Was 4th Pregnancy Reason Bank Fired Employee?

What Do You Think?

While the timing of terminating an employee matters when it comes to avoiding FMLA disputes, so do other circumstances. One case shows, for example, how the level of clarity surrounding the termination process can make the difference in whether a case goes forward or goes the way of the dinosaurs.

In that case, the long-time bank employee, who ultimately worked as an Advice & Planning Strategic Consultant for the company, had already had three maternity leaves, receiving FMLA for each one.

She met with a manager on Jan. 31, 2023. Later, she told the court, she "looked pregnant" at the meeting, and that other teammates noticed that she was pregnant, and that the manager who ultimately fired her sat across from her at the meeting.

But it was not until February 6 that she informed the company that she was pregnant. She applied for FMLA leave that same time.  This time, her maternity leave would have been longer, and, unlike the three previous instances, would have paid 100 percent of her salary.

The company fired her 15 days after the meeting. But it was unclear whether the manager made the final decision to terminate her before or after she requested leave. According to the manager, he was, in November 2022, already planning to eliminate her position through the company’s Reduction in Force process.

The manager said he didn’t decide to fire her until after HR sent him notice that the RIF process was complete, which was in early February. The RIF process required a pool of candidates. The manager said he made a change to the RIF and that employee was selected from a "pool of one." 

The employee sued the company for FMLA interference, as well as pregnancy discrimination. The company argued that she had no case..

To establish an FMLA interference claim an employee must show that:

1. She is entitled to an FMLA benefit; 
2. Her employer interfered with the provision of that benefit; and
3. That interference caused harm.

Did the employee establish a plausible case that her leave request and firing were connected?

A. Yes. Her firing shortly after meeting with her manager, and questions about whether the RIF process was implemented according to company policy, suggested a possible discriminatory motive.

B. No. The company fired her because it needed to reduce its workforce, not because she sought pregnancy leave.

If you selected A, you agreed with the court in Ferretti v. Truist Financial Corp., No.3:23-cv-352-MOC-SCR (W.D.N.C. 12/30/24), which allowed the case to go forward.

The court pointed out that the company terminated the employee just 15 days after she asked for FMLA leave, suggesting the possibility that the two events were connected.

Further, it was not clear when the final decision to terminate her was made. “A reasonable finder of fact could determine that the final decision was made after her request for FMLA leave, and therefore Defendant interfered with her entitlement to a benefit,” the court wrote.

But What About Pregnancy Discrimination?

The court also found that the employee established a viable case of pregnancy discrimination. It noted that the supervisor made changes to the RIF after meeting with her and seeing she was pregnant. The closeness in time between the meeting and termination also indicated possible discrimination. Finally, the circumstances of the RIF itself were potentially suspect.

The court denied the employer’s request to dismiss the lawsuit.

Share This Article: