Skip to main content

Was it pregnancy bias, or just poor job performance?

TD

By

Last updated November 6, 20241 min read
Was it pregnancy bias, or just poor job performance?

An office manager said that when she told her employer she was pregnant, it told her that she could take up to three months of FMLA leave but pressured her to return to work sooner. 

She and her supervisor agreed that she would take six weeks of leave, after which she would begin working from home for about two months and then return to the office.

The employer put her on a performance improvement plan while she was working from home and then revoked the work-from-home arrangement.

She told it she could not get childcare right away, and it terminated her employment.

Then, she filed a lawsuit alleging violations of Title VII and the FMLA.

A lower court ruled for the employer, and the employee appealed.

The appeals court agreed that the employee did not prove a Title VII violation.

The employer said it terminated her employment because it needed someone who could be in the office and because her work from home was not satisfactory.

No Pretext Shown

The employee did not show these reasons to be a pretext for unlawful discrimination, so her discrimination claim was properly rejected, the appeals court said.

As to the FMLA claim, the court noted that the employer did not have enough employees to be subject to the statute.

The employee said the employer should not be able to rely on that argument because it told her she was eligible for FMLA leave.

But the employee did not rely on that representation to her detriment, the appeals court explained. As a result, the argument did not save the claim she raised under the FMLA.

Battino v. Redi-Carpet Sales of Utah, LLC, No. 20-4081, 2021 WL 4144974 (10th Cir. 9/13/21).

Filed underEmployment Law
Share

Further Reading

  • Unpaid Pre-Shift Work Costs New Jersey Employer $725K

    A New Jersey drywall installer must pay $725,000 after failing to pay 48 workers overtime for pre-shift work performed while they waited for transportation to job sites. The U.S. Department of Labor’s (DOL) Wage and Hour Division found P & B Partitions Inc. violated the Fair Labor Standards Act’s overtime rules. The company also refused […]

  • Connecticut Joins States Regulating Workplace AI: 7 Compliance Steps

    Connecticut is putting employers on notice over workplace AI. Effective Oct. 1, 2026, SB 5 clarifies that Connecticut employers facing a discrimination claim can’t blame the artificial intelligence (AI) tools they use to make hiring, promotion, discipline or termination decisions. Other changes that kicked in the same day: And there’s more coming. The law’s second […]

  • Pa. Court Sets 3-Year Deadline for Minimum Wage Act Claims

    Pennsylvania employers face a three-year window for employees to sue over unpaid minimum wages or overtime under state law, rather than the six years a trial court previously allowed. The ruling came in a case involving 20 pharmacy employees seeking overtime for work done from 2017 to 2019. The employers argued the claims were filed […]

  • Hidden Payroll Rounding Risk: Unpaid Pre-Shift Time Under Scrutiny

    Required pre-shift tasks – and whether employees are paid for them – are at the center of a former hospital nurse’s wage dispute. Chestnut Hill Hospital required nurses to change into surgical scrubs by 7 a.m. for a morning huddle. Pamela McBride sued under the Fair Labor Standards Act, alleging the hospital didn’t pay her […]