Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, DISCRIMINATION—PREGNANCY—D. Ariz.: Teacher allegedly fired due to her IVF efforts to become pregnant advances sex bias claims, (Mar 7, 2025)

By Marjorie Johnson, J.D.

The teacher plausibly alleged she was terminated “based on her gender-specific efforts and ability to become pregnant—which is a cognizable claim under Title VII.”

Distinguishing the gender-neutral condition of infertility from the gender-specific “quality of childbearing capacity,” a federal district court in Arizona held that a fifth-grade teacher who claimed she was discharged because of her IVF efforts to become pregnant plausibly alleged sex discrimination under Title VII and the Arizona Civil Rights Act (ACRA). Denying the school district’s motion to dismiss as to her bias claims but granting it with leave to amend as to her retaliation claim, the court also rejected the district’s contention that no discrimination occurred since she was replaced by another female of child-bearing age, emphasizing that she alleged “discrimination on the basis that she was trying to become pregnant, not because she was woman or of child-bearing age” (Stokka v. Scottsdale Unified School District, No. 2:24-cv-01903-DJH (D. Ariz. Feb. 27, 2025)).

IVF treatments. The district hired the teacher for the 2022–2023 school year. During the year, she received fertility treatments including in vitro fertilization (IVF) to become pregnant. She shared these efforts with her coworkers and administrators and also disclosed her efforts to become pregnant to the principal during a holiday party in December 2022.

Interviews to keep job. On March 20, 2023, the district began conducting interviews for several teaching positions for the following school year, including the teacher’s position. She requested an interview and prepared to answer questions about her potential pregnancy and plans to minimize interruptions to her classroom should she become pregnant. Her interview was conducted on March 24, before a four-member panel consisting of the principal, the assistant principal, and two other fifth-grade teachers. During the interview, she discussed her efforts to become pregnant.

Not selected. On March 28, the principal informed her that she would not be hired for any teaching position for the following school year since she did not possess the experience necessary to teach science. However, her current curriculum included science, technology, engineering, and mathematics activities, and she was assisting her students with their submission for a national science competition. She also claimed that the applicant offered her position had far less teaching experience.

Discriminatory motive. On April 10, a teacher who was on the interview panel informed her that she was not hired because the principal did not want to hire another teacher who was trying to become pregnant. On April 11, she reported the principal’s discriminatory conduct to the superintendent. On April 15, HR initiated an investigation into her allegations, which included interviewing the principal on April 19.

Principal’s alleged vindictive act. Sometime thereafter, while she and her students were filming a video for the science competition in the school’s courtyard, the principal began berating her in front of others and ordered the students to stop working on their project. Sometime in July, she also learned that the principal asked another teacher to write a negative letter about her to HR.

Time to file notice of claim tolled. As an initial matter, the court rejected the district’s contention the teacher’s claims were barred by an Arizona law mandating that any person who seeks to bring a claim against a public entity must file a notice of claim with that public entity within 180 days “after the cause of action accrues.” Though she filed her notice more than a year after she learned of the principal’s alleged discrimination, the limitations period for claims subject to the mandatory exhaustion of administrative remedies are tolled under the Arizona statute. Therefore, she was not required to file her notice of claim with the district until after the ACRD/EEOC issued its final decision, and her filing of notice was timely. The Arizona law’s one-year time limitation was also tolled while she exhausted those administrative remedies.

Sex-based discrimination. The district next argued that the teacher’s sex discrimination claims failed because receiving treatment for infertility and “hoping to become pregnant” are not protected characteristics under Title VII, as amended by the Pregnancy Discrimination Act (PDA), or the ACRA. To make its argument, the district relied on two out of circuit cases which had held that a health insurance plan that excludes coverage for infertility treatment does not violate the PDA because infertility affects both men and women and is therefore gender neutral.

IVF vs. infertility. Noting that the Ninth Circuit has not yet addressed whether Title VII protects a woman from discrimination based on her IVF efforts to become pregnant, the court found that the Seventh Circuit “persuasively addressed this question” in a case in which the appeals court found that a teacher who claimed she was fired for taking time off to undergo IVF procedures alleged a cognizable sex-discrimination claim under Title VII because she “was terminated not for the gender-neutral condition of infertility, but rather for the gender-specific quality of childbearing capacity.”

Applying that reasoning here, the court found that the teacher plausibly alleged she was terminated “based on her gender-specific efforts and ability to become pregnant—which is a cognizable claim under Title VII.” Indeed, she did not claim she was terminated “solely because she was infertile, was receiving treatment for infertility, or hoping to become pregnant.” Rather, she claimed she was let go because she was trying to become pregnant and was making active efforts to become pregnant. The court also rejected the district’s contention that her dismissal was not discriminatory since her position was filled by another female of child-bearing age. This “misses the point of the protected status” since she alleged “discrimination on the basis that she was trying to become pregnant, not because she was woman or of child-bearing age.”

Retaliation. The court, however, dismissed her Title VII retaliation claim with leave to amend since she failed to plausibly allege she was subjected to any materially adverse employment actions. Though she claimed the principal asked for a negative letter with a retaliatory animus, she did not state whether any letter was placed in her file let alone disseminated, or that she suffered a negative work consequence because of the request. Moreover, the single alleged instance of being berated by the principal in front of others also fell far short of being sufficiently severe or pervasive.

The case is No. 2:24-cv-01903-DJH.

Judge: Humetewa, D.

Attorneys: Bradley Steven Shelts (Brueckner Spitler & Shelts) for Melissa Stokka. Brittany Jae Reed (Gust Rosenfeld) for Scottsdale Unified School District.

Companies: Scottsdale Unified School District

Cases: PregnancyDiscrimination SexDiscrimination Discrimination Discharge Retaliation Procedure StateLawClaims ArizonaNews