Ohio Pregnancy Discrimination Suit Against Two Fire Departments Severed

A firefighter who sued two different Ohio townships alleging gender and pregnancy discrimination, will now have to proceed separately against each township following a court’s decision to sever the cases. Kara Cruikshank filed suit against Berne Township and Pleasant Township over her treatment following her pregnancy in 2022.

The factual allegations as explained in decision handed down Monday by the US District Court for the Southern District of Ohio:

• Ms. Cruikshank was employed as a firefighter and EMT by Berne Township Fire Department and Pleasant Township Fire Department.
• In 2022, she worked an average of 32 hours per week at BTFD and 24 hours per week at PTFD.
• She generally completed her job duties satisfactorily at both departments and had no remarkable record of discipline.
• Ms. Cruikshank became pregnant sometime in late 2022.
• She timely informed her supervisors at BTFD and PTFD about her pregnancy.
• Shortly thereafter, her attending physician placed her on a lifting restriction.
• Ms. Cruikshank alleges that both Defendants began discriminatory treatment toward her shortly after learning she was pregnant.
• At PTFD, Ms. Cruikshank was instructed by her supervisors to look for a new job or request medical leave.
• She submitted a medical leave request but was asked to provide paperwork from her doctor.
• Upon receipt of her paperwork, PTFD placed her on unpaid medical leave.
• PTFD did not offer her any light duty assignments, despite the fact that other employees had been granted such accommodations in the past.
• At BTFD, Ms. Cruikshank was initially assigned to a driving position as an accommodation. However, after BTFD Chief Dennis Primmer met with PTFD Chief Mike Hutton and learned about her medical leave from PTFD, Ms. Cruikshank was removed from the BTFD roster pending her provision of medical clearance from her treating physician and was eventually terminated. After delivering her child in May 2023, Ms. Cruikshank applied for rehire at BTFD.
• Although she was rehired, she alleges that she experienced hostility and open retaliation upon her return, including a decrease in the hours she was scheduled to work.
• As a result, she resigned from BTFD in November 2023.
• Ms. Cruikshank commenced this action against Defendants in April 2024, alleging claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (including the Pregnancy Discrimination Act of 1978) and Ohio common law.

The townships each moved the court to sever the case into two separate actions. The court agreed reasoning as follows:

• Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 20 permits multiple entities to be joined in one action as defendants as long as “any right to relief is asserted against them jointly, severally, or in the alternative with respect to or arising out of the same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences” and “any question of law or fact common to all defendants will arise in the action.”
• Courts consider a number of factors when determining whether to sever claims, including: (1) whether the claims arise out of the same transaction or occurrence; (2) whether the claims present some common questions of law or fact; (3) whether settlement of the claims or judicial economy would be facilitated; (4) whether prejudice would be avoided if severance were granted; and (5) whether different witnesses and documentary proof are required for separate claims.
• In this case, Ms. Cruikshank alleges discriminatory treatment on the part of two different actors at different times and different locations.
• She received different accommodations at PTFD (i.e., medical leave rather than a light duty assignment) than at BTFD (i.e., assignment to a driving position).
• Ms. Cruikshank has not shown the existence of common questions of law or fact beyond merely a common legal theme.
• Ms. Cruikshank’s claims against BTFD are factually and legally separate from her claims against PTFD. The Court is persuaded by Defendants’ argument that a jury could believe that evidence of alleged wrongdoing by one Defendant compels a finding of wrongdoing by the other Defendant, thereby creating prejudice.
• Considering the five factors together, the Court finds that they heavily support severing Ms. Cruikshank’s claims against Defendants into separate actions.
• Accordingly, the Court finds that Ms. Cruikshank has misjoined parties under Rule 20 and Rule 21.

The single case filed against both townships will now become two separate cases, with the suit against Pleasant Township retaining the original file number, and the case against Berne Township being issued a new file number. Here is a copy of the decision.