Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, DISCRIMINATION—PREGNANCY—M.D. Tenn.: Employee fired the after seeking pregnancy-related medical leave advances claims to trial, (Jul 22, 2025)

By Marjorie Johnson, J.D.

While her termination letter could be interpreted as showing the owner’s honest belief on her poor performance, his statement that he “ha[s] to handle everything now” could be viewed as a complaint about her PTO request.

A construction manager who was fired the day after she requested a week off for pregnancy-related health concerns, ostensibly due to performance issues that the owner claimed he already discussed with her, survived summary judgment on her claims of pregnancy discrimination and failure to accommodate under Title VII, the ADA, and Tennessee’s anti-bias laws, ruled a federal district court in Tennessee. Amon other things, the court found that triable issues existed as to whether the owner made the decision to terminate her before or after her request, whether he based the decision on his honest belief about her performance or for pretextual reasons, and whether her pregnancy-related hypertension and pre-eclampsia constituted a disability. In addition, the employer failed to demonstrate that she undisputedly failed to mitigate her damages (Patterson v. Spriggs Construction, LLC, No. 2:24-cv-00002 (M.D. Tenn. July 18, 2025)).

Hired and rehired. The employee began working for the employer as a workflow supervisor in May 2022. A month later, she became pregnant but suffered a miscarriage. She informed the employer of her miscarriage and sought treatment. The employer laid her off from work in August, but rehired her as a construction manager on November 28.

Announces pregnancy. On February 13, 2023, she told the owner that she was pregnant, and he allegedly responded favorably. She was also diagnosed with chronic hypertension by her OBGYN but continued working.

Performance issues. Meanwhile, various issues related to her work arose, the circumstances of which the parties disputed. For instance, the employer contended that on March 8 and 9, she failed to properly manage subcontractor billing procedures, while she contended her supervisor and the office manager were responsible for the procedures and related errors. The employer also blamed her for a significant loss related to a major contract, but she presented evidence that she had no involvement with the billing process on that contract and was not responsible for the subcontractor work stoppage. The employer also presented evidence that a major client rejected her data submission on March 24, but the office manager testified that this issue was resolved. Finally, on April 11, she allegedly approved incorrect billing codes.

Pregnancy-related medical leave. On April 13, the employee sent an email to her office manager requesting time off work for pregnancy-related health reasons, including having failed her glucose test and high blood pressure. She also provided a doctor’s note excusing her “from work for up to seven days as she deems necessary.” The office manager forwarded that correspondence to the owner at 6:48 p.m., who read it around 7:00 p.m. that day.

Fired by owner. The next day, the owner sent her an email terminating her employment which stated in relevant part, “I see below that you are out today. I told you I wanted to finish up our conversation but I feel as though you are avoiding it. With all the things that have gone on and us having to correct it I believe it’s best that we part ways. We are having to handle everything now and with the lack of communication coming from over there I don’t feel it’s a good situation for either of us.”

Lawsuit. She sued, alleging several claims under Title VII, the ADA, the Tennessee Human Rights Act, the Tennessee Disability Act (TDA), and the Tennessee Pregnant Workers Fairness Act (TPWFA). At issue was the employer’s bid for summary judgment on her pregnancy discrimination and failure to accommodate claims, as well as the issue of mitigation of damages.

Dispute over timing. The court rejected the employer’s contention that summary judgment was warranted on the employee’s pregnancy discrimination claim since the owner had already decided to terminate her before she made her pregnancy-related accommodation request. While the owner and the office manager testified that the decision occurred on April 13, after the owner learned that she had approved an invoice using an incorrect billing code, she pointed to conflicting evidence suggesting that he actually made his decision to terminate her after learning of her pregnancy-related accommodation, including his own deposition testimony and the language in the email terminating her. And if a jury concluded that he decided to terminate her after learning about her request, the one-day temporal proximity between the events was sufficient to make her prima facie showing of causation.

Pretext. The employee also cast sufficient doubt on the employer’s contention that she was fired due to poor job performance. In particular, pretext could be inferred from the parties’ competing interpretation of the statements that he made in her termination letter. While the employer argued that they were made solely in the context of his honest belief on her poor performance, she posited that his statement that he “ha[s] to handle everything now” was a complaint about her request for PTO. “The timing and tenor of [the owner’s] email could cause a reasonable juror to at least question whether her request for PTO, rather than her poor performance at work, actually motivated her termination,” stated the court.

In addition to also presenting evidence that the employer failed to follow its own internal procedures in denying her time off, the record also suggested others were not fired for engaging in substantially similar conduct. For instance, her supervisor testified that he was involved in the invoice dispute that ultimately led to her termination but was not terminated. The court also rejected the employer’s contention that the owner was entitled to the same actor inference since he did not know she was pregnant at the time he rehired her.

Failure-to-accommodate. The employer also lost its bid for summary judgment on the employee’s failure to accommodate claims. Though it argued that her pregnancy-related complications were not disabilities, a jury could reasonably find that her chronic hypertension and pre-eclampsia substantially limited major life activities like eating, sleeping, and caring for herself, despite her ability to continue working. Triable issues also existed as to whether she could perform the essential functions of her role with or without accommodation and whether the owner decided to terminate her before or after receiving her request for accommodation.

Mitigation of damages. Finally, the court rejected the employer’s contention that the employee failed to mitigate her damages by conducting an inadequate job search, declining available work, and voluntarily withdrawing from the labor market. The evidence the employer relied upon—that she submitted only 15 job applications over the course of more than a year, placed self-imposed limitations to her job search, declined work, and purportedly “withdrew” from the labor market—did not show that she undisputedly failed to mitigate her damages “based on her individual characteristics and the applicable job market.”

The case is No. 2:24-cv-00002.

Judge: Crenshaw, W.

Attorneys: Anne Bennett Hunter (Hunter Law Firm) for Morgan Patterson. Jerome D. Pinn (Wimberly Lawson Wright Daves & Jones) for Spriggs Construction LLC.

Companies: Spriggs Construction LLC

Cases: Discrimination PregnancyDiscrimination DisabilityDiscrimination Discharge RemediesDamages StateLawClaims TennesseeNews