Imagine this scenario. You’re excelling at your job, hitting your performance targets, and receiving positive feedback from your boss. Then, one day, you announce you’re pregnant. Suddenly, subtle shifts start happening—projects reassigned, responsibilities reduced, and weekly one-on-ones morph into detailed critiques of your “sudden dip” in performance. Weeks later, you’re called into a meeting and handed a termination letter. The documented reason? Performance issues.
This chilling pattern is a reality for many pregnant workers today, and new cases are highlighting the deceptive lengths employers will go to justify such discriminatory actions. Below, we’ll dig into specific cases involving wrongful termination due to pregnancy, explore the legal measures in place, and outline what you, as a worker, should know.
Performance Pretext and the Role of Exculpatory Paper Trails
Pregnancy discrimination is not new. While the Pregnancy Discrimination Act of 1978 (PDA) explicitly prohibits employers from firing or discriminating against workers based on pregnancy, some employers bypass the law by masking their biases under the guise of performance-based terminations. Central to their strategy is the creation of exculpatory paper trails—detailed documentation designed to preemptively justify termination and absolve the employer of discrimination claims in court.
For pregnant workers, this translates to hyper-scrutinization and the sudden creation of a “record” to support claims of underperformance. These paper trails can paint a damning picture that often does not reflect the reality of the employee’s contributions, trying to make it difficult for workers to prove their termination was rooted in discrimination.
Case Spotlights
Mathew v. Santander Consumer USA, Inc.
Reena Mathew, a high-performing employee at Santander Consumer USA, claimed she was targeted after announcing her pregnancy. Her once-positive performance reviews allegedly became alarmingly negative. Santander created a paper trail documenting numerous “performance shortcomings” leading up to her termination. Mathew pushed back, asserting that this was contrived to mask the true motive—her pregnancy. The court sided with Mathew, uncovering glaring inconsistencies in the employer’s claims.
Wyatt v. Publix Super Markets, Inc.
A similar narrative unfolded in Wyatt v. Publix. When Tiffany Wyatt informed her supervisors of her pregnancy, the quality of her performance reviews plummeted inexplicably. Publix claimed declining performance justified her firing. Wyatt, however, provided evidence highlighting the timing of her termination, linking it directly to her due date; Publix fired her, purportedly for completing work without being logged in, although it allegedly never told her this was a problem and didn’t discipline similarly situated workers who weren’t pregnant, the complaint stated.
Zarak v. Netflix
Netflix, often celebrated for its workplace progressivism, faced scrutiny when employee Tania Zarak alleged pregnancy discrimination. She claimed that after disclosing her pregnancy, her team began excluding her from meetings and criticizing minor details of her work that had never been an issue before. Zarak was fired after her boss, Francisco Ramos, became aware of her plans to take maternity leave. According to Zarak, he first pressured her to resign, suggesting that they could negotiate some form of payment or insurance arrangement to facilitate her departure.
The case serves as a troubling example of how even companies with progressive reputations are not immune to engaging in discriminatory practices.
The Legal Lens on Pregnancy Discrimination
These cases underscore the critical role of the Pregnancy Discrimination Act (PDA) and other workplace protections embedded in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, including the Pregnancy Workers Fairness Act, which requires employers to provide reasonable accommodations. While these laws are clear in their intent, proving a violation can sometimes seem a Herculean task.
Burden of Proof
In discrimination cases, employees must present strong evidence showing that adverse actions, like termination, were directly related to pregnancy. Employers often rely on their documentation—such as performance reviews—to argue that terminations were lawful. However, attorneys play a critical role in uncovering inconsistencies in this documentation to reveal the true reason for termination.
For instance, when an employee with a history of positive performance reviews is suddenly terminated for alleged performance issues, attorneys can investigate whether these justifications hold up. They look for signs of uneven application of performance standards, biased evaluation metrics, or abrupt changes in feedback patterns. By examining the timing, context, and motives behind these documents, attorneys can expose discrepancies that suggest the termination was actually related to pregnancy. This deeper analysis often uncovers a more troubling reality that contradicts the employer’s stated reasons for termination.
Remedies for Unlawful Termination
If an employee successfully proves discrimination, remedies can include:
- Back Pay: Compensation for lost wages from the date of firing to the resolution of the case.
- Reinstatement: Returning to their position (if feasible).
- Compensatory and Punitive Damages: For emotional distress and to punish unlawful conduct.
Some states also have additional worker protection laws that grant expanded remedies or impose stricter penalties on violators.
Empowering Pregnant Workers
The reality of pregnancy discrimination is daunting, but workers aren’t powerless. Here’s how you can protect yourself if you feel targeted at your workplace:
- Document Everything
Keep thorough records of interactions with your employer, including emails, performance reviews, and informal feedback. This can help build your case if discrimination occurs.
- Understand Your Rights
Familiarize yourself with the Pregnancy Discrimination Act of 1978 and related state laws to ensure you know what protections you’re entitled to.
- Seek Legal Advice
Don’t wait until things escalate. Consulting an employment attorney early can help you understand your options and prepare a strategic response to discriminatory treatment.
Concluding Thoughts
The systemic nature of pregnancy discrimination reflects broader inequities in the workplace. While many companies hide behind performance claims, exposing these lies and ensuring accountability is possible—and crucial for fostering a just labor landscape.
If you’re facing termination or other adverse actions at work after announcing your pregnancy, know that you’re not alone. Seek support, lean on credible legal resources, and consider shining a light on the injustices you’re experiencing. Empowering pregnant workers is key to dismantling these pretexts and building a fairer workplace for all.
