Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, DISCRIMINATION—E.D.N.Y.: Pregnant nurse ‘fired’ minutes after asking about leave options advances ADA, Title VII claims, (Sep 9, 2025)

By Kathleen Kapusta, J.D.

The employer argued that the nurse was placed on inactive statute, not fired, after she became angry and hung up during the conversation with the HR director.

A home-health nurse who was deemed to have resigned five months into her high-risk pregnancy, and eight minutes after she asked about short-term disability and FMLA leave because her doctor stated that she “should be out of work indefinitely,” can proceed to trial on her ADA claims, a federal court in New York ruled. The court found she established, based on her high-risk pregnancy, that she was disabled, a jury could find she did not request indefinite leave, and her employer failed to show her request for leave for the remaining time of her pregnancy would impose an undue hardship. Her Title VII sex and pregnancy discrimination claims also survived summary judgment (Guerrero v. Constellation Health Services, LLC, No. 22-CV-07736 (OEM)(LGD) (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 4, 2025)).

As a registered field nurse case manager, the RN was required to make and document care visits in client’s homes and at health facilities and to regularly see clients in person. In June 2021, she told her supervisor she was pregnant and requested time off for an emergency ultrasound. A month later, she requested time off to attend a doctor’s appointment. Both requests were granted.

Stop working out. After experiencing sharp pelvic pain on August 24, she obtained a doctor’s letter advising that she should “stop working out” until August 30 due to complications with her pregnancy. At that point, she was five months pregnant.

Indefinitely. On August 26, she emailed the HR director asking about short-term disability and her eligibility for FMLA leave. In the email, she noted that she needed to stop working due to the complications from her high-risk pregnancy and included the doctor’s note stating that “she should be out of work indefinitely.”

Phone call. Eight minutes later, the HR director called the RN. According to the director, the RN requested indefinite leave, became angry and frustrated when she learned she was ineligible for FMLA leave, and hung up the phone. For her part, the RN claimed she was fired. Although the employer contended that she was placed on “inactive status,” the HR director, in a follow-up letter, wrote that she was sorry to hear of her resignation. After she gave birth, she received an offer of employment from the company at the same rate of pay, to which she did not respond.

Failure to accommodate. In her subsequent lawsuit, the RN argued that the company violated the ADA and the NYSHRL by failing to accommodate the complications related to her high-risk pregnancy including gestational diabetes, pelvic pain, contractions, and shortening of the cervix. Responding, the company contended that she was not disabled under either statute because at the time she requested “indefinite” leave, she was only experiencing pain and contraction related to her cervix.

While the court acknowledged that pregnancy itself is not typically a recognized disability within the meaning of the ADA, it explained that a high-risk pregnancy that substantially limits a major life activity, such as working over the course of several months, can constitute a disability under the ADA and NYSHRL. Finding the RN established she was disabled under both the ADA and the NYSRHL, the court noted evidence she emailed her supervisor and the HR director requesting time off for doctor’s appointments, noted that she did not receive “great news” from her ultrasound and had to go to her doctor for “an emergency ultrasound at the high-risk doctor,” and presented a doctor’s note stating that due to her high-risk pregnancy, she should be out of work indefinitely.

Essential job function. The company next argued that caring for patients in their home setting was an essential job function that she could not perform. Not only did the RN not dispute that she made field visits to clients to provide nursing services, but also other field nurses were required make regular field visits to see clients and the company did not allow remote work for this position. Thus, the court found that home care visits were essential functions of the position.

Reasonable accommodation. As to the company’s assertion that the RN was not a qualified individual with a disability because her indefinite leave request did not enable her to perform the essential functions of her job as she would not work at all, the court noted that she sought to go on short-term disability due to her high-risk pregnancy which necessarily implied a finite period. She did not provide a precise date or timeframe for when her requested leave would end because she did not know her precise delivery date. Pointing out that she was five months pregnant at the time, the court found that a jury could reasonably infer her leave would not exceed the remaining months of her pregnancy and potential recovery from any complications. Thus, the court declined to rule, as a matter of law, that her request rendered her unqualified to work.

Interactive process. Nor was the company entitled to summary judgment on the ground that the RN failed to cooperate in the interactive process, said the court, noting conflicting testimony by both parties as to whether they engaged in the interactive process during the August phone call. The HR director claimed the RN yelled at her and hung up before they could discuss her requests and other alternative accommodations while the RN contended that she was fired upon informing the HR director that she needed to go on leave.

Nondiscriminatory reason. While the company argued that it viewed her request as one for indefinite leave and did not grant it because she was not entitled to FMLA or paid family leave under state law and she did not make any accommodation requests that would enable her to work as a field nurse, the court pointed out that it had already rejected these arguments and found material fact disputes remained as to each of the company’s assertions. Accordingly, the court denied summary judgment on this claim.

Wrongful termination. Turning to the RN’s ADA and NYSHRL wrongful discharge claim, the court found her termination during the phone call mere minutes after she inquired about a reasonable accommodation for her high-risk pregnancy was an adverse employment action for purposes of her prima facie case. As to the NYSHRL element requiring that the adverse action occur under circumstances giving rise to an inference of discrimination, the court noted that the RN’s involuntary termination just mere minutes after requesting an accommodation for disability, the HR director informing her that she could return to her job once she was no longer pregnant, and the job offer right after giving birth all supported an inference of discrimination. Accordingly, the court denied summary judgment on this claim as well.

Sex and pregnancy discrimination. Regarding the RN’s claims she was terminated in violation of Title VII based on complications from her high-risk pregnancy and discriminated against based on her sex in violation of NYSHRL, the company pointed to several legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for denying her leave request, including that she was ineligible for leave under state or federal law and that her request for “indefinite” leave was an unreasonable accommodation as a matter of law. Here, the court again noted that it already found the company did not conclusively establish that RN requested “indefinite” leave.

Even assuming it carried its burden, the court found sufficient evidence of pretext. The RN emailed the HR director inquiring about her options to go on short-term disability due to the high-risk nature of her pregnancy; eight minutes later, the director unilaterally construed the RN’s email as resigning even after she reiterated that she was not resigning and directly asked whether she was being fired. As a result, this claim also survived summary judgment.

Retaliation. Allowing her Title VII and ADA retaliation claims to also advance, the court found the close proximity in time between the RN’s request for information about leave and the phone call leading to her termination was more than sufficient to support a causal connection. And while the parties disputed whether she was fired or placed on inactive status, both were adverse employment actions. Finally, the court found her termination approximately eight minutes after her accommodation request was sufficient to support an inference of retaliation.

The case is No. 22-CV-07736 (OEM)(LGD).

Judge: Merchant, O.

Attorneys: Geoffrey Kalender (Law Offices of Geoffrey Kalender) for Jennifer Guerrero. Ruth Bogatyrow Kraft (Falcon Rappaport & Berkman) for Constellation Home Care, LLC [NY], Constellation Health Services, LLC, and Nicole Sturtz.

Companies: Constellation Health Services, LLC; Constellation Home Care, LLC (NY)

Cases: DisabilityDiscrimination SexDiscrimination PregnancyDiscrimination Discrimination StateLawClaims EmployeeLeave Discharge Retaliation NewYorkNews