United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

530 F. Supp. 2d 1096 (2008)

From our private database of 47,300+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

United States District Court of the Central District of California
530 F. Supp. 2d 1096 (2008)

Facts

Catholic Healthcare West owned Northbridge Hospital Medical Center (collectively, Northbridge) (defendants). Northbridge had a cardiac catheterization laboratory that provided fluoroscopy procedures, which involved high-intensity radiation. During fluoroscopy procedures, one worker would monitor the procedure from a separate monitoring room. The other three to four workers, including a doctor, nurse, and radiation technologist, were in the procedure room with the patient. They wore lead vests to reduce radiation exposure and radiation badges to monitor exposure. Federal regulations limited annual exposure levels. Because fetuses had heightened radiation sensitivity, the federal regulations adopted lower exposure limits for pregnant women who chose to report their pregnancies to their employers. In 1998, Northbridge adopted an internal policy that required employees to report pregnancies and prohibited pregnant employees from participating in fluoroscopy procedures. Diana Girard-Simone was a nurse on the fluoroscopy team. For each of her three pregnancies, she was assigned exclusively to the monitoring room. When Avril Betoushana, a radiology technologist on the fluoroscopy team, informed Northbridge of her pregnancy, she was transferred to a different department until her maternity leave. After Betoushana filed a sex-discrimination charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) (plaintiff), the EEOC sued Northbridge, alleging that Northbridge was engaged in a pattern or practice of sex discrimination violating Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII). Northbridge argued that its policy was not discriminatory because it was motivated by good intentions and both Girard-Simone and Betoushana had allegedly requested removal from the procedure room during pregnancy. Both sides moved for summary judgment.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Pregerson, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 916,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

Here's why 916,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 47,300 briefs, keyed to 1,000 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 916,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 47,300 briefs - keyed to 1,000 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership