Judge Cindy Chung, nominated by President Biden to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, wrote a unanimous opinion partly reversing a lower court decision and giving a state parole worker the chance to prove claims of pregnancy discrimination and failure to accommodate a disability. Judge Chad Kenney, who Donald Trump had nominated to the district court, had granted summary judgment against the worker. The July 2024 decision was in Peifer v Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole.
What is the background of this case?
Samantha Peifer was employed by the Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole as a parole agent who worked with drug and alcohol use offenders who were on parole. In 2019-20, she was diagnosed with multiple sclerosis and learned that she was pregnant.
Beginning in spring 2020, Peifer requested accommodations on the job due to her conditions. After a series of responses, including a refusal for months to give her light duty, she filed charges with the EEOC of discrimination based on her pregnancy and her disability. The EEOC issued right to sue letters to Peifer, and she filed suit against the Board in federal court. adding a claim for retaliation. The district court judge, Chad Kenney, granted summary judgment against Peifer, maintaining that she “could not make out a prima facie case for any of her claims.” She appealed to the Third Circuit.
How did Judge Chung and the Third Circuit Rule and Why is it Important?
Judge Chung wrote a unanimous decision that upheld the lower court’s retaliation holding but vacated its rulings on pregnancy and disability discrimination. She sent the case back so Peifer could try to prove her claims in district court.
With respect to the pregnancy discrimination claim, Chung noted that the district court had ruled that the Board’s failure to accommodate Peifer’s pregnancy did not cause “significant” employment-related harm and did not “rise to the level of an adverse employment action.” While the appeal was pending, however, Chung noted that the Supreme Court had ruled in the Muldrow v City of St. Louis case that, contrary to precedent relied on by the lower court, an employee need not demonstrate that an adverse employment action was a “serious and tangible” employment-related harm. Instead, Chung wrote, the Court held that it is sufficient if an employee demonstrates “some harm.” Accordingly, Chung vacated the ruling below and sent the case back to determine whether, under the standard set by Muldrow, Peifer had demonstrated “some” employment-related harm and could thus defeat the Board’s summary judgment motion.
With respect to the disability discrimination claim, Chung carefully reviewed the record and concluded that the lower court was wrong in ruling that Peifer did not “make out a prima facie case” based on the Board’s denial of her requests for light duty. Based on the evidence in the record, she went on, a “reasonable jury” could find that Peifer had demonstrated discrimination, and the “burden shifts” to the Board to demonstrate “legitimate, non-discriminatory” reasons for its actions. Chung sent the case back to the lower court to go forward accordingly.
Judge Chung’s decision is obviously important to Samantha Peifer and her effort to obtain justice for the discrimination she maintains that she suffered. The ruling is also significant in other pregnancy and disability discrimination cases, particularly in the Third Circuit, which includes Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and Delaware. In addition, the decision serves as a reminder of the importance of prompt confirmation of fair-minded judges to our federal courts.