Employer’s double standard exposed in pregnant worker’s firing case

November 6, 2024

If one employee gets fired, while another gets more leniency, trouble could be on the docket, as one employer learned.

Gloria, who was pregnant, struggled with her job duties, but not because of her pregnancy. She was coached and retrained but didn’t improve. As a result, Karen, Gloria’s supervisor, told Gloria that she planned to take formal disciplinary steps.

First, Karen gave Gloria a verbal warning, then the following month a written warning because of more problems. After yet another performance issue, Gloria received a final written discipline notice about a week later.

A few days after that final warning, Gloria took about a week of leave under the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) per her doctor’s orders because she had high blood pressure.

When Gloria returned from leave, Karen gave her a to-do list with tasks that Gloria had been assigned before she stayed home. Gloria did not meet the deadlines, so Karen, believing Gloria would not improve further, recommended her termination.

The employer fired Gloria the day before her baby was expected and she would need more FMLA leave for the birth.

Gloria sued, and the employer asked that the case be thrown out.

Court disagrees with employer

The court did not throw the case out. It found that by firing Gloria right before her FMLA-protected maternity leave was supposed to begin, the employer deprived Gloria of an FMLA benefit to which she was entitled.

The employer claimed that the reason Gloria was fired was because of her job performance, not her FMLA leave. Undermining the employer’s argument, however, was the fact that it had delayed firing a different employee with more serious job performance issues.

Because of this, the court felt a reasonable jury could find that the employer used the job performance as pretext; that the real reason for Gloria’s firing was because of the FMLA leave. A jury could find that, the employer decided not to apply the same leniency to Gloria as it did to the other employee. In other words, the court said it’s possible that Gloria would not have been fired if she hadn’t needed the leave, and, thus, the case wasn’t dismissed.

Valdez v. Methodist Hospitals of Dallas D/B/A Methodist Health System, Northern District of Texas, No. 3:23-CV-2327, October 31, 2024.

Key to remember: Treating employees differently can weaken an employer’s argument regarding why an employee was fired, particularly if the employee needs FMLA leave.

Publish Date

November 6, 2024

Author

Michelle Higgins

Type

Industry News

Industries

{not populated}