## Facts

- Jodee Lang worked for the Star Herald, initially part-time (1991) and later full-time (1992), accruing vacation and sick leave based on hours worked.
- The employer had no short-term disability plan; it maintained an unpaid leave-of-absence policy allowing employees who exhausted paid leave to request unpaid leave, without any guarantee that the job would be held open.
- After informing her supervisor she was pregnant, Lang experienced pregnancy-related bleeding and was medically advised not to work for an initial two-week period.
- Lang used remaining accrued paid leave during her absence and then exhausted her sick and vacation leave.
- Lang advised her supervisor she still could not return to work and later reported her physician could not predict a return date.
- The supervisor explained the unpaid leave policy and advised Lang to apply for unpaid leave subject to the same no-guarantee condition applicable to all employees.
- Lang refused to apply for unpaid leave because reemployment was not guaranteed.
- The Star Herald terminated Lang after she declined the unpaid-leave option and remained unable to work for an indefinite period.
- Lang sued under Title VII as amended by the Pregnancy Discrimination Act (PDA), asserting disparate-treatment and disparate-impact theories; the district court granted summary judgment to the employer.

## Issues

1. Whether the employer engaged in disparate treatment under Title VII/PDA by terminating Lang rather than granting indefinite unpaid leave with a guaranteed right to reinstatement.
2. Whether the employer’s facially neutral leave-of-absence policy caused an unlawful disparate impact on pregnant employees in violation of Title VII/PDA.

## Decision

- The Eighth Circuit affirmed summary judgment for the Star Herald.
- On disparate treatment, the court held Lang failed to raise a genuine dispute that pregnancy motivated the termination where she was offered the same unpaid-leave option (without job guarantee) available to all employees and no employee received a guarantee of reinstatement after indefinite leave.
- On disparate impact, the court held Lang failed to make a prima facie showing because she presented no statistical or comparable evidence that the leave policy fell more harshly on pregnant employees than on others.

## Legal Principles

- Under the PDA, pregnancy-related conditions must be treated the same as other conditions for employees similar in their ability or inability to work; the statute does not require preferential treatment.
- A Title VII/PDA disparate-treatment claim requires evidence that pregnancy was a motivating factor, commonly shown by less favorable treatment of similarly situated nonpregnant employees or by proof that the employer’s stated reason is pretext.
- An employer may lawfully apply a uniform leave policy that offers unpaid leave without guaranteeing reinstatement, absent proof that nonpregnant employees with comparable work limitations receive more favorable terms.
- A disparate-impact claim requires evidence—typically statistical or other group-level proof—that a neutral policy causes a substantial adverse effect on the protected group; an individual termination alone is generally insufficient.

## Conclusion

The court held that terminating a pregnant employee who exhausted paid leave and declined an unpaid, indefinite leave option without a job guarantee did not violate Title VII/PDA where the employer uniformly denied reinstatement guarantees to all employees on indefinite leave and the plaintiff offered no evidence of group-level adverse impact on pregnant employees.


Lang v. Star Herald, 107 F.3d 1308 (8th Cir. 1997), cert. denied, 522 U.S. 833 (1997)