## Facts

- Bethany A. Reynolds worked for Ethicon Endo-Surgery, Inc. as a sales representative starting in 1999 and became a bariatric account manager (BAM) in 2002, based in Sioux Falls, South Dakota.
- After a reorganization, Reynolds’s territory was adjusted, and Ethicon conducted a nationwide market analysis comparing business conditions across markets; Sioux Falls ranked low among markets with a BAM.
- Ethicon management, including supervisor David E. Burns, discussed eliminating the Sioux Falls BAM territory and relocating the position; the plan was documented before Reynolds disclosed her pregnancy.
- On September 4, 2002, Reynolds learned she was pregnant and informed Burns the same day; she alleged Burns asked her to keep the information private.
- A meeting scheduled as a performance evaluation was moved up; at the September 11, 2002 meeting, Burns told Reynolds the Sioux Falls BAM position was being eliminated and offered either relocation (initially Louisville, later also St. Louis) or severance, with no reduction in title or pay for relocation.
- Reynolds stated she would not decide until after the baby was born; she suffered a miscarriage in late September and later reported depression, attributing the miscarriage and emotional harm to the job-elimination notice and related stress.
- Ethicon extended decision deadlines and maintained relocation options; Reynolds refused to transfer and was terminated.
- Reynolds sued under Title VII for pregnancy discrimination and under South Dakota law for intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress; the district court granted summary judgment for defendants.

## Issues

1. Whether Reynolds produced sufficient evidence that Ethicon’s elimination of her Sioux Falls position and transfer-or-severance decision were pretext for pregnancy discrimination under Title VII.
2. Whether defendants’ employment-related conduct met South Dakota’s “extreme and outrageous” standard required for intentional infliction of emotional distress.
3. Whether Reynolds established the elements of negligent infliction of emotional distress under South Dakota law based on the same conduct.

## Decision

- The Eighth Circuit affirmed summary judgment for Ethicon and Burns on all claims.
- On the Title VII claim, the court held Ethicon articulated legitimate, nondiscriminatory business reasons and Reynolds failed to raise a triable issue of pretext.
- On IIED, the court held the conduct alleged was not extreme and outrageous as a matter of South Dakota law.
- On NIED, the court held Reynolds failed to satisfy state-law requirements for liability arising from ordinary employment actions and communications.

## Legal Principles

- Under the McDonnell Douglas framework, once an employer offers a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason, the employee must present evidence permitting a reasonable inference that the reason is a pretext for discrimination.
- Contemporaneous documentation showing a restructuring decision predating employer knowledge of pregnancy strongly undermines an inference of discriminatory motive.
- Courts do not second-guess business judgments under Title VII absent evidence the stated reasons were not honestly held and were a cover for discrimination.
- Under South Dakota law, IIED requires conduct so extreme and outrageous that it is beyond all bounds of decency; employment decisions and insensitive communications generally do not satisfy this threshold without additional aggravating facts.
- NIED liability under South Dakota law is not established by distress arising from lawful workplace decisions absent a recognized duty breach and legally cognizable emotional injury meeting state requirements.

## Conclusion

The court held that documented, market-based reorganization decisions made before the employer learned of Reynolds’s pregnancy defeated her showing of pretext under Title VII, and that the transfer/severance communications and related workplace conduct were insufficient to support IIED or NIED claims under South Dakota law.


Reynolds v. Ethicon Endo-Surgery, Inc., 454 F.3d 868 (8th Cir. 2006)