ÿWPCNP )øòALýÓPh*”‹å7~÷Íu€K çÎâCÖ Üÿ9°HHd‘[EÓóPèVw‰Ä”ÛeÖÄh“+&SMï%}cËÓ]Ô0‹<%˜q¦ŒˆôÕz£Ê®Fû3ŠJh9•L*­âë!®a ðѤòLÉÄtyÖÃT‹ ÷V] ¶÷³RQ¬àmMÐÅßYµ1ègÓ$KèÆ€ë{7”ã)hN—j׿_íÝJ€Ö¿ø0¥¢Æø78à Ëic“xo™>UN@6V@UNŒAêÚAUNÄE:FUNLHöšHUNK ÞKUNèMèMèMèMèMèMèMèMèMèMèMèMèMèMèMèMèMèMèMèMèMèMèM 0D6N D3zNzNzNzNzNzNzNzNzNzNzNzNzNzNzNzNzNzNzNzNzNzNzNzNzNzNzNzNzN AS­NÆO 0DÆO 0D P˜HP LaserJet 8000 DN PSØÚØÚÚØØÚ0'í€"  Z 6Times New Roman Regular¼($¡¡(q(2³^$¤¤Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  ÝѰ°ÑÒ°ÒÒX°ÒÔ€XÕRX»¼ÔÓ  Óà ` àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóE¿E++++tpO'3|x 0Ý ƒ³^$ÝÑ@°°ÑÒ°ÒÒX°ÒÔ€XÕRX»¼ÔÓ  Óà ` àòòÚ  Ú6Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔIn€more€general€terms,€Tennesseeððs€courts€have€similarly€held€that€motive€may€beÐ ° Ðestablished€using€direct€or€circumstantial€evidence€or€a€combination€of€both.€€òòSee€Stinson€v.€Stateóó,Ð œì Ð181€Tenn.€172,€178,€180€S.W.2d€883,€885€(1944);€òòBank€of€Hendersonville€v.€Dozieróó,€24€Tenn.€App.Ð ˆØ Ð178,€201,€142€S.W.2d€191,€206€(1940).€€(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó Ý ƒ{¯"ÝÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÔ€¼‰»»¼ÔÔ€¨»¼‰ÔÓ  Óò òÔ Ad ÔFILEDÔ€XµlX¨ÔÐ  ÐÌNovember€5,€1999ÌÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌAppellate€Court€ClerkÔdAxÔó ó ìÝ ƒ³^$ÝÑ@°°ÑÒ°ÒÒX°ÒÔ€XÕRX»¼ÔÓ  Óà ` àòòÚ  Ú7Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔWe€have€adopted€the€òòMcDonnell€Douglasóó€approach€in€cases€brought€under€the€TennesseeÐ ° ÐHuman€Rights€Act€alleging€discrimination€based€on€gender€and€age.€€òòSee€Frazier€v.€Heritage€Fed.Ð œì ÐBank€for€Savingsóó,€955€S.W.2d€633,€636€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1997)€(gender€and€age);€òòNewsom€v.€TextronÐ ˆØ ÐAerostructuresóó,€924€S.W.2d€87,€96€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1995)€(age);€òòLoeffler€v.€Kjellgrenóó,€884€S.W.2dÐ tÄ Ð463,€469€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1994)€(age);€òòBrenner€v.€Textron€Aerostructuresóó,€874€S.W.2d€at€583€(age).- ù-¨¤e'L spann v. abraham - opinino Î 72 ' IB011T10IB011T1 .   ,O²ÀAZ‹"Arial RegularÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ ¬Ý ƒ³^$ÝÑ@°°ÑÒ°ÒÒX°ÒÔ€XÕRX»¼ÔÓ  Óà ` àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔMs.€Spannððs€relationship€with€her€childððs€father€was€apparently€problematic€because€he€wasÐ ° Ðlater€convicted€of€assaulting€her€with€a€knife.€€In€addition,€one€of€the€fatherððs€former€girlfriends€wasÏalso€harassing€Ms.€Spann€at€work.€€ ,Ý ƒ³^$ÝÑ@°°ÑÒ°ÒÒX°ÒÔ€XÕRX»¼ÔÓ  Óà ` àòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔòòParker€v.€Warren€County€Util.€Dist.óó,€No.€01S01„9806„CH„00107,€1999€WL€767885,€at€*3Ð ° Ð(Tenn.€Sept.€9,€1999). àÝ ƒ³^$ÝÑ@°°ÑÒ°ÒÒX°ÒÔ€XÕRX»¼ÔÓ  Óà ` àòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔMs.€Spann€characterized€Mr.€Abrahamððs€statement€as€follows:€ð ðI€was€told€that€if€I€didnððtÐ ° Ðtake€this€demotion€that€I€could€get€my€job€back€after€my€pregnancy.ðð€€Even€after€Ms.€Spann€suedÏhim,€Mr.€Abraham€stated€that€she€was€a€good€worker€and€that€he€would€be€happy€to€hire€her€back. eÝ ƒ³^$ÝÑ@°°ÑÒ°ÒÒX°ÒÔ€XÕRX»¼ÔÓ  Óà ` àòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔThe€Tennessee€Human€Rights€Act€was€later€amended€to€permit€suits€to€be€filed€in€either€theÐ ° Ðchancery€or€circuit€court.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€4„21„311(a)€(1998).Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5 àÝ ƒ³^$ÝÑ@°°ÑÒ°ÒÒX°ÒÔ€XÕRX»¼ÔÓ  Óà ` àòòÚ  Ú5Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_Ôð ðDisparate€treatmentðð€claims€involve€circumstances€in€which€an€employer€treats€anÐ ° Ðemployee€less€favorably€than€other€employees€because€of€the€employeeððs€race,€religion,€nationalÏorigin,€or€gender.€€On€the€other€hand,€ð ðdisparate€impactðð€claims€involve€facially€neutral€employmentÏpractices€that€adversely€affect€one€identifiable€group€more€than€another€and€cannot€be€justified€byÏbusiness€necessity.€€òòSee€International€Bhd.€of€Teamsters€v.€United€Statesóó,€431€U.S.€324,€335€n.15,Ð `° Ð97€S.€Ct.€1843,€1854„55€n.15€(1977).€€Persons€alleging€pregnancy€discrimination€may€proceed€usingÏeither€theory.€€òòSee€Scherr€v.€Woodland€Sch.€Commððnóó,€867€F.2d€974,€979€(7th€Cir.€1988);€òòMayberryÐ 8 ˆ Ðv.€Endocrinology„Diabetes€Assocs.óó,€926€F.€Supp.€at€1323. ìÝ ƒ{¯"ÝÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÔ€½l»¼ÔÓ  Óò òÔ Ad ÔFILEDÔ€XÕRX½lÔÐ  ÐÌNovember€5,€1999ÌÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌAppellate€Court€ClerkÔdAYÔó ó Ý ƒ³^$ÝÑ@°°ÑÒ°ÒÒX°ÒÔ€XÕRX»¼ÔÓ  Óà ` àòòÚ  Ú8Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔThe€record€contains€proposed€jury€instructions€indicating€that€Ms.€Ô_ÔSpannÔ_Ô€had€based€her€caseÐ ° Ðon€the€direct€method,€while€Mr.€Abraham€was€defending€the€claim€based€on€the€indirect€method.€ÏMs.€Ô_ÔSpannÔ_Ôððs€post„trial€briefs€contain€arguments€based€on€both€methods.,O²ÀAZ‹"Arial Regular ¬Ý ƒ³^$ÝÑ@°°ÑÒ°ÒÒX°ÒÔ€XÕRX»¼ÔÓ  Óà ` àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔMs.€Spannððs€relationship€with€her€childððs€father€was€apparently€problematic€because€he€wasÐ ° Ðlater€convicted€of€assaulting€her€with€a€knife.€€In€addition,€one€of€the€fatherððs€former€girlfriends€wasÏalso€harassing€Ms.€Spann€at€work.€€'í€"  Z 6Times New Roman Regular àÝ ƒ³^$ÝÑ@°°ÑÒ°ÒÒX°ÒÔ€!XÕRX»¼ÔÓ  Óà ` àòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔMs.€Spann€characterized€Mr.€Abrahamððs€statement€as€follows:€ð ðI€was€told€that€if€I€didnððtÐ ° Ðtake€this€demotion€that€I€could€get€my€job€back€after€my€pregnancy.ðð€€Even€after€Ms.€Spann€suedÏhim,€Mr.€Abraham€stated€that€she€was€a€good€worker€and€that€he€would€be€happy€to€hire€her€back.'í€"  Z 6Times New Roman Regular d eÝ ƒ³^$ÝÑ@°°ÑÒ°ÒÒX°ÒÔ€$XÕRX»¼ÔÓ  Óà ` àòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔThe€Tennessee€Human€Rights€Act€was€later€amended€to€permit€suits€to€be€filed€in€either€theÐ ° Ðchancery€or€circuit€court.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€4„21„311(a)€(1998).'í€"  Z 6Times New Roman Regular ,Ý ƒ³^$ÝÑ@°°ÑÒ°ÒÒX°ÒÔ€&XÕRX»¼ÔÓ  Óà ` àòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔòòParker€v.€Warren€County€Util.€Dist.óó,€No.€01S01„9806„CH„00107,€1999€WL€767885,€at€*3Ð ° Ð(Tenn.€Sept.€9,€1999).'í€"  Z 6Times New Roman Regular àÝ ƒ³^$ÝÑ@°°ÑÒ°ÒÒX°ÒÔ€(XÕRX»¼ÔÓ  Óà ` àòòÚ  Ú5Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_Ôð ðDisparate€treatmentðð€claims€involve€circumstances€in€which€an€employer€treats€anÐ ° Ðemployee€less€favorably€than€other€employees€because€of€the€employeeððs€race,€religion,€nationalÏorigin,€or€gender.€€On€the€other€hand,€ð ðdisparate€impactðð€claims€involve€facially€neutral€employmentÏpractices€that€adversely€affect€one€identifiable€group€more€than€another€and€cannot€be€justified€byÏbusiness€necessity.€€òòSee€International€Bhd.€of€Teamsters€v.€United€Statesóó,€431€U.S.€324,€335€n.15,Ð `° Ð97€S.€Ct.€1843,€1854„55€n.15€(1977).€€Persons€alleging€pregnancy€discrimination€may€proceed€usingÏeither€theory.€€òòSee€Scherr€v.€Woodland€Sch.€Commððnóó,€867€F.2d€974,€979€(7th€Cir.€1988);€òòMayberryÐ 8 ˆ Ðv.€Endocrinology„Diabetes€Assocs.óó,€926€F.€Supp.€at€1323.'í€"  Z 6Times New Roman Regular 0Ý ƒ³^$ÝÑ@°°ÑÒ°ÒÒX°ÒÔ€+XÕRX»¼ÔÓ  Óà ` àòòÚ  Ú6Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔIn€more€general€terms,€Tennesseeððs€courts€have€similarly€held€that€motive€may€beÐ ° Ðestablished€using€direct€or€circumstantial€evidence€or€a€combination€of€both.€€òòSee€Stinson€v.€Stateóó,Ð œì Ð181€Tenn.€172,€178,€180€S.W.2d€883,€885€(1944);€òòBank€of€Hendersonville€v.€Dozieróó,€24€Tenn.€App.Ð ˆØ Ð178,€201,€142€S.W.2d€191,€206€(1940).€€ 'í€"  Z 6Times New Roman Regular ìÝ ƒ³^$ÝÑ@°°ÑÒ°ÒÒX°ÒÔ€-XÕRX»¼ÔÓ  Óà ` àòòÚ  Ú7Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔWe€have€adopted€the€òòMcDonnell€Douglasóó€approach€in€cases€brought€under€the€TennesseeÐ ° ÐHuman€Rights€Act€alleging€discrimination€based€on€gender€and€age.€€òòSee€Frazier€v.€Heritage€Fed.Ð œì ÐBank€for€Savingsóó,€955€S.W.2d€633,€636€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1997)€(gender€and€age);€òòNewsom€v.€TextronÐ ˆØ ÐAerostructuresóó,€924€S.W.2d€87,€96€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1995)€(age);€òòLoeffler€v.€Kjellgrenóó,€884€S.W.2dÐ tÄ Ð463,€469€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1994)€(age);€òòBrenner€v.€Textron€Aerostructuresóó,€874€S.W.2d€at€583€(age).'í€"  Z 6Times New Roman Regular Ý ƒ³^$ÝÑ@°°ÑÒ°ÒÒX°ÒÔ€/XÕRX»¼ÔÓ  Óà ` àòòÚ  Ú8Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔThe€record€contains€proposed€jury€instructions€indicating€that€Ms.€Ô_ÔSpannÔ_Ô€had€based€her€caseÐ ° Ðon€the€direct€method,€while€Mr.€Abraham€was€defending€the€claim€based€on€the€indirect€method.€ÏMs.€Ô_ÔSpannÔ_Ôððs€post„trial€briefs€contain€arguments€based€on€both€methods.'í€"  Z 6Times New Roman Regular 5Ý ƒ{¯"ÝÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÔ_ÔññÔ€1¼‰»»¼ÔññÔ€2½l»¼ÔÔ_ÔÓ  Óò òÔ Ad ÔFILEDÔ€2XÕRX½lÔÐ  ÐÌNovember€5,€1999ÌÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌAppellate€Court€ClerkÔdA¢Ôó ó,O²ÀAZ‹"Arial Regular'í€"  Z 6Times New Roman Regular Ý ƒ{¯"ÝÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÔ_ÔÔ€4½l»¼ÔÔ_ÔÓ  Óò òÔ Ad ÔFILEDÔ€4XÕRX½lÔÐ  ÐÌNovember€5,€1999ÌÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌAppellate€Court€ClerkÔdAyÔó ó'í€"  Z 6Times New Roman Regular ¬Ý ƒ³^$ÝÑ@°°ÑÒ°ÒÒX°ÒÔ€6XÕRX»¼ÔÓ  Óà ` àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔMs.€Spannððs€relationship€with€her€childððs€father€was€apparently€problematic€because€he€wasÐ ° Ðlater€convicted€of€assaulting€her€with€a€knife.€€In€addition,€one€of€the€fatherððs€former€girlfriends€wasÏalso€harassing€Ms.€Spann€at€work.€€'í€"  Z 6Times New Roman Regular àÝ ƒ³^$ÝÑ@°°ÑÒ°ÒÒX°ÒÔ€8XÕRX»¼ÔÓ  Óà ` àòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔMs.€Spann€characterized€Mr.€Abrahamððs€statement€as€follows:€ð ðI€was€told€that€if€I€didnððtÐ ° Ðtake€this€demotion€that€I€could€get€my€job€back€after€my€pregnancy.ðð€€Even€after€Ms.€Spann€suedÏhim,€Mr.€Abraham€stated€that€she€was€a€good€worker€and€that€he€would€be€happy€to€hire€her€back.'í€"  Z 6Times New Roman Regular eÝ ƒ³^$ÝÑ@°°ÑÒ°ÒÒX°ÒÔ€:XÕRX»¼ÔÓ  Óà ` àòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔThe€Tennessee€Human€Rights€Act€was€later€amended€to€permit€suits€to€be€filed€in€either€theÐ ° Ðchancery€or€circuit€court.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€4„21„311(a)€(1998).'í€"  Z 6Times New Roman Regular ,Ý ƒ³^$ÝÑ@°°ÑÒ°ÒÒX°ÒÔ€<XÕRX»¼ÔÓ  Óà ` àòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔòòParker€v.€Warren€County€Util.€Dist.óó,€No.€01S01„9806„CH„00107,€1999€WL€767885,€at€*3Ð ° Ð(Tenn.€Sept.€9,€1999).'í€"  Z 6Times New Roman Regular àÝ ƒ³^$ÝÑ@°°ÑÒ°ÒÒX°ÒÔ€>XÕRX»¼ÔÓ  Óà ` àòòÚ  Ú5Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_Ôð ðDisparate€treatmentðð€claims€involve€circumstances€in€which€an€employer€treats€anÐ ° Ðemployee€less€favorably€than€other€employees€because€of€the€employeeððs€race,€religion,€nationalÏorigin,€or€gender.€€On€the€other€hand,€ð ðdisparate€impactðð€claims€involve€facially€neutral€employmentÏpractices€that€adversely€affect€one€identifiable€group€more€than€another€and€cannot€be€justified€byÏbusiness€necessity.€€òòSee€International€Bhd.€of€Teamsters€v.€United€Statesóó,€431€U.S.€324,€335€n.15,Ð `° Ð97€S.€Ct.€1843,€1854„55€n.15€(1977).€€Persons€alleging€pregnancy€discrimination€may€proceed€usingÏeither€theory.€€òòSee€Scherr€v.€Woodland€Sch.€Commððnóó,€867€F.2d€974,€979€(7th€Cir.€1988);€òòMayberryÐ 8 ˆ Ðv.€Endocrinology„Diabetes€Assocs.óó,€926€F.€Supp.€at€1323.'í€"  Z 6Times New Roman Regular 0Ý ƒ³^$ÝÑ@°°ÑÒ°ÒÒX°ÒÔ€@XÕRX»¼ÔÓ  Óà ` àòòÚ  Ú6Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔIn€more€general€terms,€Tennesseeððs€courts€have€similarly€held€that€motive€may€beÐ ° Ðestablished€using€direct€or€circumstantial€evidence€or€a€combination€of€both.€€òòSee€Stinson€v.€Stateóó,Ð œì Ð181€Tenn.€172,€178,€180€S.W.2d€883,€885€(1944);€òòBank€of€Hendersonville€v.€Dozieróó,€24€Tenn.€App.Ð ˆØ Ð178,€201,€142€S.W.2d€191,€206€(1940).€€'í€"  Z 6Times New Roman Regular ìÝ ƒ³^$ÝÑ@°°ÑÒ°ÒÒX°ÒÔ€BXÕRX»¼ÔÓ  Óà ` àòòÚ  Ú7Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔWe€have€adopted€the€òòMcDonnell€Douglasóó€approach€in€cases€brought€under€the€TennesseeÐ ° ÐHuman€Rights€Act€alleging€discrimination€based€on€gender€and€age.€€òòSee€Frazier€v.€Heritage€Fed.Ð œì ÐBank€for€Savingsóó,€955€S.W.2d€633,€636€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1997)€(gender€and€age);€òòNewsom€v.€TextronÐ ˆØ ÐAerostructuresóó,€924€S.W.2d€87,€96€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1995)€(age);€òòLoeffler€v.€Kjellgrenóó,€884€S.W.2dÐ tÄ Ð463,€469€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1994)€(age);€òòBrenner€v.€Textron€Aerostructuresóó,€874€S.W.2d€at€583€(age).'í€"  Z 6Times New Roman Regular Ý ƒ³^$ÝÑ@°°ÑÒ°ÒÒX°ÒÔ€DXÕRX»¼ÔÓ  Óà ` àòòÚ  Ú8Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔThe€record€contains€proposed€jury€instructions€indicating€that€Ms.€Ô_ÔSpannÔ_Ô€had€based€her€caseÐ ° Ðon€the€direct€method,€while€Mr.€Abraham€was€defending€the€claim€based€on€the€indirect€method.€ÏMs.€Ô_ÔSpannÔ_Ôððs€post„trial€briefs€contain€arguments€based€on€both€methods.'í€"  Z 6Times New Roman Regular(3¯$££Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý""""'ÿÿdxdz{[|\Eþÿ<<CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(3¯$¢¢Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó óÝ ƒ!ÝÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÒ°ÒÒX°ÒÑTR[° AØ'ÿ Legal3Ø' AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑÑܰÑññÔ€„˜°„»¼ÔññÑ8€.*jzð` `€€@ÿEžÿ` 6ttxNÖ7( Æ tßññññßt€y3\>.*jzð` `€€@ÿEžÿ` 6ttxNÖ7( Æ tßññññññßx€y0\B2.jzð`  `€€@ÿEžÿ` 6ttxNÖ7( Æ xßññññññßx€y \B2.jzð`  `€€@ÿEžÿ` 8ttxPÖ7( È xßññà@q q Dàò òIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ î Ðà@ÕÕ)DàAT€NASHVILLEˆÌññÔ€¼ Ðparties€later€agreed€to€transfer€the€case€to€the€Chancery€Court€for€Davidson€CountyÏpursuant€to€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€16„2„107€(1994)€because€at€that€time€the€chanceryÏcourt€had€exclusive€subject€matter€jurisdiction€over€Ms.€Spannððs€claim.ññññ׃×ññññ׃9×ññññññ׃#×ññÝ ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€A€jury€wasÐ æ6 Ðempaneled€to€hear€the€case€on€July€15,€1996.€€At€the€close€of€Ms.€Spannððs€proof€onÏJuly€16,€1996,€the€trial€court€granted€Mr.€Abrahamððs€motion€for€a€directed€verdictÏbecause€Ms.€Spann€had€failed€to€establish€a€prima€facie€case€that€Mr.€Abraham€hadÏdiscriminated€against€her€because€she€was€pregnant.€€The€trial€court€entered€an€orderÏdismissing€Ms.€Spannððs€complaint€on€July€30,€1996€which€the€trial€court€correctedÏon€its€own€motion€on€September€30,€1996.€€Ms.€Spann€now€appeals€from€the€amendedÏfinal€judgment.ÌÌà@ËË.Dàò òII.ó óˆÐ Y© ÐÌà ` àThree€procedural€issues€must€be€dealt€with€before€considering€the€dismissal€ofÏMs.€Spannððs€discrimination€claim.€€First,€Ms.€Spann€asserts€that€the€trial€court€lackedÏthe€power€to€direct€a€verdict€for€Mr.€Abraham€because€it€earlier€denied€his€motion€forÏsummary€judgment.€€Second,€she€takes€issue€with€the€trial€courtððs€decision€that€it€didÏnot€have€jurisdiction€to€consider€her€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€59€motion€filed€after€sheÏperfected€this€appeal.€€Third,€she€insists€that€the€trial€court€erred€by€correcting€the€textÏof€its€final€order€on€its€own€motion€after€it€declined€to€consider€her€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P.Ï59€motion.ÌÌà@ÓÓ.Dàò òA.ó óˆÐ (U#, ÐÌà ` àAt€the€close€of€Ms.€Spannððs€proof€on€July€16,€1996,€Mr.€Abraham€moved€forÏa€directed€verdict€on€the€ground€that€she€had€failed€ð ðto€show€that€she€was€treatedÏdifferently€than€similarly„situated€employeesðð€and€that€ð ðtelltale€commentsðð€cannot€beÏdirect€evidence€of€discrimination.€€The€trial€court,€after€reciting€that€ð ðone€of€theÏgroundsðð€of€the€ð ðmotion€to€dismissðð€was€that€Ms.€Spann€had€failed€to€prove€that€sheÏhad€been€treated€differently€from€similarly€situated€employees,€stated€that€it€was€ð ðofÏthe€opinion€that€the€motion€to€dismiss€is€meritorious.ðð€€Accordingly,€it€directed€Mr.ÏAbrahamððs€lawyer€to€prepare€an€order€of€dismissal.€€However,€the€trial€court€did€notÏsign€an€order€prepared€by€Mr.€Abrahamððs€lawyer€but€rather€signed€an€order€preparedÐ 8f3@ Ðby€Ms.€Spannððs€lawyer.€€This€order,€which€was€entered€on€July€30,€1996,€recited€thatÏthe€ð ðplaintiff€[had]€failed€to€prove€that€there€existed€other€employees€similarlyÏsituated€to€her€that€were€treated€more€favorably€than€plaintiff,€and€that€reasonableÏminds€could€not€differ€as€to€this€conclusion.ðð€€ÌÌà ` àOn€August€28,€1996,€Ms.€Spann€filed€her€notice€of€appeal€from€the€July€30,Ï1996€order€along€with€the€appeal€bond€required€by€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€6.€€Thereafter,Ïon€August€29,€1996,€she€filed€a€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€59.04€motion€to€alter€or€amend€theÏjudgment€arguing€that€disparate€treatment€of€similarly€situated€employees€was€not€aÏnecessary€element€of€her€proof€because€she€had€presented€direct€evidence€of€Mr.ÏAbrahamððs€discriminatory€intent.€€Mr.€Abraham€responded€to€the€motion€by€assertingÏthat€the€trial€court€lacked€jurisdiction€to€consider€Ms.€Spannððs€motion€and€that€theÏmotion€was€substantively€without€merit.€€On€September€30,€1996,€the€trial€courtÏentered€an€order€denying€Ms.€Spannððs€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€59.04€motion€on€jurisdictionalÏgrounds.€€However,€on€its€own€motion€pursuant€to€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€60.01,€the€trialÏcourt€ð ðcorrectedðð€its€July€30,€1996€order€to€state€more€broadly€that€ð ðthe€plaintiff€hasÏfailed€to€carry€her€burden€to€establish€a€prima€facie€case,€either€by€direct€or€byÏcircumstantial€evidence.ðð€€ÌÌà@ÙÙ.Dàò òB.ó óˆÐ 1#& ÐÌà ` àMs.€Spann€asserts,€without€citation€to€authority,€that€the€trial€court€erred€byÏgranting€the€motion€for€directed€verdict€because€it€had€earlier€denied€the€motion€forÏsummary€judgment.€€This€argument€is€not€well„taken€because€these€two€motionsÏrequired€the€trial€court€to€review€different€evidence.€€In€addition,€trial€courtsÏconfronted€with€a€motion€for€summary€judgment€must€consider€the€wisdom€ofÏterminating€a€case€before€trial€and€may€deny€a€motion€for€summary€judgment€if€theyÏentertain€any€doubt€concerning€the€plaintiffððs€ability€to€make€out€a€prima€facie€case.€ÏIf,€at€trial,€the€plaintiff€fails€to€make€out€a€prima€facie€case,€the€trial€court€may€thenÏdirect€a€verdict€even€though€it€earlier€denied€the€summary€judgment€motion.€€òòSeeÐ B3’.: ÐMalone€v.€Microdyne€Corp.óó,€26€F.3d€471,€475€n.4€(4th€Cir.€1994);€òòCatts€Co.€v.€GulfÐ Ý4-0< ÐIns.€Co.óó,€723€F.2d€1494,€1502€(10th€Cir.€1983).Ð x6È1> ÐÌà@ÓÓ.Dàò òC.ó óˆÐ ®9þ4B ÐÐ L;œ6D Ðà ` àMs.€Spann€next€asserts€that€the€trial€court€erred€by€determining€that€it€did€notÏhave€jurisdiction€to€consider€her€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€59.04€motion,€filed€one€day€afterÏshe€had€filed€her€notice€of€appeal€and€appeal€bond.€€We€have€determined€that€Ms.ÏSpannððs€notice€of€appeal€was€not€premature€and€that€the€filing€of€her€notice€of€appealÏand€appeal€bond€had€the€legal€effect€of€terminating€the€trial€courtððs€authority€to€actÏon€her€later€filed€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€59.04€motion€without€leave€of€the€appellate€courts.ÌÌà ` àThe€procedural€posture€of€this€case€differs€from€prior€cases€involvingÏpremature€notices€of€appeal.€€Several€years€after€the€adoption€of€the€Tennessee€RulesÏof€Appellate€Procedure,€we€were€called€upon€to€pass€upon€the€effectiveness€of€aÏnotice€of€appeal€filed€before€the€trial€court€had€disposed€of€a€pending€post„trialÏmotion€filed€before€the€notice€of€appeal.€€A€Western€Section€panel€,€construing€Tenn.ÏR.€App.€P.€4(a)€as€it€read€at€the€time,€held€that€the€notice€of€appeal€was€ð ðprematureððÏand€that€parties€who€did€not€file€another€notice€of€appeal€after€all€pending€post„trialÏmotions€were€resolved€were€not€entitled€to€an€appeal€as€of€right.€€òòSee€Steele€v.€WolfeÐ *z ÐSales€Co.óó,€663€S.W.2d€799,€803€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1983).€€This€decision€caused€theÐ Å ÐTennessee€Supreme€Court€to€amend€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€4€in€1984€to€state€that€aÏprematurely€filed€notice€of€appeal€would€be€treated€as€filed€after€the€entry€of€a€finalÏorder€disposing€of€all€the€claims€between€all€the€parties.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€4(d).€Ð –!æ$ ÐNotices€of€appeal,€in€circumstances€like€those€in€the€òòSteeleóó€case,€were€ð ðpremature,ððÐ 1#& Ðnot€because€they€were€filed€before€the€thirtieth€day€following€the€entry€of€theÏjudgment€appealed€from,€but€because€they€were€filed€before€the€trial€court€hadÏresolved€all€the€claims€between€all€the€parties.€€ÌÌà ` àMs.€Spannððs€notice€of€appeal€differs€from€the€premature€notice€of€appeal€atÏissue€in€the€òòSteeleóó€case.€€Here,€there€were€no€post„trial€motions€pending€when€Ms.Ð Ó,#(2 ÐSpann€filed€her€notice€of€appeal.€€Because€the€trial€courtððs€order€itself€was€final€andÏbecause€there€were€no€post„trial€motions€pending€at€the€time,€Ms.€Spannððs€notice€ofÏappeal€was€not€premature.€€At€the€time€she€filed€it,€the€trial€court€had€fully€and€finallyÏresolved€all€the€claims€between€all€the€parties.€€ÌÌà ` àMs.€Spann€ð ðperfectedðð€her€appeal€on€August€28,€1996,€when€she€filed€herÏnotice€of€appeal€and€appeal€bond.€€òòSee€Blue€Cross€Blue€Shield€of€Tenn.€v.€Eddinsóó,€516Ð 8`3@ ÐS.W.2d€76,€77€(Tenn.€1974)€(holding€that€an€appeal€is€perfected€when€the€appealÏbond€is€filed).€€The€legal€effect€of€perfecting€an€appeal€is€to€divest€the€trial€court€ofÐ F;–6D Ðfurther€authority€to€act€without€leave€of€the€appellate€court€and€to€vest€jurisdiction€inÏthe€court€of€appeals.òò€€See€Suggs€v.€Suggsðð€Executorsóó,€1€Tenn.€(1€Overt.)€2,€3€(1794);Ð K› ÐòòSteele€v.€Wolfe€Sales€Co.óó,€663€S.W.2d€at€802.€€Accordingly,€the€trial€court€correctlyÐ æ6 Ðheld€that€it€no€longer€had€jurisdiction€to€consider€Ms.€Spannððs€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€59.04Ïmotion€because€jurisdiction€over€the€case€had€vested€with€the€court€of€appeals€onÏAugust€29,€1996€when€Ms.€Spann€filed€her€notice€of€appeal€and€appeal€bond.€ÌÌà@ÓÓ.Dàò òD.ó óˆÐ í=  ÐÌà ` àFinally,€Ms.€Spann€insists€that€the€trial€court€erred€by€altering€the€July€30,€1996Ïorder€on€its€own€motion.€€We€need€not€tarry€long€with€this€argument€because€Tenn.ÏR.€Civ.€P.€60.01€specifically€addresses€this€circumstance.€€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€60.01Ïempowers€trial€courts,€on€their€own€motion,€to€correct€ð ðerrors€[in€judgments]€.€.€.Ïarising€from€oversight€or€omissionsðð€anytime€ð ðbefore€the€appeal€is€docketed€in€theÏappellate€court.ðð€€Accordingly,€the€only€two€questions€that€must€be€answered€areÏwhether€the€appeal€had€been€docketed€in€the€appellate€court€when€the€trial€courtÏentered€its€September€30,€1996€order€and€whether€the€change€the€trial€court€made€inÏthe€July€30,€1996€order€was€correcting€an€error€arising€from€an€oversight€or€omission.ÌÌà ` àIn€its€September€30,€1996€order,€the€trial€court€found€as€a€fact€it€had€not€beenÏnotified€that€Ms.€Spannððs€appeal€had€been€docketed€by€the€court€of€appeals.€€The€Ïrecord€contains€no€evidence€to€the€contrary€regarding€the€status€of€Ms.€SpannððsÏappeal;€therefore,€we€find€that€the€evidence€does€not€preponderate€against€the€trialÏcourtððs€findings€regarding€the€status€of€the€appeal.€€Accordingly,€the€trial€court€hadÏauthority€to€correct€its€order€on€its€own€motion€without€leave€of€this€court.ÌÌà ` àThe€second€question€is€whether€the€narrow€language€concerning€the€basis€forÏthe€trial€courtððs€decision€to€direct€a€verdict€for€Mr.€Abraham€arose€from€an€oversightÏor€omission.€€The€transcript€of€the€trial€permits€a€conclusion€that€the€trial€court€wasÏnot€limiting€its€decision€to€grant€the€directed€verdict€on€a€single€ground€but€rather€onÏall€the€grounds€presented€in€Mr.€Abrahamððs€oral€motion€for€a€directed€verdict.€ÏAccordingly,€we€conclude€that€the€trial€court€must€have€overlooked€the€substance€ofÏthe€order€drawn€by€Ms.€Spannððs€lawyer€and€that€it€undertook€to€correct€theÏnarrowness€of€the€order€once€it€was€brought€to€the€courtððs€attention.€€This€is€a€properÏexercise€of€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€60.01€authority.€€Accordingly,€we€decline€to€fault€the€trialÐ I;™6D Ðcourt€for€correcting€the€July€30,€1996€order€to€conform€the€scope€of€its€wording€to€theÏtrial€courtððs€own€understanding€of€the€scope€of€its€earlier€decision.ÌÌà@-Dàò òIII.ó óˆÐ  Ñ ÐÌà ` àWe€now€turn€to€the€question€of€the€proper€standard€of€review€for€the€remainingÏissues€on€this€appeal.€€This€case€presents€a€question€of€law€rather€than€a€question€ofÏfact€because€the€trial€court€directed€a€verdict€for€Mr.€Abraham.€€òòSee€Norman€v.Ð ð@  ÐSouthern€Ry.óó,€119€Tenn.€401,€422,€104€S.W.€1088,€1093-94€(1907).€€Thus,€our€taskÐ ‹Û  Ðis€to€review€the€record€to€determine€whether€Ms.€Spannððs€evidence€was€sufficient€toÏcreate€an€issue€for€the€jury€to€decide.€òòóó€òòSee€Underwood€v.€Waterslides€of€Mid„America,Ð Á ÐInc.óó,€823€S.W.2d€171,€176€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1991);€òòNorman€v.€Liberty€Life€AssuranceÐ \¬ ÐCo.óó,€556€S.W.2d€772,€773€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1977).€€In€conducting€this€review,€we€doÐ ÷G Ðnot€weigh€the€evidence,€òòsee€Conatser€v.€Clarksville€Coca„Cola€Bottling€Co.óó,€920Ð ’â ÐS.W.2d€646,€647€(Tenn.€1995),€òòóóor€evaluate€the€credibility€of€the€witnesses.€€òòSeeÐ -} ÐBenson€v.€Tennessee€Valley€Elec.€Coopóó.,€868€S.W.2d€630,€638„39€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.Ð È Ð1993).€€Rather,€we€review€the€evidence€most€favorably€to€the€party€opposing€theÏmotion,€give€that€party€the€benefit€of€all€reasonable€inferences€from€the€evidence,€andÏalso€disregard€all€evidence€contrary€to€that€partyððs€position.€€òòSee€Eaton€v.€McLainóó,Ð ™!é$ Ð891€S.W.2d€587,€590€(Tenn.€1994);€òòGann€v.€International€Harvester€Co.óó,€712€S.W.2dÐ 4#„& Ð100,€105€(Tenn.€1986).ÌÌà ` àDirected€verdicts€are€appropriate€only€when€reasonable€minds€can€reach€oneÏconclusion.€€òòSee€Williams€v.€Brownóó,€860€S.W.2d€854,€857€(Tenn.€1993);€òòCrosslin€v.Ð  )ð$. ÐAlsupóó,€594€S.W.2d€379,€380€(Tenn.€1980).€€A€case€should€go€to€the€jury,€even€if€theÐ ;+‹&0 Ðfacts€are€undisputed,€when€reasonable€persons€could€draw€conflicting€conclusionsÏfrom€the€facts.€€òòSee€Gulf,€M.€&€O.R.R.€v.€Underwoodóó,€182€Tenn.€467,€474,€187Ð q.Á)4 ÐS.W.2d€777,€779€(1945);€òòPettus€v.€Hurstóó,€882€S.W.2d€783,€788€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1993).€Ð  0\+6 ÐThese€conclusions,€however,€must€be€based€on€more€than€speculation,€conjecture,€andÏguesswork.€€òòSee€Daniels€v.€White€Consol.€Indus.,€Inc.óó,€692€S.W.2d€422,€425€(Tenn.Ð B3’.: ÐCt.€App.€1985).€€A€trial€court€may€direct€a€verdict€where€the€plaintiffððs€evidence€failsÏto€establish€a€prima€facie€case.€€òò€See€Eaton€v.€McLainóó,€891€S.W.2d€at€590„91€n.3;Ð x6È1> ÐòòHarrogate€Corp.€v.€Systems€Sales€Corp.óó,€915€S.W.2d€812,€818€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1995).Ð 8c3@ ÐÌà@¥¥.Dàò òIV.ó óˆÐ I;™6D Їà ` àMs.€Spannððs€claim€against€Mr.€Abraham€is€based€on€the€Tennessee€HumanÏRights€Act.€€Specifically,€she€asserts€that€Mr.€Abraham€violated€the€Act€byÏdiscriminating€against€her€because€she€was€pregnant.€€Accordingly,€we€must€first€turnÏto€the€Act€to€determine€the€elements€of€Ms.€Spannððs€claim€and€the€nature€of€herÏburden€of€proof.ÌÌà ` àò òó óThe€Tennessee€Human€Rights€Act€is€a€comprehensive€anti„discriminationÐ R¢  Ðstatute.€€òòSee€Carr€v.€United€Parcel€Serv.óó,€955€S.W.2d€832,€834€(Tenn.€1997).€€It€isÐ í=  Ðintended€to€further€the€policies€of€the€federal€Civil€Rights€Acts€of€1964,€1968,€andÏ1972,€including€the€Pregnancy€Discrimination€Act€of€1978€(ð ðPDAðð).€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€CodeÐ #s ÐAnn.€ðð€4„21„101(a)(1);€òòMayberry€v.€Endocrinology€„€Diabetes€Assocs.óó,€926€F.€Supp.Ð ¾ Ð1315,€1326„27€(M.D.€Tenn.€1996).€€Accordingly,€the€Act€proscribes€discriminatoryÏemployment€practices€with€respect€to€compensation,€terms,€conditions,€or€privilegesÏof€employment.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€4„21„401(a)(1).Ð ß ÐÌà ` àAlthough€the€Actððs€wording€differs€slightly€from€the€language€of€Title€VII€ofÏthe€Civil€Rights€Act€of€1964,€it€is€clear€that€the€Tennessee€General€AssemblyÏenvisioned€that€the€Act€would€be€coextensive€with€federal€law.€€òòSeeóó€òòParker€v.€WarrenÐ ûK" ÐCounty€Util.€Dist.óó,€___€S.W.2d€___,€___€(Tenn.€1999);ññññ׃×ññññ׃;×ññññññ׃%×ññÝ ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€òòCarr€v.€United€Parcel€Serv.óó,Ð –!æ$ Ð955€S.W.2d€at€834.€€Accordingly,€Tennessee€courts€may€appropriately€look€toÏdecisions€of€federal€courts€construing€Title€VII€when€analyzing€claims€under€the€Act.€ÏòòSeeóó€òòWeber€v.€Mosesóó,€938€S.W.2d€387,€390€(Tenn.€1996).€€These€federal€precedentsÐ g&·!* Ðdo€not,€however,€bind€or€limit€Tennesseeððs€courts€in€giving€the€fullest€possible€effectÏto€Tennesseeððs€own€human€rights€legislation.€€òòSee€Carr€v.€United€Parcel€Serv.óó,€955Ð )í$. ÐS.W.2d€at€835.ÌÌà@ÓÓ.Dàòòò òA.ˆÐ n.¾)4 Ðà@tt#DàPregnancy€Discriminationó óóóˆÐ  0\+6 ÐÌà ` àAs€originally€enacted€in€1964,€Title€VII€prohibited€the€discharge€of€anÏemployee€on€the€basis€of€race,€color,€religion,€sex,€or€national€origin.€€In€1976,€theÏUnited€States€Supreme€Court€held€that€Title€VII€could€not€be€extended€to€prohibitÏdiscrimination€based€on€pregnancy€because€it€made€no€mention€of€pregnancy.€€òòSeeóóÐ 8f3@ ÐòòGeneral€Elec.€Co.€v.€Gilbertóó,€429€U.S.€125,€145„46,€97€S.€Ct.€401,€412„13€(1976).€Ð ° ÐThe€Congress€responded€by€amending€Title€VII€with€the€PDA.€€As€the€Supreme€CourtÏlater€observed,€the€PDA€was€intended€to€overrule€its€òòGilbertóó€decision.€€òòSeeóó€òòNewportÐ æ6 ÐNews€Shipbuilding€&€Dry€Dock€Co.€v.€EEOCóó,€462€U.S.€669,€670,€103€S.€Ct.€2622,Ð  Ñ Ð2624€(1983).ÌÌà ` àThe€PDA€amended€Title€VII€by€providing€that€the€terms€ð ðbecause€of€sexðð€orÏð ðon€the€basis€of€sexðð€in€Title€VII€shall€include€ð ðon€the€basis€of€pregnancy,€childbirthÏor€related€medical€conditions.ðð€€òòSeeóó€42€U.S.C.A.€ðð€2000e(k)€(West€1994);€òòSoreo„Ð ˆØ  ÐYasher€v.€First€Office€Mgmt.óó,€926€F.€Supp.€646,€649€(N.D.€Ohio€1996);€òòMayberry€v.Ð #s ÐEndocrinology€„€Diabetes€Assoc.óó,€926€F.€Supp.€at€1322.€€It€provided€no€newÐ ¾ Ðsubstantive€rules€governing€discrimination€based€on€pregnancy€but€rather€broughtÏdiscrimination€on€the€basis€of€pregnancy€within€the€existing€Title€VII€statutoryÏframework€prohibiting€employment€discrimination€based€on€sex.€€òòSeeóó€òòGrant€v.Ð ß ÐGeneral€Motors€Corp.óó,€908€F.2d€1303,€1307€(6th€Cir.€1990);€òòMayberry€v.Ð *z ÐEndocrinology€„€Diabetes€Assocs.óó,€926€F.€Supp.€at€1322.€€Thus,€PDA€claims€areÐ Å Ðanalyzed€just€like€any€other€Title€VII€discrimination€claim.€€òòSee€DeJarnette€v.Ð `°  ÐCorning€Inc.óó,€133€F.3d€293,€297€(4th€Cir.€1998);€òòBoyd€v.€Harding€Academy€ofÐ ûK" ÐMemphis,€Inc.óó,€88€F.3d€410,€413€(6th€Cir.€1996).Ð –!æ$ ÐÌà ` àThe€PDA€does€not€require€employers€to€make€it€easier€for€pregnant€employeesÏto€work€or€to€treat€them€specially.€€òòSee€Maldonado€v.€U.S.€Bankóó,€186€F.3d€759,€762„Ð g&·!* Ð63€(7th€Cir.€1999);€òòKennedy€v.€Schoenberg,€Fisher€&€Newman,€Ltd.óó,€140€F.3d€716,Ð (R#, Ð722€(7th€Cir.€1998).€€It€does,€however,€require€employers€to€treat€pregnant€employeesÏthe€same€as€other€employees€on€the€basis€of€their€ability€or€inability€to€work.€òòSeeóóÐ 8+ˆ&0 ÐReva€B.€Siegel,€Note,€òòEmployment€Equality€Under€the€Pregnancy€Discrimination€ActÐ Ó,#(2 Ðof€1978óó,€94€Yale€L.J.€929,€931€(1985).€€Thus,€as€noted€in€a€leading€case,€the€PDAÐ n.¾)4 Ðrequires€employers€to€ignore€an€employeeððs€pregnancy€as€far€as€practically€possible.€ÏòòSee€Troupe€v.€May€Depððt€Stores€Co.óó,€20€F.3d€734,€738€(7th€Cir.€1994).Ð ¤1ô,8 ÐÌà ` àPregnancy€under€the€PDA€is€to€be€treated€just€like€any€other€temporaryÏdisability.€€òòSee€Maganuco€v.€Leyden€Community€Sch.€Dist.€212óó,€939€F.2d€440,€444Ð u6Å1> Ð(7th€Cir.€1991);€òòWetzel€v.€Liberty€Ins.€Co.óó,€511€F.2d€199,€206€(3rd€Cir.€1975),€òòvacatedÐ 8`3@ Ðon€other€groundsóó,€424€U.S.€737,€96€S.€Ct.€1202€(1976).€€Thus,€employees€who€areÐ «9û4B Ðable€to€work€must€be€permitted€to€work€on€the€same€conditions€as€other€employees,Ð F;–6D Ðand€pregnant€employees€who€are€unable€to€work€must€be€accorded€the€same€leave€andÏfringe€benefits€provided€to€other€employees€who€are€temporarily€unable€to€work.€€SeeÏ42€U.S.C.A.€ðð€2000e(k);€òòEEOC€v.€Hacienda€Hotelóó,€881€F.2d€1504,€1511€(9th€Cir.Ð æ6 Ð1989);€òòBest€v.€Distribution€&€Auto€Servs.,€Inc.óó,€No.€01A01„9812„CH„00652,€1999Ð  Ñ ÐWL€704730,€at€*4€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€Sept.€13,€1999)€(No€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€11Ïapplication€filed).ÌÌà ` àUnder€the€PDA,€an€unlawful€employment€practice€occurs€whenever€pregnancyÏalone€is€a€motivating€factor€for€an€adverse€employment€action.€€òòSee€Hunt„GollidayÐ ˆØ  Ðv.€Metropolitan€Water€Reclamation€Dist.óó,€104€F.3d€1004,€1010€(7th€Cir.€1997).€€Thus,Ð #s Ðin€order€to€prevail€with€a€disparate€treatmentññññ׃×ññññ׃=×ññññññ׃'×ññÝ ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú5Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€PDA€claim,€an€employee€mustÐ ¾ Ðdemonstrate€that€she€was€treated€differently€than€other€temporarily€disabledÏemployees€because€of€her€pregnancy€or€pregnancy„related€condition.€€òòSee€MaldonadoÐ ôD Ðv.€U.S.€Bankóó,€186€F.3d€at€763;€òòDeneen€v.€Northwest€Airlines,€Inc.óó,€132€F.3d€431,€435Ð ß Ð(8th€Cir.€1998);€òòByrd€v.€Lakeshore€Hosp.óó,€30€F.3d€1380,€1382€(11th€Cir.€1994);Ð *z ÐòòEEOC€v.€Hacienda€Hotelóó,€881€F.2d€at€1511„12.€€Ð Å ÐÌà ` àThe€burden€of€proving€the€ultimate€issue€of€discrimination€always€falls€on€theÏemployee.€€òòSee€Texas€Depððt€of€Community€Affairs€v.€Burdineóó,€450€U.€S.€248,€253,€101Ð –!æ$ ÐS.€Ct.€1089,€1093€(1981);€òòMitchell€v.€Toledo€Hosp.óó,€964€F.2d€577,€582€(6th€Cir.Ð 1#& Ð1992);€òòSmith€v.€Bridgestone/Firestone,€Inc.óó,€No.€01A01„9803„CV„00146,€1999€WLÐ Ì$ ( Ð86977,€at€*6€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€Feb.€23,€1999),€òòperm.€app.€deniedóó,€(Tenn.€Sept.€13,Ð g&·!* Ð1999);€òòBrenner€v.€Textron€Aerostructuresóó,€874€S.W.2d€579,€583€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.Ð (R#, Ð1993).€Discrimination€claims€brought€in€accordance€with€the€PDA€are€no€exception.ÏThus,€an€employee€asserting€a€PDA€claim€has€the€ultimate€burden€of€establishing€thatÏher€employer€discriminated€against€her€ð ðbecause€ofðð€her€pregnancy.€€See€42€U.S.C.A.Ïðð€2000e„2(a)(1)&(2)€(West€1994);€òòDeJarnette€v.€Corning€Inc.óó,€133€F.3d€at€297;Ð n.¾)4 ÐòòQuarantino€v.€Tiffany€&€Co.óó,€71€F.3d€58,€64€(2d€Cir.€1995).€Ð  0Y+6 Ðâ âÐ ¤1ô,8 Ðà ` àPregnancy€discrimination€may€be€established€in€two€ways.€€First,€using€theÏâ âdirect€method,€a€PDA€plaintiff€may€present€enough€evidence€to€demonstrate€that€theÏadverse€employment€action€was€the€result€of€intentional€discrimination.€€òòSeeÐ æ6 ÐMaldonado€v.€U.S.€Bankóó,€186€F.3d€at€763.€This€method€focuses€primarily€on€theÐ  Ñ Ðdiscriminatory€conduct.€€òòSee€Tyler€v.€Bethlehem€Steel€Corp.óó,€958€F.2d€1176,€1185€(2dÐ  l ÐCir.€1992).€€Employees€using€this€method€may€present€either€direct€or€circumstantialÏevidence€of€intentional€discrimination€or€a€combination€of€both.€€òòSee€Medlock€v.Ð R¢  ÐOrtho€Biotech,€Inc.óó,€164€F.3d€545,€550€(10th€Cir.€1999);€òòKennedy€v.€Schoenberg,Ð í=  ÐFisher€&€Newman,€Ltd.óó,€140€F.3d€at€722„23.ññññ׃ ×ññññ׃?×ññññññ׃)×ññÝ ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú6Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€Direct€evidence€of€intentionalÐ ˆØ  Ðdiscrimination€includes€an€acknowledgment€by€an€employer€of€discriminatory€intent.€ÏCircumstantial€evidence€of€discrimination€includes€ambiguous€statements,€suspiciousÏtiming,€instances€in€which€similarly€situated,€non„pregnant€employees€receivedÏsystematically€better€treatment.€€òòSee€Marshall€v.€American€Hosp.€Assððnóó,€157€F.3d€atÐ ôD Ð525;€òòTroupe€v.€May€Depððt€Stores€Co.óó,€20€F.3d€at€736.Ð ß ÐÌà ` àThe€second€way€to€establish€discrimination€is€the€indirect€method.€€The€indirectÏmethod€embodies€the€now€ubiquitous€burden„shifting€approach€set€out€in€òòMcDonnellÐ `°  ÐDouglas€Corp.€v.€Greenóó,€411€U.S.€762,€807,€93€S.€Ct.€1817,€1826„27€(1973).ññññ׃ @×ññññ׃A@×ññññññ׃,×ññÝ ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú7Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€UnderÐ ûK" Ðthis€method,€once€a€PDA€plaintiff€makes€out€a€prima€facie€case€of€discrimination,€theÏburden€shifts€to€the€employer€to€show€a€legitimate,€nondiscriminatory€reason€for€theÏplaintiffððs€treatment.€€If€the€employer€offers€a€legitimate,€nondiscriminatory€reasonÏfor€its€treatment€of€the€plaintiff,€the€burden€shifts€back€to€the€plaintiff€to€show€that€theÏemployerððs€proffered€reason€is€pretextual.€€òòSee€Maldonado€v.€U.S.€Bankóó,€186€F.3d€atÐ (R#, Ð763;€òòGeier€v.€Medtronic,€Inc.óó,€99€F.3d€238,€241„42€(7th€Cir.€1996).€€Ð )í$. ÐÌà ` àA€plaintiff€using€the€indirect€method€establishes€a€prima€facie€case€ofÏpregnancy€discrimination€by€showing:€(1)€that€she€was€pregnant;€(2)€that€she€wasÏqualified€for€her€job;€(3)€that€she€was€subjected€to€an€adverse€employment€action;€andÏ(4)€that€there€is€a€nexus€between€her€pregnancy€and€the€adverse€employment€action.€Ð ¤1ô,8 ÐòòSee€Atchley€v.€Nordam€Group,€Inc.óó,€180€F.3d€1143,€1148€(10th€Cir.€1999);òò€Kerzer€v.Ð ° ÐKingly€Mfg.óó,€156€F.3d€396,€400€(2d€Cir.€1998);€òòBoyd€v.€Harding€Academy€ofÐ K› ÐMemphis,€Inc.óó,€88€F.3d€at€413;€òòSmith€v.€F.W.€Morse€&€Co.óó,€76€F.3d€413,€421€(1st€Cir.Ð æ6 Ð1996).€€Plaintiffs€establish€the€connection€between€their€pregnancy€and€the€adverseÏemployment€action€by€demonstrating€that€comparable€non„pregnant€employeesÏreceived€more€favorable€treatment.€€òòSee€McDonnell€Douglas€Corp.€v.€Greenóó,€411€U.S.Ð ·   Ðat€802;€93€S.€Ct.€at€1824;€òòEnsley„Gaines€v.€Runyonóó,€100€F.3d€1220,€1224€(6th€Cir.Ð R¢  Ð1996);€òòGarner€v.€Wal„Mart€Stores,€Inc.óó,€807€F.2d€1536,€1538€(11th€Cir.€1987).€€Ð í=  ÐÌÌà@ÙÙ.Dàò òB.ˆÐ ¾ Ðà@ƒ ƒ DàòòMs.€Spannððs€Pregnancy€Discrimination€Claimó óóóˆÐ \¬ ÐÌà ` àMs.€Spann€is€asserting€a€disparate€treatment,€as€opposed€to€a€disparate€impact,Ïdiscrimination€claim.€€It€is€unclear,€however,€whether€she€undertook€to€prove€herÏclaim€using€the€direct€method€or€the€indirect€method.ññññ׃×ññññ׃C×ññññññ׃.×ññÝ ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú8Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€PDA€plaintiffs€mayÐ Ë Ðsimultaneously€employ€the€direct€method€and€the€indirect€method.€€òòSee€MaldonadoÐ f¶  Ðv.€U.S.€Bankóó,€186€F.3d€at€763;€òòKennedy€v.€Schoenberg,€Fisher€&€Newman,€Ltd.óó,€140Ð  Q" ÐF.3d€at€723.€€In€addition,€a€PDA€plaintiffððs€emphasis€on€one€method€does€not€preventÏthe€courts€from€basing€their€decision€on€the€other€method€if€they€conclude€that€aÏdiscrimination€claim€has€been€established.€€òòSee€Indurante€v.€Local€705,€Intððl€Bhd.€ofÐ Ò$" ( ÐTeamstersóó,€160€F.3d€364,€366„67€(7th€Cir.€1998).€€Accordingly,€we€must€analyze€theÐ m&½!* Ðdirected€verdict€taking€both€methods€of€proof€into€consideration.ÌÌà@ìì.Dàò ò1.ó óˆÐ >+Ž&0 Ðà@DD Dàò òòòMs.€Spannððs€Direct€Method€Caseóóó óˆÐ Ü,,(2 ÐÌà ` àMs.€Spannððs€direct€case€for€pregnancy€discrimination€contains€five€ingredients.€ÏShe€rests€her€claim€on€(1)€Ms.€Abrahamððs€change€of€attitude€upon€discovering€thatÏMs.€Spann€was€pregnant;€(2)€Ms.€Abrahamððs€inquiry€concerning€whether€she€hadÏconsidered€her€ð ðoptions;ðð€(3)€Mr.€Abrahamððs€comment€that€if€she€did€not€ð ðquit€itÏ[horse€playing€with€Mr.€Abrahamððs€son],€that€I€just€might€end€up€miscarrying;ðð€(4)Ð 6Ñ1> ÐMr.€Abrahamððs€monitoring€her€attendance€more€closely€after€he€learned€she€wasÏpregnant;€and€(5)€Mr.€Abrahamððs€request€that€she€accept€a€temporary€reassignmentÏduring€the€later€stages€of€her€pregnancy.€€Ms.€Spann€asserts€that€this€evidence,Ïconsidered€together,€is€sufficient€to€create€a€jury€question€regarding€Mr.€AbrahamððsÏintent€to€discriminate€against€her€because€she€was€pregnant.ÌÌà ` àWe€turn€first€to€the€evidence€regarding€the€statements€and€attitudes€of€Mr.ÏAbraham€and€his€daughter.€€Title€VII€was€never€envisioned€to€be€a€ð ðgeneral€civilityÏcodeðð€for€the€American€workplace,€òòsee€Faragher€v.€City€of€Boca€Ratonóó,€524€U.S.€775,Ð ˆØ  Ð___,€118€S.€Ct.€2275,€2283„84€(1998),€nor€does€it€guarantee€a€utopian€workplace€orÏeven€a€pleasant€one.€òòSee€Vore€v.€Indiana€Bell€Tel.€Co.óó,€32€F.3d€1161,€1162€(7th€Cir.Ð ¾ Ð1994).€€Rather€than€prohibiting€all€verbal€or€physical€harassment€in€the€workplace,ÏTitle€VII€prohibits€discrimination€in€the€workplace€based€on€gender.€€òòSee€Oncale€v.Ð ôD ÐSundowner€Offshore€Servs.,€Inc.óó,€523€U.S.€75,€___,€118€S.€Ct.€998,€1002€(1998);Ð ß ÐòòUlloa€v.€American€Expressóó,€822€F.€Supp.€1566,€1571€(S.D.€Fla.€1993).€€Ð *z ÐÌà ` àAccordingly,€isolated€and€ambiguous€comments€and€changes€in€attitudeÏtending€to€suggest€a€discriminatory€frame€of€mind€are€insufficient,€standing€alone,€toÏprove€an€employerððs€discriminatory€intent.€€òòSee€Speen€v.€Crown€Clothing€Corp.óó,€102Ð –!æ$ ÐF.3d€625,€636€(1st€Cir.€1996);€òòBurns€v.€AAF„McQuay,€Inc.óó,€96€F.3d€728,€733€(4th€Cir.Ð 1#& Ð1996);€òòLaPointe€v.€United€Auto€Workers€Local€600óó,€8€F.3d€376,€380€(6th€Cir.€1993).€Ð Ì$ ( ÐIn€order€for€comments€to€be€germane,€they€must€be€contemporaneous€or€causallyÏrelated€to€the€employerððs€decision„making€process.òò€€See€Wichmann€v.€Board€ofÐ (R#, ÐTrustees€of€Southern€Ill.€Univ.óó,€180€F.3d€791,€801€(7th€Cir.€1999);€òòKennedy€v.Ð )í$. ÐSchoenberg,€Fisher€&€Newman,€Ltd.óó,€140€F.3d€at€723.Ð 8+ˆ&0 ÐÌà ` àTitle€VII€did€not€require€either€Mr.€Abraham€or€his€daughter€to€be€enthusiasticÏor€even€supportive€of€Ms.€Spannððs€pregnancy,€and€thus,€their€undisguisedÏdisapproval,€by€itself,€does€not€give€rise€to€a€cause€of€action€under€the€TennesseeÏHuman€Rights€Act.€€Personality€conflicts€alone€cannot€supply€a€basis€for€aÏdiscrimination€claim,€òòsee€Pilgrim€v.€Trustees€of€Tufts€Collegeóó,€118€F.3d€864,€871€(1stÐ Ú4*0< ÐCir.€1997);€òòAramburu€v.€The€Boeing€Co.óó,€112€F.3d€1398,€1406€(10th€Cir.€1997);Ð u6Å1> ÐòòAckerman€v.€Diamond€Shamrock€Corp.óó,€670€F.2d€66,€70€(6th€Cir.€1982).€Ð 8`3@ ÐAccordingly,€unkind€or€insensitive€statements€made€to€an€employee,€even€if€in€frontÏof€others,€ordinarily€will€not€rise€to€the€level€of€a€discriminatory€employment€action.òò€Ð F;–6D ÐSee€Caussade€v.€Brownóó,€924€F.€Supp.€693,€701„02€(D.€Md.€1996),€òòaffððdóó,€107€F.3d€865Ð ° Ð(4th€Cir.€1997).ÌÌà ` àWhen€considered€in€the€context€in€which€they€were€made,€the€comments€reliedÏon€by€Ms.€Spann€provide€no€evidence€of€discriminatory€intent.€€Ms.€AlexanderððsÏinquiry€concerning€Ms.€Spannððs€consideration€of€her€ð ðoptionsðð€(presumably€alludingÏto€her€decision€to€continue€her€pregnancy)€was€a€question€prompted€by€Ms.€SpannððsÏrelationship€with€the€father€of€her€child.€€Mr.€Abrahamððs€warning€about€the€possibilityÏof€a€miscarriage€came€at€a€time€when€Ms.€Spann€was€engaged€in€horseplay€with€hisÏson.€€There€is€nothing€in€this€record€to€link€Mr.€Abrahamððs€or€his€daughterððsÏcomments€or€Ms.€Abrahamððs€attitude€to€a€discriminatorily€motivated€adverseÏemployment€action.ÌÌÌà ` àBy€the€same€token,€the€fact€that€Mr.€Abrahamððs€concern€about€Ms.€SpannððsÏabsences€after€she€announced€she€was€pregnant€does€not€give€rise€to€an€inference€ofÏpregnancy€discrimination.€€Employers€in€Tennessee€have€the€right€to€expectÏemployees€to€report€to€work€at€the€agreed„upon€time€and€to€work€for€the€agreed„uponÏshift.€€òòSee€Trice€v.€Traughberóó,€797€S.W.2d€886,€888€(Tenn.€1990);€òòWallace€v.€Stewartóó,Ð –!æ$ Ð559€S.W.2d€647,€648€(Tenn.€1977).€€The€PDA€does€not€require€an€employer€toÏoverlook€a€pregnant€employeeððs€absences€from€work,€unless,€as€a€general€matter,€theÏemployer€overlooks€the€absences€of€non„pregnant€employees.€€òòSee€Troupe€v.€MayÐ g&·!* ÐDepððt€Stores€Co.óó,€20€F.3d€at€738.€€Accordingly,€monitoring€a€pregnant€employeeððsÐ (R#, Ðabsences€is€not€proof€of€discriminatory€intent.€€òòSeeóó€òòKennedy€v.€Schoenberg,€FisherÐ )í$. Ð&€Newman,€Ltd.óó,€140€F.3d€at€725.€€The€evidence€is€unrefuted€that€Ms.€Abraham€andÐ 8+ˆ&0 ÐMs.€Spann€continued€to€swap€shifts€after€Ms.€Spann€announced€that€she€was€pregnantÏand€that€Mr.€Abraham€did€not€take€an€adverse€employment€action€against€Ms.€SpannÏfor€her€missing€her€shift€following€the€scheduling€misunderstanding€with€Ms.ÏAbraham.€€ÌÌà ` àFinally,€Mr.€Abrahamððs€proposal€of€a€temporary€reassignment€during€the€laterÏstages€of€Ms.€Spannððs€pregnancy€and€maternity€leave€does€not€amount€to€either€directÏor€circumstantial€evidence€of€pregnancy€discrimination.€€Ms.€Spann€argues€that€theÏproposal€is€evidence€of€discriminatory€intent€because€it€is€based€on€Mr.€AbrahamððsÏmisperception€€of€her€ability€to€continue€working.€€Ms.€Spannððs€arguments€to€theÐ F;–6D Ðcontrary,€Title€VII€does€not€require€employers€to€make€fair€and€accurate€assessmentsÏof€their€employeesðð€abilities,€nor€does€it€require€employers€to€assign€employees€toÏappropriate€positions.€€òòSee€Mayberry€v.€Endocrinology„Diabetes€Assocs.óó,€926€F.Ð æ6 ÐSupp.€at€1323„24.€€ÌÌà ` àTitle€VII€is€not€intended€to€intrude€the€courts€directly€into€complex€assessmentsÏof€employment€qualifications,€transferability€of€skills,€staffing€requirements,€andÏemployee€productivity.€€òòSee€Levin€v.€Delta€Air€Lines,€Inc.óó,€730€F.2d€994,€1001€(5thÐ í=  ÐCir.€1984).€€Accordingly,€Title€VII€does€not€require€courts€to€act€as€super€personnelÏdepartments€to€re„examine€an€employerððs€judgment€or€its€management€prerogativesÏand€business€decisions.€òòSee€Barbour€v.€Browneróó,€181€F.3d€1342,€1346€(D.C.€Cir.Ð ¾ Ð1999);€òòRodriguez„Cuervos€v.€Wal„Mart€Stores,€Inc.óó,€181€F.3d€15,€22€(1st€Cir.€1999);Ð Y© ÐòòSimms€v.€Oklahoma€ex€rel.€Depððt€of€Mental€Healthóó,€165€F.3d€1321,€1330€(10th€Cir.Ð ôD Ð1999);€òòBrill€v.€Lante€Corp.óó,€119€F.3d€1266,€1272€(7th€Cir.€1997).€€Accordingly,€theÐ ß Ðissue€in€Title€VII€cases€is€not€whether€the€employer€made€a€correct€decision,€butÏrather€whether€the€employer€discriminated€against€an€employee€in€a€protected€class.€ÏòòSee€McDaniel€v.€Temple€Indep.€Sch.€Dist.óó,€770€F.2d€1340,€1349€(5th€Cir.€1985).Ð `°  ÐÌà ` àMs.€Spannððs€testimony€demonstrates€that€Mr.€Abrahamððs€temporaryÏreassignment€proposal€was€a€business„related€decision€in€anticipation€of€herÏinevitable€maternity€leave.€€Mr.€Abraham€desired€to€maintain€a€manager€at€theÏBellevue€restaurant€at€all€times€and€desired€to€train€his€son€to€take€Ms.€Spannððs€placeÏtemporarily€while€she€was€on€maternity€leave.€€Mr.€Abrahamððs€assurances€that€Ms.ÏSpannððs€income€would€not€be€affected€by€the€temporary€reassignment€and€that€sheÏwould€be€able€to€reclaim€her€assistant€manager€job€after€returning€from€maternityÏleave€dispel€any€inference€that€his€proposal€was€discriminatory.€€Rather,€it€wasÏpremised€on€the€non„discriminatory€assumption€that€once€Ms.€Spann€was€no€longerÏtemporarily€disabled€as€an€assistant€manager,€she€could€expect€to€and€would€resumeÏher€duties.€€That€is€anything€but€discriminatory.€ÌÌà@ìì.Dàò ò2.ó óˆÐ Ú4*0< Ðà@ââDàò òòòMs.€Spannððs€Indirect€Method€Caseóóó óˆÐ x6È1> ÐÌà ` àIn€order€to€make€out€a€prima€facie€case€of€pregnancy€discrimination€using€theÐ ±95B ÐòòMcDonnell€Douglasóó€indirect€method,€Ms.€Spann€must€show€(1)€that€she€wasÐ L;œ6D Ðpregnant,€(2)€that€she€was€qualified€for€her€job,€(3)€that€she€was€subjected€to€anÏadverse€employment€action,€and€(4)€that€there€is€a€nexus€between€her€pregnancy€andÏthe€adverse€employment€action.€€The€fourth€element€may€be€proven€by€showing€thatÏMs.€Abraham€treated€similarly€situated,€non„pregnant€employees€better€than€Ms.ÏSpann.ÌÌà ` àMs.€Spann€easily€satisfies€the€first€two€elements.€€She€was€undoubtedlyÏpregnant€when€the€alleged€adverse€employment€action€or€actions€occurred.€€InÏaddition,€it€is€equally€clear€that€her€work€performance€was€meeting€Mr.€AbrahamððsÏexpectations.€€Even€after€Ms.€Spann€filed€suit,€Mr.€Abraham€stated€that€she€was€aÏgood€worker€and€that€he€would€still€hire€her€back€if€she€wished€to€return€to€work.€ÏThus,€for€the€purpose€of€this€appeal,€it€is€undisputed€that€Ms.€Spann€was€qualified€toÏbe€a€cook€and€an€assistant€manger€at€the€Sir€Pizza€in€Bellevue.€€ÌÌà ` àWhether€Ms.€Spann€was€subjected€to€an€adverse€employment€action€is€a€closerÏquestion.€€Not€every€unpleasant€matter€occurring€at€work€and€not€every€action€by€anÏemployer€that€an€employee€disagrees€with€or€dislikes€constitutes€an€adverseÏemployment€action.€€òòSee€Wanamaker€v.€Columbian€Rope€Co.óó,€108€F.3d€462,€466€(2dÐ ûK" ÐCir.€1997);€òòLeson€v.€ARI€of€Conn.,€Inc.óó,€51€F.€Supp.€2d€135,€142€(D.Conn.€1999);Ð –!æ$ ÐòòFortner€v.€Kansasóó,€934€F.€Supp.€1252,€1266„67€(D.€Kan.€1996),€òòaffððdóó,€122€F.3d€40Ð 1#& Ð(10th€Cir.€1997).€€For€the€purposes€of€Title€VII,€an€ð ðadverse€employment€actionðð€isÏa€materially€adverse€change€in€terms€and€conditions€of€employment,€such€asÏtermination€of€employment,€demotion€with€a€decrease€in€salary,€reclassification€to€aÏless€distinguished€title,€material€loss€of€benefits,€or€significantly€diminished€materialÏresponsibilities.€€òòSee€Scusa€v.€Nestle€U.S.A.€Co.óó,€181€F.3d€958,€969€(8th€Cir.€1999);Ð 8+ˆ&0 ÐòòRichardson€v.€New€York€State€Depððt€of€Correctional€Servs.óó,€180€F.3d€426,€446€(2dÐ Ó,#(2 ÐCir.€1999);€òòBoone€v.€Goldinóó,€178€F.3d€253,€255€(4th€Cir.€1999);€òòKocsis€v.€Multi„CareÐ n.¾)4 ÐMgt.,€Inc.óó,€97€F.3d€876,€885„86€(6th€Cir.€1996).€€It€must€be€more€than€a€mereÐ  0Y+6 Ðinconvenience€or€alteration€of€an€employeeððs€job€responsibilities.€€òòSee€Fortier€v.Ð ¤1ô,8 ÐAmeritech€Mobile€Communications,€Inc.óó,€161€F.3d€1106,€1111„12€n.7€(7th€Cir.€1998).Ð ?3.: ÐÌà ` àIt€is€not€altogether€apparent€how€Ms.€Spannððs€temporary€reassignment€duringÏthe€later€stages€of€her€pregnancy€amounts€to€an€adverse€employment€action.€€DuringÏoral€argument,€the€worst€face€that€Ms.€Spannððs€attorney€could€put€on€Mr.€AbrahamððsÏproposal€was€that€the€temporary€position€was€ð ðlower€in€statusðð€and€that€theÐ F;–6D Ðreassignment€would€make€Ms.€Spann€a€ð ðsupervised€employeeðð€rather€than€aÏsupervisor.€Thus,€Ms.€Spann€perceived€the€reassignment€as€a€demotion€to€a€positionÏwith€diminished€status€and€with€fewer€responsibilities.€€Taking€this€evidence€in€a€lightÏmost€favorable€to€Ms.€Spann,€the€evidence€creates€a€jury€issue€on€this€point.€ÏAccordingly€we€will€consider€the€proposed€reassignment€as€an€adverse€employmentÏaction€for€the€purposes€of€this€appeal.€ÌÌà ` àThe€final€element€of€a€discrimination€claim€under€the€òòMcDonnell€DouglasóóÐ í=  Ðapproach€requires€proof€that€the€employer€treated€similarly€situated€non„pregnantÏemployees€better.€€To€meet€this€element€of€proof,€a€PDA€plaintiff€must€makeÏmeaningful€comparisons€between€herself€and€other€employees€who€are€similarlyÏsituated€in€all€material€respects.€€òòSeeóó€òòHolifield€v.€Renoóó,€115€F.3d€1555,€1562€(11thÐ Y© ÐCir.€1997).€€The€comparable€employees€should€have€held€similar€positions,€dealt€withÏthe€same€level€of€supervision,€and€been€subject€to€the€same€general€employer„¼imposed€work€rules€and€requirements.€€òòSee€Mitchell€v.€Toldeo€Hosp.óó,€964€F.2d€at€583.€Ð *z ÐÌà ` àNone€of€the€employees€to€whom€Ms.€Spann€compared€herself€were€similarlyÏsituated€to€her.€€Mr.€Kimbrough€was€only€a€part„time€employee.€€None€of€the€otherÏmanagement€employees,€including€Ms.€Abraham,€ever€took€or€needed€to€take€off€timeÏfrom€work€because€of€a€temporary€disability.€Ms.€Spannððs€chief€complaint€appearsÏto€be€that€other€Sir€Pizza€employees€were€permitted€to€swap€work€schedules€ð ðwithoutÏa€problem.ðð€€However,€as€far€as€this€record€shows,€so€was€Ms.€Spann.€€The€recordÏdoes€not€contain€one€instance€where€Ms.€Spannððs€request€to€trade€shifts€was€refusedÏor€where€she€was€formally€disciplined€or€reprimanded€for€swapping€a€shift.€ÏAccordingly,€the€trial€court€correctly€concluded€that€Ms.€Spann€failed€to€prove€thatÏMr.€Abraham€treated€similarly€situated€non„pregnant€employees€better€than€he€treatedÏher.ÌÌà@ÓÓ.Dàò òV.ó óˆÐ ¤1ô,8 ÐÌà ` àMs.€Spann€failed€to€establish€by€either€direct€or€circumstantial€evidence€a€primaÏfacie€case€of€discrimination€under€the€Tennessee€Human€Rights€Act.€€Consequently,Ïthe€trial€court€correctly€granted€the€employerððs€motion€for€a€direct€verdict.€€We€affirm.€ÏWe€tax€the€costs€of€this€appeal€to€Christine€Spann€for€which€execution,€if€necessary,Ïmay€issue.à ¸ àÐ I;™6D ÐÓ€ÓÌà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p à_____________________________Ìà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p àWILLIAM€C.€KOCH,€JR.,€JUDGEÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌ__________________________________ÌSAMUEL€L.€LEWIS,€JUDGEÌÌÌ__________________________________ÌBEN€H.€CANTRELL,€JUDGE