Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, DISCRIMINATION—PREGNANCY—S.D. Tex.: Denial of request to use PTO while on STD leave not discriminatory, (Jan 15, 2026)

By Marjorie Johnson, J.D.

The facially neutral policy did not allow staff members who were receiving STD benefits to also receive PTO benefits, and the employee failed to dispute that it was consistently applied.

A medical group that denied a former ultrasound sonographer’s request to utilize PTO simultaneously with her pregnancy-related short-term disability (STD) benefits, and initially underreported her hours resulting in delayed approval by the outside insurer, won its bid for summary judgment on the employee’s claims of sex and pregnancy discrimination and retaliation under the Texas Commission on Human Rights Act (TCHRA). A federal district court rejected the employee’s contention that she provided direct evidence of bias, declined to infer pretext from the fact that the employer’s policy of precluding the use of PTO during STD leave was not in writing, and concluded that her only protected activity was her filing of an EEOC charge, after which no adverse employment actions were alleged to have occurred (Jones v. Nima Goharkhay PLLC, No. 4:24-cv-1226 (S.D. Tex. Jan. 12, 2026)).

The employee worked for the medical group, which specialized in maternal fetal medicine, since April 2019. The practice was owned by its chief physician, and his wife served as the office manager. A third-party HR vendor provided their payroll system and a designated HR consultant, and also administered optional STD benefits through a national insurer.

STD benefit plan. Under the STD benefit plan, eligible plan holders received approximately 60 percent of their weekly income for up to 26 weeks. The day they become disabled and unable to work is followed by a 14-day elimination period, during which the insurer does not pay benefits. The plan holder then starts to receive weekly payments, the amount of which is based on their income before their disability.

Two pregnancy-related leaves. During her tenure, the employee took two periods of pregnancy-related STD leave. She took her first leave in 2020, at which time she first exhausted all of her accrued PTO before she began to receive STD benefits.

She became pregnant again in 2022. This pregnancy became high risk, and on August 16, the chief physician performed an emergency medical procedure during her second trimester. She was then placed on bedrest for the remainder of her pregnancy.

“Date of disability.” According to the insurer’s records, the employee’s request for STD benefits listed August 16 as the “date of disability.” Therefore, the elimination period started on August 16, and she would begin receiving benefit payments on August 30.

On August 25, the employee asked if she could exhaust her remaining PTO before the STD benefits kicked in. The office manager confirmed that it was too late, in accordance with the practice’s policy to not allow staff to simultaneously receive STD benefits and PTO benefits. However, her PTO would remain available and could be used when she returned back to work.

Dispute over hours. Meanwhile, the office manager advised the insurer that the employee worked only 20 hours per week, resulting in its initial denial of benefits. The employee complained to the office manager, who then sent the insurer a time report exported from HR software that showed she worked an average of 27.83 hours over a 32-week time period. After more back and forth, the employee's claim was finally approved on October 3. After receiving a payment that retroactively included all owed benefits, she then received $480 each week. She claimed this was only a “part-time” benefit.

Files EEOC charge, resigns. She delivered her baby in November. On December 21, she filed an EEOC charge. She returned to work in January 2023, but resigned the following month.

No direct evidence of bias. The court rejected her assertion that the office manager’s email exchange with the HR administrator regarding whether the medical group was required to hold her position open during leave constituted direct evidence of bias. The question was unrelated to any alleged adverse employment actions since she did not claim that she was wrongfully terminated, and the statement had nothing to do with her PTO or her STD benefits. The employer’s updates to its employee handbook relating to PTO/STD access four weeks after learning of her pregnancy also did not constitute direct evidence as nothing indicated the purpose of this update was to target her and her pregnancy.

Neutral policy. Her discrimination claim also failed under the McDonnell Douglas framework. First, the record demonstrated that the employer’s policy did not allow employees who were receiving STD benefits to also receive PTO benefits, and she failed to contest that this policy was facially neutral and consistently applied to all employees. Though she argued that a non-pregnant coworker took STD leave and also received PTO benefits, that individual was not similarly situated since she exhausted her PTO benefits before her STD leave began.

The court also rejected her assertion that pretext could be inferred because no written policy existed precluding the use of PTO during STD leave. First, she failed to point to any provision in the employee handbook which allowed simultaneous use of PTO and STD benefits. “Moreover, the mere fact that an employer has not reduced every single practice or policy to writing, without more, is not evidence that the policy or practice is pretext for unlawful discrimination.”

She also failed to provide any evidence that the employer deviated from its unwritten policy. Rather, the record demonstrated that it treated its staff consistently. For instance, during her first pregnancy, the employee herself first exhausted all of her PTO before she started receiving her STD benefits, and her purported comparator did so as well. This was “in direct contrast” with the employee's second pregnancy, when after an emergency procedure her STD benefit start date was the day after her last day of work, effectively leaving her no ability to take her PTO before the STD benefits began to accrue.

Underreporting claim unsupported. She also failed to present evidence in support of her claim that the employer engaged in discrimination when it allegedly underreported her hours-worked to the insurer, resulting in a lower STD benefit than she was entitled to receive. Other than her own speculation, she cited no evidence that a purported comparator received a higher benefit than she did or that the office manager reported the coworker’s hours to the insurer in a way that allowed her to receive her “full” STD benefit.

Retaliation claim fails. The court also dismissed her retaliation claim since she failed to demonstrate that she engaged in any protected other than filing her EEOC charge, and she did not claim to have suffered any subsequent adverse employment action. Though she claimed that she also engaged in protected activity when she sent an email to the office manager questioning whether the statement that the report showed she only worked 15 hours per week was a typo, the court was unconvinced. The inquiry “reads more as simply a question, rather than any complaint about her treatment,” and as such it was too vague.

The case is No. 4:24-cv-1226.

Judge: Hanen, A.

Attorneys: Charles P. Dunkel, Jr. (Thomson Dunkel) for Kristin Jones. Pamela Banks Linberg (Jackson Lewis) for Nima Goharkhay d/b/a Pregnancy Specialty Center of Texas.

Companies: Pregnancy Specialty Center of Texas

Cases: PregnancyDiscrimination SexDiscrimination Discrimination Retaliation StateLawClaims TexasNews