In an interesting case from the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, that Court has held that a plaintiff asserting a claim under the Pregnancy Discrimination Act (“PDA”) does not need to be physically pregnant at the time of the alleged adverse employment action in order to bring suit.
The Court described the claims in the case of Snider v. Wolfington Body Company, Inc. as an allegation that the employer “refused to rehire [plaintiff] because of her prior pregnancy and the chance that she might become pregnant again.”
In Snider, the plaintiff was hired by the employer in August of 2014, when she was two to three months pregnant, although her employer did not know this until after she started her employment. The employee requested maternity leave and was told there was none, but was allowed ten days leave.
During that leave, employee received a letter stating that she was terminated as her position was eliminated. The Court went on to note that any claims related to the original hiring, leave, and termination were untimely and thus would not be addressed. However, the Court found timely her allegation that she repeatedly contacted her former employer seeking to be rehired for the position or an equivalent position, but was unsuccessful and she alleged that the positions were filled by “a ‘non-pregnant’ employee.” At the times of her efforts to be rehired, the employee was not pregnant.
The Court held that an employee need not be pregnant at the time of the alleged adverse action to make a claim under the PDA. For example, the Court explained that if harassment or discriminatory statements continued after the pregnancy or leave, then a claim could exist under the PDA for these later acts and statements. The Court found that the employee in this particular case alleged enough facts and the Court did consider her prior firing as sufficient evidence to support this claim. Given the procedural status of the matter, the court did not find that a claim actually existed, but merely that one could exist under the facts alleged.
As a result, employers should avoid discrimination of this type or even the appearance of the same, and would be well advised to ensure broad policies that prohibit discrimination in their workplace.
The Eastern Pennsylvania Employment Log (EPELog) is a publication of the KingSpry Employment Law Practice Group. Jeffrey T. Tucker, Esquire, is our editor-in-chief. EPELog is meant to be informational and does not constitute legal advice.
