## Facts

- Kimberly Hern Troupe worked as a sales employee for Lord & Taylor (May Department Stores) in Chicago; her performance was satisfactory until late 1990.
- During the first trimester of pregnancy, she experienced severe morning sickness that caused repeated tardiness and early departures.
- At her request, the employer returned her to part-time hours (noon to 5 p.m.), but attendance problems continued.
- In the period leading to a February 18 warning, she was late or left early on nine of 21 workdays; she was again late on February 19 and received a written warning.
- After three consecutive tardies in late March, she was placed on a 60-day probation on March 29.
- During probation, she was late 11 additional days and was terminated on June 7, one day before her scheduled maternity leave.
- Troupe alleged her supervisor stated she would be fired because the supervisor did not think she would return after childbirth and the store wanted to avoid paying maternity benefits.
- Troupe sued under Title VII as amended by the Pregnancy Discrimination Act (PDA), alleging termination because of pregnancy; the employer asserted termination for chronic attendance violations under neutral rules.

## Issues

1. Whether the evidence permitted a reasonable inference that Troupe was terminated because of pregnancy, rather than for chronic tardiness.
2. Whether the PDA requires special accommodation or leniency for pregnancy-related limitations beyond the treatment given to other employees similar in their ability or inability to work.

## Decision

- The Seventh Circuit affirmed summary judgment for the employer.
- The court held Troupe failed to present sufficient evidence that pregnancy, rather than attendance, caused the discharge.
- The court held the PDA requires equal treatment, not preferential treatment, for pregnancy-related work limitations.
- The court found no evidence that nonpregnant employees with comparable attendance problems were treated more favorably, and no sufficient showing that the employer’s attendance rationale was pretext.

## Legal Principles

- Under the PDA, employees affected by pregnancy must be treated the same as others “similar in their ability or inability to work.”
- A plaintiff may prove intentional discrimination through direct evidence, circumstantial evidence forming a “convincing mosaic,” or the indirect burden-shifting method associated with McDonnell Douglas; these are alternative ways to prove discriminatory intent, not rigid compartments.
- The PDA does not require employers to excuse pregnancy-related tardiness or absences if the employer would not excuse comparable attendance problems for nonpregnant employees.
- To survive summary judgment where the employer offers a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason (e.g., attendance), the plaintiff must produce evidence supporting an inference of discriminatory motive, such as similarly situated comparators treated better or evidence that the stated reason is a pretext.
- Temporal proximity between termination and impending maternity leave, standing alone, is generally insufficient to create a triable issue without additional evidence of disparate treatment or pretext.

## Conclusion

The court affirmed summary judgment because the record supported termination for repeated attendance violations after warnings and probation, and the PDA did not entitle the employee to greater leniency absent evidence that comparable nonpregnant employees were treated better or that the attendance justification masked pregnancy-based bias.


Troupe v. May Dep't Stores Co., 20 F.3d 734 (7th Cir. 1994)