Hicks v. City of Tuscaloosa

Stephanie Hicks (plaintiff) worked for the City of Tuscaloosa (city) (defendant) police department in several different capacities, including as a narcotics investigator. Hicks became pregnant and took 12 weeks of leave under the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA). Prior to the leave, Hicks received favorable reviews. On her first day back, she was written up. She also overheard her supervisor making derogatory comments about her and stating the supervisor would get Hicks out of there. Only eight days after returning from leave, the city’s chief reassigned Hicks to the patrol division. Due to the reassignment, Hicks lost certain benefits, like her vehicle and weekends off, and also suffered a pay cut. The reassignment also required her to wear a ballistic vest all day. Hicks’s physician later wrote a letter recommending Hicks be reassigned to a different position because the ballistic vest was so restrictive that it could cause a breast infection and limit her ability to breastfeed. The chief instead offered Hicks the option of not wearing a vest or wearing a “specially fitted vest.” Hicks considered this to be no accommodation at all because both required leaving some areas unprotected, which was dangerous. In response, she resigned. Hicks sued the city under the Pregnancy Discrimination Act (PDA) and FMLA. A jury sided with Hicks, and the city appealed, arguing, among other things, that there was insufficient evidence that Hicks was constructively discharged (i.e., forced to resign).