Legal Cases: Tionn Davis v. Karolek Arts

The legal claim being made by Tionn Davis against Katrina Karolek and Karolek Arts.

Tionn Davis, who is seeking legal redress for alleged discrimination.

Katrina Karolek and her company, Karolek Arts.

Tionn Davis's request to her employer (Karolek Arts) not to travel to Panama due to the Zika virus, citing concerns about pregnancy and potential birth defects.

Karolek Arts' refusal to grant Tionn Davis's request not to travel to Panama.

Tionn Davis's claim that her request for accommodation was denied, while a similar request from a male employee was granted, suggesting potential discriminatory treatment.

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Pregnancy Discrimination Act (PDA).

The emotional distress experienced by Tionn Davis and her husband due to the alleged discrimination and the potential consequences for their family planning.

A type of legal action filed by a plaintiff against a defendant, alleging that the defendant has caused harm to the plaintiff.

The specific reason or situation that the plaintiff claims caused them harm. In this case, the plaintiff claims she was discriminated against when she was required to travel to a Zika-infested area while trying to become pregnant.

A legal process that involves exhausting all internal options or channels within an organization before taking legal action.

A formal written response from the defendant to the plaintiff's complaint, admitting or denying the allegations.

A legal defense presented by the defendant, explaining why they believe they are not responsible for the harm alleged by the plaintiff.

A legal motion requesting a judge to dismiss a lawsuit based on the argument that there is no genuine dispute about any material fact in the case.

Formal written statements from individuals involved in a case, outlining their personal knowledge and experiences related to the case.

A sworn statement from a witness in a legal case, typically containing detailed information about the events leading up to the lawsuit.

Disparate treatment occurs when an employer treats an employee differently than other employees based on their protected characteristics (e.g., sex, race, religion, pregnancy).

The burden of proof in a legal case rests with the party who is claiming that a wrong has been committed. In a discrimination case, the plaintiff usually has the burden of proving that they were discriminated against.

The plaintiff's claim in this case is based on potential harm to her health due to travel to a Zika-infested area, posing a risk to her desired pregnancy.

The defendant must demonstrate a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for their actions. In this instance, the defendant claims the plaintiff was the most qualified and needed for project leadership.

A comparison between the plaintiff and a male colleague, claiming he received different treatment for health concerns.

The plaintiff's desire to start a family is highlighted as a key factor influencing her decision to decline travel to a Zika-infested area.

The plaintiff's claim centers on the alleged discrimination she faced when she was required to travel to a Zika-infested area while trying to become pregnant.

Tionn Davis, a Master Sculptor, asked her employer, Katrina Karolek, to not travel to Panama for work due to concerns about contracting Zika virus and its potential impact on pregnancy.

Karolek denied Davis's request, stating that she needed to be in Panama to supervise the installation of the sculpture.

Berto, another Master Sculptor, was allowed to avoid traveling to Panama due to a knee replacement and subsequent infection.

Davis went ahead and traveled to Panama. She took precautions, including using mosquito repellent and sleeping under a net, but contracted Zika virus.

Due to the infection, Davis must wait two years before attempting to conceive, making it more challenging as she will be over 40 years old.

The legal principle of "similarly situated" compares the treatment of two individuals in similar circumstances to determine if discrimination occurred.

Karolek's defense is that Berto's knee condition made him physically unable to travel, while Davis was fully capable. She also emphasized Davis's unique expertise in installing the sculpture.

The District Court ruled in favor of Karolek, concluding that the difference in treatment was justified due to Berto's physical limitations and Davis's specific skills.

The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals allowed Davis's appeal, focusing only on whether she established a prima facie case of discrimination and whether Karolek's explanation was a pretext.

Tionn Davis is alleging that she was discriminated against because of her gender and plans to become pregnant, while Berto, a man, was treated differently despite a similar situation.