Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, DISCRIMINATION—PREGNANCY—C.D. Ill.: Title VII and PWFA claims of pregnant would-be employee survive dismissal, (Dec 19, 2025)

By Steven D. Cole, J.D.

The company moved to dismiss the complaint on the ground that the pregnant woman was not an employee, but the court explained that being designated a “job applicant” would not defeat her claims.

A federal district court in Illinois denied the dismissal motion filed by Essential Smoothies LLC in a case alleging violations of Title VII and the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act (PWFA). The company premised its motion on the contention that the plaintiff, who was 19 months pregnant at the time of the events giving rise to these claims, was not an employee, but merely a job applicant. Whereas disputed issues of material fact precluded a judicial determination on this question, it was not dipositive as to the resolution of the claims because both Title VII and the PWFA provide protections for qualified persons seeking employment (Cuela v. Essential Smoothies LLC, No. 2:25-cv-02205-JEH-RLH (C.D. Ill. Dec. 10, 2025)).

Would not have hired her. According to the complaint, the plaintiff interviewed for a Team Member position at Essential Smoothies on May 18, 2025. After her second interview that day, she was asked to shadow the company’s operations the following day. This was rescheduled for May 20, 2025, because of staffing issues. When she arrived that morning, one of the owners of the company approached her and said, “I heard that you were expecting,” which surprised the plaintiff, because she had not disclosed her pregnancy to the employer. The owner continued: “I would not have hired you if I knew that.” The owner then asked her if she planned on nursing the baby, to which she responded positively. The owner then said that the employer “cannot give her all that time off, so she can just go home and that maybe she can work there when she’s not pregnant.”

The company conveyed a somewhat conflicting account of these events. It provided an email sent to the plaintiff on May 20, 2025, at 8:36 am, stating in part: “After careful consideration, we have decided to move forward with another candidate.” The employer claimed that the plaintiff was never officially hired, having failed to appear “for the third and final interview,” which was purportedly scheduled to take place on the afternoon of May 20, 2025.

Employment status? However, the plaintiff claimed that she was offered the position on May 18, 2025, and that the owner terminated her employment two days later because she was pregnant. The employer maintained that, at all relevant times, the plaintiff was an applicant for the job and was never hired as an employee. Since this issue was unresolved, genuine disputes of material fact precluded the entry of judgment on the motion to dismiss filed by the employer. Nevertheless, a finding in the company’s favor on this particular matter would not be dispositive as to the claims because both Title VII and the PWFA provide protections for job applicants.

Title VII claims. The complaint contained claims for sex discrimination and retaliation under Title VII. The employer argued that these claims should be dismissed because the plaintiff did not fall under the definition of “employee” set forth in 42 U.S.C. § 2000e(f). Regardless, the court explained that Title VII’s protections clearly extend to individuals who are subject to an employer’s “refus[al] to hire” because of that individual’s sex. And Title VII explicitly construes the phrase “because of sex” to include pregnancy.

PWFA claims. The complaint also asserted violations of the PWFA, alleging claims for failure to accommodate and retaliation. The employer once again petitioned the court to grant judgment in its favor, arguing that the plaintiff did not qualify as an “employee” under 42 U.S.C. § 2000e(f). This particular statute, however, provides definitions that apply to Title VII, not the PWFA. The latter’s definition section explicitly includes “applicant” within the meaning of the terms “employee” and “qualified employee” in 42 U.S.C. § 2000gg(3) and (6).

Given the fact that the arguments proffered by the employer were insufficient to compel the granting of its motion to dismiss, the court directed the parties to submit to a settlement conference with a magistrate judge. The court further declared that if the parties are unable to reach a settlement, the magistrate judge shall proceed with setting a scheduling order.

The case is No. 2:25-cv-02205-JEH-RLH.

Judge: Hawley, J.

Attorneys: Nathan Charles Volheim (Sulaiman Law Group, Ltd.) for Jenna Cuela. Krista Lynn Krepp (Law Office of Krista Krepp) for Essential Smoothies LLC.

Companies: Essential Smoothies LLC

Cases: PregnancyDiscrimination Discrimination Discharge EmployeeStatus CoverageLiability IllinoisNews