Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, DISCRIMINATION—PREGNANCY—M.D. Pa.: Hospital to face lawsuit over firing of nurse who requested pregnancy accommodation, (Jun 23, 2025)

By George Basharis, J.D.

Wayne Memorial Hospital’s motion to dismiss was largely denied in a case involving a traveling nurse who requested an accommodation for a high-risk pregnancy.

A federal court in Pennsylvania largely denied a hospital’s motion to dismiss a lawsuit brought by a traveling registered nurse who alleged she was fired after requesting accommodations for her high-risk pregnancy. The court ruled that Wayne Memorial Hospital must face most of the claims in the employment discrimination case, although it did strike certain requests for damages (Spry v. Wayne Memorial Hospital, No. 3:24-cv-00988 (M.D. Pa. Jun. 18, 2025)).

The plaintiff began working for Wayne Memorial Hospital and Medical Solutions as a traveling registered nurse in October 2021 under a 13-week contract that was repeatedly renewed. Wayne Memorial exercised control over the nurse’s employment, including through a nurse manager who supervised and assigned her daily tasks.

High-risk pregnancy. In the spring of 2023, the nurse learned she was pregnant. Due to a history of miscarriages, the pregnancy was classified as high-risk. On April 27, 2023, her doctor issued a note recommending that she avoid working in isolation rooms for the remainder of her pregnancy. The nurse gave the note to her supervisor on May 9.

Ultimatum. After receiving the note, the nurse manager informed the nurse that Wayne Memorial would not grant her request to avoid working in isolation rooms during her pregnancy. Although the hospital had previously accommodated non-pregnant nurses and the nurse was qualified to work in other areas, it did not seek further medical clarification. Instead, the nurse was given an ultimatum: continue working in isolation rooms or face termination.

At the time, the nurse was under contract and had signed a new agreement to continue working through September 9, 2023. When she refused to work in isolation rooms, the nurse manager informed her that she was terminated and took steps to rescind her contract. She subsequently filed charges with the EEOC and the Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission. The EEOC issued a right-to-sue letter on March 19, 2024.

Claims. The nurse’s complaint asserted seven counts under state and federal law. These included claims for violations of the ADA and the Rehabilitation Act based on discrimination related to her high-risk pregnancy; violations of the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act; failure to accommodate under the ADA, the Rehabilitation Act, and the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act (PWFA); pregnancy and sex discrimination under Title VII; and retaliation under multiple statutes. She sought compensatory and punitive damages, as well as injunctive relief.

Employer status. Wayne Memorial argued it was not the nurse’s employer and therefore not subject to employment discrimination claims. The hospital relied heavily on service agreements and work orders to support this position, but the court declined to consider these documents because the nurse disputed their authenticity.

The court explained that determining whether an employment relationship exists depends on multiple factors, including the defendant’s level of control over the plaintiff, which entity hired and paid her, and which entity directed her day-to-day activities. Based on allegations that Wayne Memorial interviewed the nurse, exercised control over her terms and conditions of employment, evaluated her accommodation request, and ultimately terminated her, the court found that she had adequately plead an employment relationship for purposes of the motion to dismiss.

Exhaustion. Wayne Memorial challenged whether the nurse had properly exhausted her administrative remedies, arguing she failed to allege a disability in her EEOC charge and did not mention the PWFA. The court rejected these arguments, noting that EEOC charges are given liberal construction, as they are often prepared by individuals without legal training.

The court found that the nurse’s administrative charge—which identified disability as a basis for discrimination and alleged that Wayne Memorial violated the ADA by failing to provide pregnancy-related accommodations—was reasonably related to the complaint’s allegations of discrimination based on her high-risk pregnancy.

Disability discrimination. Wayne Memorial argued that the nurse failed to provide sufficient notice of a disability, asserting that pregnancy alone does not ordinarily qualify as a disability. The court disagreed, explaining that pregnancy-related complications may constitute a disability under the ADA when they substantially limit one or more major life activities.

The nurse’s allegations—that her history of miscarriages resulted in a high-risk pregnancy that limited her reproductive functions—were sufficient to state a plausible disability discrimination claim at the motion to dismiss stage. The court emphasized that federal regulations define disability broadly, and courts must interpret what constitutes a disability to the maximum extent permitted.

Pregnant Workers Fairness Act. Wayne Memorial argued the nurse’s PWFA claims should be dismissed because the law did not take effect until June 27, 2023, while the alleged discrimination occurred in May 2023. The court found this argument unpersuasive, noting that her employment contract extended through September 2023. This supported a reasonable inference that the alleged discriminatory conduct may have continued beyond the PWFA’s effective date.

Rehabilitation Act coverage. The hospital challenged its coverage under the Rehabilitation Act, claiming that it was not a federal employer, recipient of federal financial assistance, or a federal contractor. The court rejected this argument, finding that the nurse had adequately alleged Wayne Memorial was a non-profit hospital receiving federal funding—bringing it within the Rehabilitation Act’s coverage of private entities principally engaged in providing health care.

Damages claims. While the court allowed most of the nurse’s claims to proceed, it granted the hospital’s motion to strike certain damages. Specifically, it struck claims for punitive damages under the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act and the ADA’s retaliation provisions and barred compensatory damages for ADA retaliation. However, the court refused to strike punitive damages sought under other statutes, finding that such issues were premature for resolution at the motion to dismiss stage.

The case is No. 3:24-cv-00988.

Judge: Mehalchick, K.

Attorneys: Kay Hennessy Seven (Hennessy Law) for Airelle Spry. Adam Yanoff (O'Hagan Meyer) for Wayne Memorial Hospital.

Companies: Wayne Memorial Hospital

Cases: Discrimination DisabilityDiscrimination PregnancyDiscrimination CoverageLiability Discharge Procedure RemediesDamages Retaliation StateLawClaims PennsylvaniaNews