Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, DISCRIMINATION—PREGNANCY—S.D. Ala.: Phlebotomist, fired weeks after announcing pregnancy, gets trial on Title VII, FMLA claims, (Apr 24, 2025)

By Kathleen Kapusta, J.D.

A jury could find that the phlebotomist’s supervisor, who recommended her termination, did not have a good faith belief she violated the company’s recording policy.

Evidence her nonpregnant coworker was treated more favorably than the phlebotomist, who was fired seven weeks after announcing her pregnancy, and that the coworker may have committed the offense for which the phlebotomist was fired, along with evidence her supervisor did not have a good faith belief the phlebotomist committed the offense, was sufficient to preclude summary judgment on her Title VII pregnancy discrimination claim, a federal district court in Alabama concluded. Nor was the plasma collection facility entitled to summary judgment on the phlebotomist’s FMLA interference and retaliation claims (Simpson v. CSL Plasma, No. 23-00441-KD-C (S.D. Ala. Apr. 22, 2025)).

Too early to worry. The employee was hired as a phlebotomist in February 2021 and promoted to group lead in May 2022 after receiving high marks on her evaluation. Shortly after she learned she was pregnant in February 2023, she informed her supervisor, who had been involved in both her hiring and her promotion. According to the employee, when she asked about maternity leave, her supervisor told her it was “too early to be worrying about that date.”

Restrictions. When she began experiencing some side effects of pregnancy, her doctor recommended various work restrictions such as not lifting heavy items and sitting and taking breaks as necessary. The employee informed her supervisor about the restrictions and provided her with her doctor’s written guidance, which the supervisor purportedly did not take.

Inconvenience. During her pregnancy, the employee asked her coworkers to help with lifting or going to the donor floor in her place when she needed a break, which, she claimed, annoyed her supervisor. One coworker stated that the supervisor rolled her eyes at the employee when she asked for help and another claimed that the supervisor reprimanded the employee for leaving the floor too often. That coworker also claimed to have overheard the supervisor say that the employee’s pregnancy was an inconvenience for the facility.

The supervisor also stated during an informal meeting that she would not have hired the new receptionist if she had known she was pregnant. The employee’s coworker recorded this meeting despite the company’s strict policy against recording conversations.

Parking lot incident. In mid-March, the employee, while in her car during her lunch break, overheard an argument between another worker and a donor, who was there to pick up his girlfriend, the coworker who had recorded the meeting. The argument eventually ended. Later that day, the employee, who was again in her car in the parking lot due to nausea, called the coworker to see if she would bring her something for the nausea. At this point, the worker who had previously been arguing in the parking lot walked out of the building and the coworker could hear her angrily talking on the phone.

When the angry worker saw the coworker, she threatened the coworker’s family. The coworker, still on the phone with the employee, asked her to record the worker but the employee refused. The coworker then asked the employee to remain silent on the phone while she recorded the worker. After the incident, the coworker and her boyfriend filed a police report and also told the supervisor what happened. The coworker claimed she told the supervisor she had recorded the worker’s conversation and sent the recording to the supervisor. The supervisor, however, denied this.

Terminated. After an investigation, the worker was fired. The employee relations manager, however, reopened the investigation after receiving an email from the worker about the employee and coworker. The supervisor then told the employee relations manager she wanted the employee disciplined “to the highest level of corrective for her.” The employee was ultimately terminated for violating the company’s recording policy. Her coworker received no discipline.

Similarly situated. Addressing the employee’s claim she was fired because of her pregnancy, the court noted that the only element of her prima facie case at issue was whether a similarly situated employee did not receive the same adverse action as she had. Her closest comparator, said the court, was her coworker, who had been hired in October 2021, had been promoted to senior phlebotomist in May 2022, and had received a great score on her June 2022 evaluation. Both reported to the same supervisor and the same center manager.

The coworker was also involved in the parking lot incident and claimed to have been the one who recorded the incident after the employee said she could not. She and her boyfriend called the police based on the worker’s threatening language that the coworker had overheard on the phone and she claimed she told the supervisor she recorded the conversation. Nonetheless, after the employee relations manager reopened the investigation to see if the coworker was involved, the supervisor only recommended terminating the employee. The coworker was not disciplined for her participation in the events. Based on all of this, the court found the coworker was an adequate comparator.

Pretext. Because the company provided a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for the employee’s termination, the violation of its recording policy, the burden shifted to her to show pretext. In support of her assertion the supervisor disfavored pregnant workers, the employee pointed to the supervisor’s alleged comment about the employee’s pregnancy not being good for the facility, her comment that she would not have hired the receptionist if she had known she was pregnant, and her perceived attitude toward the employee’s work accommodation requests for her pregnancy. In addition, two coworkers testified that the supervisor was annoyed when the employee needed accommodations such as sitting on the donor floor or asking someone to lift boxes for her.

The employee also pointed to the treatment her coworker received for similar actions, including that the supervisor ignored the coworker’s confession to recording the conversation. While the company argued that the supervisor acted on a good faith belief that the employee made the recording when recommending her for termination, the problem, said the court, was that the “evidence would allow for a reasonable jury to find that [the supervisor] did not have a good faith belief that [the employee] violated the recording policy.”

Cat’s paw. The employee next argued that since the supervisor was the sole investigator into the parking lot incident and the decisionmakers—the employee relations manager and an associate operations director—acted solely on her recommendations, the company was liable under a cat’s paw theory of liability. Agreeing, the court denied summary judgment on this claim.

FMLA retaliation. As to the employee’s claim the company retaliated against her in violation of the FMLA based on her request for maternity leave, the court noted that her request was sufficient to put the employer on notice that she was seeking FMLA leave and her supervisor’s response that it was “too early to worry about that” indicated she had an understanding of the employee’s eligibility for leave and a timeframe of when the leave would be needed. Thus, the employee sufficiently established that she engaged in protected activity.

Further, regarding causation between her leave request and her termination, the court found that the evidence previously discussed in relation to her pregnancy discrimination claim sufficed to withstand summary judgment on this claim as well.

FMLA interference. Turning finally to the employee’s claim the company interfered with her FMLA leave by terminating her, the court again observed that there were fact issues for a jury to resolve regarding whether she was fired for reasons unrelated to her pregnancy and her inquiry into available maternity leave. Accordingly, this claim also survived summary judgment.

The case is No. 23-00441-KD-C.

Judge: DuBose, K.

Attorneys: Rachel Lee McGinley (Wiggins Childs Pantazis Fisher & Goldfarb) for Trinity F. Simpson. Charles A. Powell (Littler Mendelson) for CSL Plasma.

Companies: CSL Plasma

Cases: PregnancyDiscrimination Discrimination EmployeeLeave Retaliation Discharge AlabamaNews