The Minnesota Court of Appeals has ruled that an employer engaged in pregnancy-related sex discrimination when they rescinded a prospective employee’s job offer after learning that she had failed to disclose her pregnancy during a job interview. LaPoint v. Family Orthodontics, P.A., No. A15-0396 (Minn. App. Dec. 14, 2015).
Nicole LaPoint applied to work as an assistant to the doctor who owned and operated the orthodontic clinic. During her initial job interview, neither Ms. LaPoint nor the doctor raised the topic of pregnancy. After the interview went well, the doctor called and left Ms. LaPoint a voicemail offering her the job. However, when Ms. LaPoint returned the doctor’s call to accept the offer, she disclosed that she was pregnant and due to deliver in the late Fall.
BIRTH OF A BAD DECISION
In response to this news, the doctor congratulated Ms. LaPoint on her pregnancy and asked about her maternity leave plans. When Ms. LaPoint mentioned that she had taken twelve weeks of leave when her first child was born, the doctor expressed doubt that her orthodontic practice could handle the disruption of a twelve-week leave. She then explained that the clinic’s maternity leave policy was limited to six weeks (which is permissible if the employer is exempt from the Minnesota Parenting Leave Act for having fewer than 21 employees).
The next morning, the doctor left Ms. LaPoint a voicemail indicating that the clinic was “not going to offer [Ms. LaPoint] the job just yet” because of two concerns: First, Ms. LaPoint’s failure to disclose her pregnancy during the job interview. Second, the length of Ms. LaPoint’s desired maternity leave could disrupt the practice of such a small clinic.
Thereafter, Ms. LaPoint e-mailed the doctor several times attempting to provide reassurance that she intended to return to work after the birth of her child, and advising that she would consider a shorter leave. However, Ms. LaPoint did not receive any response to her e-mails, and the clinic eventually offered the job to another candidate who was not pregnant.
Ms. LaPoint sued Family Orthodontics, claiming that the two reasons the clinic provided for rescinding her job offer constituted pregnancy discrimination in violation of the Minnesota Human Rights Act. The trial judge initially sided with the employer by ruling that Family Orthodontics’ overriding concern that Ms. LaPoint’s maternity leave would disrupt the clinic was not a form of discrimination based upon sex or pregnancy.
EMPLOYER SHOULD HAVE BEEN EXPECTING THIS RULING
Unfortunately for the employer, the Minnesota Court of Appeals disagreed, finding that the reasons Family Orthodontics provided for rescinding the job offer were direct evidence of discrimination as a matter of law. Noting that the Minnesota Human Rights Act expressly prohibits an employer from requesting or requiring a job applicant to “furnish information that pertains to . . . sex,” the Court of Appeals concluded that it was illegal for Family Orthodontics to rescind its job offer for failure to disclose something they had no right to ask about in the first place.
The appellate court also found fault with the employer’s second reason for rescinding the job, explaining that the employer’s concern about the length of Ms. LaPoint’s desired maternity leave was “very closely related” to her pregnancy.” The Court found it particularly troubling that Family Orthodontics did not offer Ms. LaPoint the job contingent upon a leave no longer than six weeks (which was the amount of leave allowed under the clinic’s existing policy), even though Ms. LaPoint had stated that she would consider taking a leave shorter than the 12 weeks she desired.
Since neither of the employer’s reasons for rescinding the job offer passed muster, the court reversed the trial court and decided the case in favor of Ms. LaPoint. The case was then returned ot the trial court a determination of damages, which may include a monetary award to Ms. LaPoint for her prospective lost wages, emotional distress, and/or attorneys’ fees.
BOTTOM LINE
This case serves as a good reminder for Minnesota employers that it is unlawful to make employment decisions based upon the failure to divulge information that cannot be asked about in a pre-employment setting. In addition, this case shows that an employer may still be found to have engaged in discrimination for acting on concerns that relate to an applicant’s protected status, even if the employer’s actions are arguably not directly because of the applicant’s protected status, such as was found to be true here with respect to the employer’s concerns over the applicant’s desired length of maternity leave.