REYNOLDS V. ETHICON ENDO-SURGERY, INC., 454 F.3D868 (8TH CIR. 2006)
Parties: Appellant; Bethany Reynolds, Respondent; Ethicon Endo-Surgery, Inc & Dave Burns
Procedural History/ Case Nature: The respondent was sued by its former employee, Bethany, for infringement of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. Bethany also in the same suit enjoined David Burns her former immediate supervisor, negligent and intentional infliction of emotional distress. The suit was brought to Court District of South Dakota, where summary judgment was granted to Ethicon and Dave. Bethany appealed.
Facts of the Case: Bethany was employed by Ethicon as a sales representative. Three years later, she was transferred to a new department where she raised to the position of bariatric account manager based in South Dakota. Ethicon conducted a market research which showed the total market population, obese population and where bariatric account manager were allocated. South Dakota, where Bethany was stationed, was ranked the worst performing. In 2002, August 13, the company, Dave included, decided to move out of South Dakota and use a bariatric account manager, Bethany, in Kentucky.
Bethany discovered she was pregnant and informed Dave on the same day, September 4. Allegedly, Dave requested Bethany they meet a week earlier than planned to discuss her performance evaluation. At the meeting Dave presented Bethany with a letter detailing the transfer package, where she would maintain her benefits, or otherwise a severance package which her last working day would be 28 October. She had until 20th from 18th to decide. Between 16 and 18 September, Bethany was offered the option of taking bariatric account manager in a different area.
Bethany baby was due in 2003, 1 May, and Bethany stated that she would only give her answer then. Unfortunately, Bethany suffered a miscarriage in September. She claimed the abolishment of her station and manner of notification caused the miscarriage and subsequent diagnosis of depression. On 22 October, Bethany was notified by the company that the transfer option was still opened, and that the last day of work was extended to 2002, November 28 from October. Bethany refused to transfer and her employment was subsequently terminated.
Issues: Whether Bethany rights under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act were infringed by the company, Ethicon? Whether Dave was liable for negligent and intentional infliction of emotion distress to Bethany?
Legal Rules: The law that would be applicable includes: Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, The Law of Torts § 12, 62 (5th Ed 1984), South Dakota Codified Laws § 60-4-4, Federal Rule Civil Procedure 56 (c), 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a) (1) (2004) and various common law cases.
Application/Analysis: Summary judgment is allowed when the facts illustrate that there is lack of genuine issue as to any material fact and that the party seeking the summary is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.
Bethany did not present direct evidence of discrimination, thus the court analyzed the case under the burden-shifting standard; the plaintiff has the initial burden of establishing a prima facie case of discrimination. Bethany did not prove that she suffered an adverse employment action, hence her claim failed.
The tort finds the defendant liable for negligent and intentional behavior causing emotional distress, if the defendant was aware that the plaintiff was especially sensitive, vulnerable and susceptible to injury through mental distress. The evidence of this case do not support these factors neither the tort.
Conclusion: The Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the district court that granted summary judgment in favor of the respondents, Endo-Surgery, Inc & Dave Burns.
Bibliography
Reynolds v. Ethicon Endo-Surgery, Inc. & Anor , 454 F.3d868 (8th Cir. 2006)
