## Facts

- Susan S. Fejes worked as a blackjack dealer for Gilpin Ventures, Inc., doing business as the Gilpin Hotel Casino; her performance was satisfactory.
- On March 16, 1994, Fejes took unpaid medical leave due to pregnancy complications, with leave authorized under the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA).
- Fejes gave birth while on leave and was scheduled to return on June 8, 1994, at the end of her FMLA entitlement period.
- On June 15, 1994, a supervisor called asking her to work an upcoming weekend; Fejes said she could not because she was breastfeeding and had not established an adequate feeding schedule.
- On July 8, 1994, the casino sent a letter stating Fejes was considered “self-terminated” for failing to return; after she objected, the casino initially indicated it would rehire her.
- On July 14, 1994, the casino sent a second letter stating she was terminated because her gaming license had expired.
- Fejes alleged she was terminated because of sex/pregnancy-related reasons (including breastfeeding-related scheduling needs) and because she took FMLA leave; she also alleged employer policies created contractual reinstatement obligations.

## Issues

1. Whether Fejes produced sufficient evidence of intentional sex or pregnancy discrimination under Title VII, as amended by the Pregnancy Discrimination Act (PDA), to avoid summary judgment.
2. Whether genuine disputes of material fact existed that the casino interfered with Fejes’s FMLA rights and/or retaliated against her for exercising those rights, including by failing to restore her to her job or an equivalent position.
3. Whether employer policies and representations could form an enforceable contract under Colorado law and, if so, whether disputed facts required a trial on willful breach.

## Decision

- The court converted the employer’s Rule 12(b) motion to a summary judgment motion because it considered materials outside the pleadings.
- The court granted summary judgment for the employer on the Title VII/PDA claim.
- The court denied summary judgment on the FMLA claim due to disputed facts regarding reinstatement, the “self-termination” determination, and the asserted license-based reason for termination.
- The court denied summary judgment on the willful breach of contract claim because disputed facts existed on whether policies created enforceable obligations and whether the employer’s actions breached them.

## Legal Principles

- Summary judgment is proper only when there is no genuine dispute of material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law; evidence is viewed in the light most favorable to the nonmovant.
- Title VII/PDA disparate treatment claims may be analyzed under the McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting framework; a plaintiff must produce evidence supporting a prima facie case and, if the employer offers a legitimate reason, evidence permitting a finding of pretext and intentional discrimination.
- Comparator evidence and other proof of discriminatory motive are central to showing sex or pregnancy discrimination when an employer asserts neutral reasons such as scheduling rules or licensing requirements.
- The FMLA provides eligible employees up to 12 weeks of protected leave and generally requires restoration to the same or an equivalent position at leave’s end; it also prohibits interference with FMLA rights and retaliation for exercising them.
- Close timing between protected leave and adverse action, combined with factual disputes about an employee’s return and the employer’s stated reasons, can preclude summary judgment on FMLA interference or retaliation claims.
- Under Colorado law, employer handbooks or policies may create contractual obligations in some circumstances; disputed questions about the existence and content of promises and the employer’s conduct can require trial.

## Conclusion

The court rejected the Title VII/PDA claim for lack of evidence supporting intentional sex or pregnancy discrimination, but allowed the FMLA and contract claims to proceed because the record contained material disputes about reinstatement, the termination rationale, and whether employer policies created enforceable leave-related promises.


Fejes v. Gilpin Ventures, Inc., 960 F. Supp. 1487 (D. Colo. 1997)