Skip to main content

Pregnancy Discrimination Claim Proceeds After Employee Fired While on Pregnancy Related Leave


Holmes v. University of the District of Columbia - United States District Court for the District of Columbia


Facts:  Kashawna Holmes ("Holmes") worked for the University of the District of Columbia ("University") as a Program Coordinator in March of 2013.  Although her position was described as a "temporary sponsored program appointment" (with the position being contingent upon the availability of grant funding), it had been funded continuously for approximately 30 years.  In November of 2013, Holmes began working for a new supervisor, Elgoria Harrison ("Harrison"), and learned of her pregnancy two months later.  Upon learning of her pregnancy, doctors advised Holmes that her pregnancy was "high risk".

Although Holmes intended to keep her pregnancy to herself, at a staff meeting in early 2014, Harrison pointed to Holmes's stomach and asked "Is there something you need to tell me?"  After Holmes confirmed the pregnancy, Harrison "proceeded to pepper her with questions" which Holmes stated made her uncomfortable.  Several weeks later, in front of several other employees, Harrison told Holmes that Harrison "would never have considered having a baby when she was living with a roommate or in her parents' home" and "by the time [Harrison] had a baby, she was married and she and her husband had a house together."  Harrison apparently knew that Holmes was neither married nor living with the child's father (who was living oversees).

In April of 2014, Holmes took a a pre-approved sick day to attend two doctors' appointments and sent an e-mail to employees she worked with (including Harrison) to notify them she would be out for the day.  Two days after the appointments, Harrison replied to the e-mail and questioned whether Holmes really needed an entire day off for doctors' appointments and questioned whether Holmes was abusing her ability to take leave from work.  

In July of 2014, Holmes was ordered to "complete bed rest" because of her pregnancy.  She requested FMLA leave from July to September and the University approved her request.  However, in August, Holmes saw that the University had advertised her job online.  When Holmes contacted human resources, they expressed surprise but were unable to provide an explanation for the job posting.  After Holmes gave birth to her child in early September of 2014, she noticed an e-mail from Harrison in which Harrison stated the University "was not renewing her appointment" and "her employment would end on September 30, 2014."  Holmes subsequently filed suit against the University on the grounds that of pregnancy discrimination, retaliation, and interference under the DCFMLA.  The University moved to dismiss all claims.

Holding:  (Note, this analysis covers only the pregnancy discrimination portions of the claim brought by Holmes).  In regard to the pregnancy discrimination claim, the Court noted that Holmes need not allege any facts that give rise to an inference of discrimination based upon her pregnancy by showing the University treated other similarly situated employees not in a protected class more favorably under the same factual circumstances.  The Court held this evidence is not necessary at the pleading stage (and is also not necessary at trial).  The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals had previously held that while pointing to similarly situated employees that the employer treated differently is one way to show an inference of discrimination, it was not the only way to prove discrimination.  In reviewing the pleadings, the Court held that Holmes had presented sufficient evidence to establish that her supervisor had singled her out for her pregnancy (and a discrimination claim could proceed).  Not only had Harrison made off hand remarks about Holmes being pregnant and not married (or even having a place of her own with the father of the child), but Harrison made several comments which inferred she thought Holmes was abusing the leave policy to attend doctors' appointments.

In regard to the University's argument that because Harrison knew about Holmes's pregnancy for nearly 8 months before a decision was made not to renew the appointment and therefore discrimination could not exist, the Court disagreed that this could prevent Holmes from proving her discrimination claim.  In this case, the claim was not that the University retaliated against Holmes for being pregnant but instead that the University discriminated against Holmes for becoming pregnant.  Based upon the facts in the case, the Court held that sufficient evidence existed that Harrison made Holmes feel uncomfortable about the pregnancy, harassed her, and accused her of abusing her leave, among other incidents. 

Judgment:  The District Court upheld Holmes's pregnancy discrimination claim on the grounds that she had plead sufficient facts to establish that her supervisor had created a work environment in which Holmes was singled out for her pregnancy, harassed for being pregnant and not married, and accused of abusing pre-approved leave to attend doctors' appointments.

The Takeaway:  This was a very interesting case to read through, in particular because although the Court did not take a stance either way in regard to the pregnancy discrimination claim, it held that sufficient facts had been plead to allow the claim to proceed.  I highlight this case for both employers and employees to take note:  Although some facts must be plead to allow a claim to survive a motion to dismiss, courts often look favorably upon the party that brought the claim when determining whether sufficient facts have been plead in order to allow the case to proceed.  In this instance, as the Court noted, Holmes had identified several instances in which it could appear that Harrison and the University discriminated against her because of her pregnancy.  Whether a jury would agree with Holmes is unclear at this point.  However, as noted, this was simply a matter of whether Holmes had plead sufficient facts to support her cause of action and survive the motion to dismiss.  I agree with the Court in this instance; based upon the facts plead, if true, Holmes might have sufficient grounds to prevail upon a pregnancy discrimination claim at trial.

Majority Opinion Judge:  Judge Moss
 
Date:  March 23, 2017

Opinion:  hr.cch.com/eld/HolmesUniversity032317.pdf

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

NLRB: Discussion Among Employees About Tip Pooling is Protected Concerted Activity

  This Advice Memorandum from the National Labor Relations Board’s Associate General Counsel, Jayme Sophir, addressed whether employees which discussed and complained about tip pooling at work constituted protected concerted activity. In relevant part, an employer in New York operated a chain of steakhouses.  While tip pooling was in place at these steakhouses, some of the employees objected to it on the grounds that it was not transparent and improperly divided tips among the workers.  Employees were told not to complain or talk to each other about the tip pool and were told that doing so would endanger their jobs.  Despite the employer later attempting to provide some clarity as to how the tips were being divided, rancor still existed among some employees.  At one point, the employees were told by a general manager that some employees that had been talking about the tip pool were “cleared out” and the employer would continue to do so. In the Advice Memorandum, it was noted that emplo
Post a Comment
Read more

What I’ve Been Reading This Week

A few years ago, I remember when the “Fight for $15” movement was taking off around the country.  Lo and behold, it appears that a $15/hour minimum wage is not the stopping point, which should be no surprise.  As the below article notes, New York is aggressively moving to ramp up hourly wage rates even higher.  While all the  below articles are worth a read, I called particular attention to that one. As always, below are a couple article that caught my eye this week. Disney World Workers Reject Latest Contract Offer Late last week, it was announced that workers at Disney World had rejected the most recent contract offer from the company, calling on their employer to do better.  As Brooks Barnes at The New York Times writes, the unions that represent about 32,000 workers at Disney World reported their members resoundingly rejected the 5 year contract offer which would have seen workers receive a 10% raise and retroactive increased back pay.  While Disney’s offer would have increased pa
Post a Comment
Read more

Utah Non-Compete Bill Falters in House

Last month, a non-compete bill sponsored by Representative Brian Greene (Republican from Pleasant Grove) & up for vote in the Utah House failed to make it through the Legislature.  The bill sought to ban enforcement of non-competes if they came after a worker was already employed, given no compensation (such as a bonus or promotion) for signing the non-compete, and laid off within six months.  However, by a 22 - 49 vote, the bill was resoundingly defeated after some business groups lobbied to kill the non-compete bill.  One group in particular, The Free Enterprise Utah coalition, argued that the Utah State Legislature should hold off on any changes to non compete laws in the state until a survey about non competes was done among Utah businesses.  Representative Greene had countered this claim and argued that a survey was not needed to show that the current non compete laws in the states allowed many businesses, including some small high tech companies in the state, to per
Post a Comment
Read more