Fired Worker Claims She Was Told “It Was Too Bad That She Had To Go And Get Pregnant”
Having litigated pregnancy discrimination cases in Florida courts for more than two decades, our pregnancy discrimination lawyers in Citrus County, Florida know that employees are often targeted for termination after disclosing their pregnancy. In most cases, employers target pregnant employees for termination by creating a paper trail used to justify the eventual termination decision. For example, employers will use disciplinary actions and performance improvement plans as a pretexual cover for the termination decision. In some cases, employers manifest their discriminatory motive by making disparaging remarks about pregnant employees. For example, managers in pregnancy discrimination cases have remarked about an employee’s pregnancy was not good for her job, an employee’s employment was at risk because of her pregnancy, an employee could not work for the company while pregnant, and the company should never hire another woman of childbearing age.
In this article, our pregnancy discrimination lawyers in Citrus County, Florida explain how the alleged facts in Smith v. T.W. Clyde, O.D., P.C., Case No. 13-cv-1672 (D. Colo. Oct. 10, 2014) illustrate how things change after employees disclose their pregnancy.
Pregnancy Discrimination Lawsuit
In that case, a woman named Smith brought a pregnancy discrimination lawsuit against her former employer, T.W. Clyde, O.D., P.C., d/b/a Pikes Peak Eye Care (“Pikes Peak”), pursuant to the Pregnancy Discrimination Act (“PDA”). Under the PDA, employers are prohibited from discriminating against employees on the basis of pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions. Smith claims that Pikes Peak terminated her employment because of her pregnancy in violation of the PDA.
In July 2004, Smith was hired to work for Pikes Peak, an optometry practice, in the optical department. In June 2012, according to Smith, the owner of Pikes Peak met with her in his office and informed her than when an employee retired at the end of the month, the owner was planning to put Smith “in charge of the optical department,” on equal footing with a new employee he planned to hire. The owner disputes that such a meeting occurred and denies that Smith was ever promoted.
At some point in late June or early July 2012, Smith informed the owner that she was pregnant. Smith testified that when she informed the owner that she was pregnant, he was upset and said angrily, “Don’t you know what causes that?” The owner testified that he did not react when told about Smith’s pregnancy, and later made a joke to the effect of “Don’t you know how you got pregnant?”
On August 8, 2012, according to Smith, the owner met with her and informed her that it was unfortunate that she had become pregnant, but that because he needed someone to be in charge of the optical department, he was planning to hire a man named Willis to take over instead. The owner disputes that this meeting occurred and denies that Smith was ever demoted.
Later that same day, an office meeting was held at a local restaurant where the owner and Smith were both in attendance. During the meeting, according to Smith, the owner mentioned to the group that he was hiring Willis to be in charge of the optical department, and “it was too bad that [Smith] had to go and get pregnant.” The owner asserts that he merely made a bad joke about Smith’s pregnancy.
Hire Older Women With “Dead Eggs”
Smith testified that she heard the owner make multiple statements to an employee named Winn not to hire women with “viable eggs,” but only older women with “dead eggs.” Winn confirmed that the owner made statements a few times “in a joking manner,” as well as in business meetings, the effect of “Don’t hire women with viable eggs.” When the owner was asked if he ever made statements about hiring women with viable eggs, he testified “I think I did because I’ve been told I did.”
In mid-August 2012, the owner found Smith using the business office computer for personal internet use. When the owner asked Smith what she was doing on the internet during business hours, Smith stated that she was clocked out for lunch. Smith testified that she “honestly thought” she was clocked out at the time, but office records confirmed that she had not clocked out for lunch at all on that day. Smith admits that she occasionally forgot to clock out, but the owner disputes that this was merely occasional, presenting testimony from another employee that Smith failed to clock out as often as three or four times per week.
On August 27, 2012, the owner claims that he was informed by Willis, the new supervisor of the optical department, that on a previous workday when Smith had failed to clock out, she was observed leaving at 2:00 p.m., but told the business manager that she had left at 5:00 p.m. Smith testified that she did not recall this occurrence, was never confronted about it, and reported her hours to the business manager as accurately as possible on the occasion when she forgot to clock in or out. On August 28, 2012, the owner terminated Smith’s employment. The owner testified that he terminated Smith because “she was lying and stealing hours.”
Disparaging Remarks After Disclose Pregnancy
Pikes Peak filed a motion with the trial court seeking dismissal of Smith’s pregnancy discrimination claim. In moving for dismissal, Pikes Peak argued that the evidence showed Smith was fired for using an office computer for personal use while falsely claiming to be clocked out for lunch at the time, and for stating that she had worked three hours beyond the time that she actually left. The trial court disagreed and ruled that Smith was entitled to proceed to a jury trial on whether she was fired because of her pregnancy in violation of the PDA.
In denying Pikes Peak motion for dismissal, the trial court focused on the owner’s alleged comments disparaging Smith’s pregnancy—namely, that he wanted women employees with “dead eggs” instead of viable eggs,” said unfortunately Smith “had to go and get pregnant,” and asked Smith, “Don’t you know what causes that?” The trial court found that the alleged disparaging comments were evidence that the proffered explanation for Smith’s termination was a pretext for pregnancy discrimination. The trial court also focused on the timing of the alleged disparaging comments. The trial court pointed out that Smith disclosed her pregnancy “in late June or early July of 2012, when some of the comments were made; other such comments were made on or about August 8, 20212, and Smith was fired on August 28, 2012.” “The temporal proximity of these events,” the trial court reasoned, “is sufficient to show a causal nexus between the comments and the termination.”
Based on the alleged disparaging comments and the timing of the alleged disparaging comments, “combined with the evidence that [Smith] was never informed or warned about the allegedly frequent problems with her failing to clock out or falsely reporting her work hours,” the trial court concluded that a jury could reasonably fired that Smith was fired because of pregnancy and that the proffered explanation for her termination was “unworthy of belief.”
Citrus County Discrimination Lawyers
Based in Ocala, Florida and representing workers throughout Florida, our pregnancy discrimination lawyers in Citrus County, Florida have fought for the rights of pregnant employees for more than twenty years. If you have been discriminated against on the basis of pregnancy or have questions about your protection from pregnancy discrimination under federal employment discrimination law, please contact our office for a free consultation with our pregnancy discrimination lawyers in Citrus County, Florida. Our employee rights law firm takes pregnancy discrimination cases on a contingency fee basis. This means that there are no attorney’s fees incurred unless there is a recovery, and our attorney’s fees come solely from the monetary award that you recover.
