Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, DISCRIMINATION—PREGNANCY—E.D. Mich.: Pregnant employee, fired shortly before scheduled leave, advances bias claims, (Apr 7, 2025)

By Todd Harrison, J.D.

Her boss, upon learning of the pregnancy, expressed his disappointment at having to replace her and then ceased to communicate with her for the rest of her employment.

A former sales manager for an entertainment and events space was able to move forward with her federal and state-law claims alleging pregnancy discrimination, ruled a federal district court in Michigan. Although the employer contended that the employee could not establish temporal proximity as more than six months had elapsed between the disclosure of her pregnancy and her termination, additional evidence proffered by the employee supported an inference of discrimination, including comments made to her by her boss and his subsequent behavior toward her, as well as the fact that she was fired on her last day in the office. Further, the employer provided shifting explanations for its decision, which supported an inference that its stated reasons were pretextual (DeGrosky v. HUB Stadium of Fountain Walk at Novi, LLC, No. 24-10673 (E.D. Mich. April 4, 2025)).

The employee in this case worked as a sales manager for an entertainment and events center. She reported directly to the sales director, her supervisor, who in turn reported to one of the business’s owners. The employee regularly interacted with both individuals.

Workweeks. During her employment, the employee typically worked Mondays through Fridays, and occasional weekends. She also worked remotely at times, as did her supervisor.

Pregnancy. In mid-September of 2022, the employee informed the owner that she was pregnant. Shortly thereafter, on September 26, the two met at work where the owner expressed his disappointment at having to find a replacement when the employee gave birth, bringing the employee to tears.

Later that day, the owner sent the employee a text saying, “I would like to meet first thing tomorrow morning and continue our Discussion regarding sales. Also, I’m sorry I caused you to cry.” When the employee attempted to speak with the owner the following day, he put his hand up and said, “I don’t want to talk to you.” The two never spoke again.

Leave plans. The employee had informed her supervisor that she intended to take an eight to twelve week maternity leave and then return to work. The supervisor communicated this to the owner who indicated that this was fine. Although there was not a set date for when leave would commence, the employer was aware that it would begin approximately around March 19, the employee’s due date.

Termination. Sometime around March 2, the employee relayed to her supervisor that she was finding it difficult to move around the facility and asked if it would be possible to work remotely for the last two weeks of her pregnancy. The supervisor relayed the request to the owner who granted his approval. It was agreed that the employee’s last day of in-person work would likely be Wednesday, March 8.

On March 8, the owner informed the supervisor that they would have to let the employee go. At the end of the day the employee was told that this would be the last day of her employment, or she could work until Friday, March 10, if she needed the money. Subsequently, the employee filed this lawsuit alleging pregnancy/sex discrimination under Title VII and the ELCRA.

Qualified for the job. In making her prima facie case for pregnancy discrimination, the employee relied on indirect evidence. The employer disputed whether the employee was qualified for the job. In challenging the employee’s ability to satisfy this element, the employer set forth “entirely misplaced arguments, directing the Court to ADA failure-to-accommodate cases…” The employee, on the other hand, directed the court to sufficient evidence to establish this factor.

The employee holds a Bachelor of Science degree, had graduated with honors, and had sales experience prior to accepting this position. Her direct supervisor testified that she was “an exemplary employee.” The owner also found her to be exemplary, such that he gave her a $20,000 raise less than two months into her employment. All of this could be construed as strong evidence that the employee was qualified for the position, said the court.

Nexus. As to whether the employee could establish a nexus between her pregnancy and the adverse action, the employer argued that she could not satisfy this element because more than six months had passed between the disclosure of her pregnancy and her termination. However, the employee did not rely on temporal proximity alone to establish the nexus element in this case.

Additional evidence proffered by the employee included the owner’s comments to her after she announced her pregnancy and his subsequent stop to communications with the employee, as well as approving the employee for remote work during the last weeks of her pregnancy, only to change course and have the employee fired on her last day in the office. This was more than enough to satisfy the nexus element of a pregnancy discrimination claim, said the court.

Pretext. Turning to the question of pretext, the court found sufficient evidence from which a reasonable jury could conclude that the stated reason for the employee’s termination was pretext for unlawful discrimination. When learning of the pregnancy, the owner expressed his disappointment at having to hire a replacement, bringing the employee to tears. He then told the employee he wanted to meet with her the following day, only to tell her that he did not want to talk with her.

Further, the circumstances surrounding the termination lent further weight to the employee’s claim of discrimination, including the fact the owner did not have the employee’s direct supervisor terminate the employee, instead instructing a new hire to do so. In addition, her supervisor had expressed that there was “no reason” to fire the employee and that doing so “is not okay.”

Shifting explanations were also proffered by the employer in an effort to support its decision, including since abandoned arguments that the employee had requested to work remotely for six months after the baby was born and that she had been offered an unpaid leave of absence but refused it. Accordingly, the employer’s motion for summary judgment was denied.

The case is No. 24-10673.

Judge: Cox, S.

Attorneys: Carol A. Laughbaum (Sterling Employment Law) for Drew DeGrosky. Mary Salah Rabban (Starr, Butler & Stoner) for Hub Stadium of Fountain Walk at Novi, LLC.

Companies: Hub Stadium of Fountain Walk at Novi, LLC

Cases: Discrimination PregnancyDiscrimination SexDiscrimination Discharge MichiganNews