo” sounds.
- Falk alleged she was removed from the work schedule and was told by the City’s human-resources director that she would not be scheduled again until she weaned her child.
- Falk alleged her locker was reassigned and co-workers told her she was no longer welcome.
- After receiving an EEOC right-to-sue notice, Falk filed a Title VII action asserting pregnancy discrimination (PDA), sex discrimination, hostile work environment, and retaliation.

## Issues

1. Whether the complaint plausibly alleged pregnancy discrimination under Title VII as amended by the Pregnancy Discrimination Act based on refusal to accommodate lactation-related needs and removal from the schedule.
2. Whether the complaint plausibly alleged sex discrimination under Title VII based on disparate treatment as compared to similarly situated employees outside the protected class.
3. Whether the alleged mocking and work-related actions plausibly alleged a Title VII hostile work environment that was severe or pervasive.
4. Whether the complaint plausibly alleged Title VII retaliation, including whether Falk engaged in protected activity by complaining about conduct made unlawful by Title VII.

## Decision

- The court granted the City’s Rule 12(b)(6) motion in part and dismissed the complaint without prejudice for failure to state a claim.
- The court held the complaint did not plausibly plead a PDA pregnancy-discrimination claim because it did not connect the challenged actions to pregnancy, childbirth, or a recognized “related medical condition” under the pleading presented, and it did not plausibly allege less favorable treatment than similarly situated non-pregnant employees.
- The court held the sex-discrimination claim was insufficiently pleaded because it lacked factual allegations showing similarly situated employees outside Falk’s protected class were treated more favorably.
- The court held the hostile-work-environment claim was insufficient because the alleged conduct was not plausibly severe or pervasive enough to alter the conditions of employment.
- The court held the retaliation claim failed because the complaint did not plausibly allege protected activity; Falk did not plausibly allege a good-faith opposition to an employment practice made unlawful by Title VII as pleaded.

## Legal Principles

- A complaint must plead sufficient factual matter to state a plausible claim for relief under the Rule 12(b)(6) standard.
- A Title VII disparate-treatment claim generally requires plausible allegations of protected status, adverse employment action, and more favorable treatment of similarly situated comparators outside the protected class.
- A Title VII hostile-work-environment claim requires plausible allegations of harassment that is severe or pervasive enough to create an abusive working environment and alter the conditions of employment.
- A Title VII retaliation claim requires plausible allegations of protected activity, a materially adverse action, and a causal connection; opposition is protected only when directed at conduct made unlawful by Title VII (or plausibly believed in good faith to be unlawful).

## Conclusion

The court dismissed all four Title VII theories without prejudice at the pleading stage, concluding the allegations—centered on lactation-related accommodation requests, mocking comments, and scheduling removal—did not plausibly establish discrimination because of a protected characteristic, severe or pervasive harassment, or retaliation based on protected opposition under Title VII as pleaded.


Falk v. City of Glendale, No. 12-cv-00925-JLK, 2012 WL 2390556 (D. Colo. June 25, 2012)