Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, RETALIATION—W.D. Tenn.: Sonographer fired after complaining about breast milk pumping breaks entitled to trial on retaliation claim, (Nov 18, 2025)

By Kathleen Kapusta, J.D.

The sonographer was unable, however, to advance her PUMP Act claim alleging that the breaks provided to pump were not sufficient.

A cardiology clinic that provided a sonographer with three breaks a day to express breast milk was entitled to summary judgment on her PUMP Act claim, a federal court in Tennessee ruled, even though the break times she was provided were not necessarily at the exact times she claimed she needed. The employee’s claim she was fired in retaliation for exercising her rights under the Act survived the employer’s motion, however. Nor was the clinic entitled to summary judgment on its after-acquired evidence defense it would have fired the employee for HIPAA violations it discovered after her termination (Newell v. Cardiovascular Clinic of West Tennessee, P.C., No. 1:24-cv-01224-STA-jay (W.D. Tenn. Nov. 17, 2025)).

About two weeks after she was hired, the employee told the clinic she was pregnant. While her employer claimed her ultrasound reports were often late, it never provided her with a written evaluation of her performance. She was, however, allowed to take unpaid maternity leave even though the clinic was not subject to the FMLA. While she was on leave, the clinic hired another sonographer.

Break requests. Shortly before she returned to work, the employee texted the office manager that as “long as I get to pump around 9:00 and 3:00 and get my lunch relatively on time, that’ll work well.” The officer manager never responded. She also texted the new sonographer stating that she would “need to pump at 9am and 3pm every day (give or take maybe 20 mins on each side) and I’ll have to get lunch relatively on time for that reason as well.”

Unacceptable. Before she returned to work, the clinic owner told the employee it would no longer be acceptable for her to take 90 minutes to do an ultrasound when the other technologist completed them in under an hour. This prompted the employee to tell a coworker that “they are trying to boot me out the door and disguise the discrimination (cuz I texted Abby... without any acknowledgment last week, about times needed for pumping) by saying I’m incompetent.”

Accommodations. During a meeting with the employee to discuss her return, the clinic told her it would provide her with accommodations so that she could pump breast milk at work three times a day. It also provided her with a private office in which to pump.

After she returned, the employee was late to work every day. She also frequently turned in her ultrasound reports late. She argued, however, that the only computer available for her to use to complete the reports was in her coworker’s exam room and she had to wait until the computer was available and a patient was not in the room to use the computer.

Termination. A little more than a month after she returned, the owner and office manager met with her to discuss her performance issues. According to the owner, he was not planning to terminate the employee at that time. During the meeting, however, the employee complained that she was not getting adequate time for her pump breaks, among other things. In response, the owner stated, “[S]ay whatever you want, get a lawyer, we’ll go with that. Do work like we tell you to do or get out…You’re fired. F**k off. Get out.”

The day after she returned to work, the employee began taking photographs of ultrasound schedules with her cell phone to show she was not receiving sufficient break times. A nurse believed she was committing a HIPAA violation because patient names were visible on the schedules. When the owner learned of this, he asked someone to investigate it more thoroughly. It was not mentioned during the meeting in which the employee was terminated.

Reasonable breaks. After her termination, the employee sued under the Providing Urgent Maternal Protections (PUMP) Act, which requires employers to provide, among other things, “a reasonable break time for an employee to express breast milk for such employee’s nursing child for 1 year after the child’s birth each time such employee has need to express the milk.” Although the clinic argued it provided her with “reasonable” break times, the employee countered that she was not provided with the break times she needed. Pointing out that the employee was given break times during the morning, afternoon, and at lunch in which to pump, the court explained that the issue was whether it was reasonable under the PUMP Act for the clinic to provide approximate times for pumping as opposed to the employee’s demand for specific times.

Here, the court observed, while the employee claimed she requested specific times to pump—9 a.m., noon, and 3 p.m.—she stated in her text to the office manager that “I think as long as I get to pump around 9:00 and 3:00 and get my lunch relatively on time, that’ll work well” and texted her coworker that “I will need to pump at 9am and 3pm every day (give or take maybe 20 mins on each side) and I’ll have to get lunch relatively on time for that reason as well.” Noting that the clinic’s timecards showed the employee did receive pumping breaks as requested, although not necessarily at the exact times she subsequently claimed she needed, the court found her PUMP Act claim failed.

Retaliation. As to the employee’s retaliation claim, which she brought under the FLSA’s retaliation provisions, the court found she engaged in protected activity when she asked for breaks for pumping under the PUMP Act and then complained when she did not get the breaks at the times she thought she should.

The court also found evidence of a causal connection between that protected activity and her termination. Noting that this appeared to be a rare case in which temporal proximity alone could satisfy the causal prong, the court pointed out that the employee was fired during the meeting with the owner in which she complained about not being able to take timely pump breaks and mentioned her attorney. Further, the owner stated that he had no intention of terminating her during that meeting. This, said the court, was sufficient evidence “to raise an inference that her protected activity was the likely reason for the adverse action.”

Pretext. As to pretext, the court again pointed out that the owner stated that he had no intent to terminate the employee during the meeting over performance issues but after she complained about her pump breaks and mentioned an attorney, he told her “say whatever you want, get a lawyer, we’ll go with that. Do work like we tell you to do or get out…You’re fired. F**k off. Get out.” Finding fact issues as to the reason the employee was fired, the court denied summary judgment on this claim.

After-acquired evidence. Finally, the court turned to the clinic’s contention that the employee’s photocopying to her own personal phone of confidential patient documents in violation of both its policies and procedures and HIPAA would have ultimately led to her termination. While it argued that it only obtained the information necessary to fire the employee the day after her termination when the owner more fully investigated the nurse’s report that the employee had taken photographs of patient records for her own personal use, the doctor acknowledged he knew the employee had potentially violated HIPPA prior to her termination.

Explaining that “the after-acquired evidence defense is premised on the employer’s learning of some sort of wrongdoing after the fact that would have necessitated terminating the employee had the information been known beforehand,” the court found the clinic failed to show it did not know of the employee’s alleged wrongdoing before the meeting at which she was fired. Accordingly, the court denied the clinic’s motion for summary judgment on this claim.

The case is No. 1:24-cv-01224-STA-jay.

Judge: Anderson, S.T.

Attorneys: Bryce William Ashby (Donati Law Firm) for Ashden Newell. Teresa A. Luna (Spragins, Barnett & Cobb) for The Cardiovascular Clinic of West Tennessee, P.C., and Adeyinka Agbetoyin, M.D.

Companies: The Cardiovascular Clinic of West Tennessee, P.C.

Cases: Retaliation Discrimination Discharge TennesseeNews