Look for, elizabeth.grams., Orr v. City of Albuquerque, 531 F.three-dimensional 1210 https://brightwomen.net/no/meksikanske-kvinner/, 1216 (10th Cir. 2008) (treating summation view for defendants in which plaintiffs displayed evidence that they were expected to fool around with sick exit due to their pregnancy leave when you’re someone else seeking low-pregnancy FMLA hop out was in fact routinely permitted to use trips otherwise compensatory time); Maddox v. Grandview Care Ctr., Inc., 780 F.2d 987, 991 (11th Cir. 1986) (affirming finding in support of plaintiff where employer’s coverage limited pregnancy log off to 3 days when you find yourself log off regarding lack having “illness” is offered to have long cycle).
Get a hold of Byrd v. Lakeshore Hosp., 30 F.three dimensional 1380, 1383 (11th Cir. 1994) (rejecting employer’s dispute one to plaintiff, who was simply discharged partially on account of their own entry to amassed ill hop out having pregnancy-related factors, additionally must reveal that non-expecting personnel with the exact same information from medical absences was basically treated so much more favorably; this new court detailed that an employer are thought in order to generally pursue its own sick hop out plan and, when your boss commonly violates the insurance policy, it might have the burden out-of proving the brand new unusual circumstances).
Come across Stout v. Baxter Healthcare, 282 F.3d 856, 859-60 (fifth Cir. 2002) (release of plaintiff due to maternity-relevant lack did not break PDA in which there clearly was zero facts she’d was treated in a different way in the event the their lack was not related so you can maternity); Armindo v. Padlocker, 209 F.three dimensional 1319, 1321 (11th Cir. 2000) (PDA does not require employer to alleviate expecting personnel exactly who misses really works more definitely than non-pregnant personnel whom misses works because of an alternate health problem); .