The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

P began working as a part-time employee for the Star Herald in April of 1991 and moved to full-time status in November of 1992. P accumulated vacation time and sick leave based on the number of hours she worked. In early May 1993, P informed her supervisor, Scott Walker, that she was pregnant. She continued working during her pregnancy until she took one week of vacation from June 7 through 11. During vacation, P experienced some bleeding associated with her pregnancy and was advised by her physician not to return to work until it stopped. P interfaced with her manager at work to find out if D had a short-term disability policy. P was absent from work the entire week of June 14-18 and was paid with the balance of her accrued sick leave and vacation time. Walker, her manager, phoned P on June 23 and informed her that her sick leave had expired and she had no remaining paid vacation time. He informed P that D did not have a short-term disability policy. Walker said he would have to let her go but agreed not to take any action until after Friday, June 25. On June 28, P's doctor recommended that she take additional time off from her job and said he could not predict when she could resume work. P informed Walker of the doctor's recommendation, Walker explained D's policy for unpaid leaves of absence. P could apply for an unpaid leave of absence, but D does not guarantee that it will hold open the employee's position during her absence. P refused to apply for the leave because she would not be guaranteed re-employment. P's employment was terminated. P filed a charge of discrimination with the EEOC and then timely filed this suit. D filed a motion for summary judgment, which was eventually granted by the district court. P appealed. P claims that D illegally discriminated against her on the basis of her pregnancy by denying her an indefinite leave of absence with a guarantee that she could return to her position. P argues that her Title VII claim should survive under the theories of disparate treatment and disparate impact.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.