Employee's Firing Over Abortion Violated Federal Law

A federal appeals court in Philadelphia has ruled for the first time that firing an employee for having an abortion is a form of gender discrimination that violates federal law.

The 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals reinstated the "Jane Doe" plaintiff's claims that her employer violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 as amended by the Pregnancy Discrimination Act.

The PDA prohibits discrimination "because of sex," including pregnancy, childbirth and related medical conditions. The appeals court held that abortions fall under "related medical conditions."

The panel also found that Doe raised an inference of discrimination because she was fired just three days after she told her supervisor she planned to have an abortion.

According to the opinion, C.A.R.S. Protection Plus, which sells warranties for used vehicles, hired Doe as a graphic artist in June 1999.

After finding out that she was pregnant, Doe told Fred Kohl, one of the company's owners, and asked about making up time she would be spending at doctor's appointments, according to her complaint.

When her doctor discovered problems with her blood work, Doe took several days off with Kohl's approval, the opinion says. Kohl required that Doe or her husband call the office every day while she was out.

The Does decided to terminate the pregnancy after her doctor told them the fetus had severe deformities, according to the opinion. Doe's husband told Kohl about the abortion, and Kohl approved a one-week vacation for Doe to recover from the procedure.

On the day of the baby's funeral Kohl directed a co-worker to pack up Doe's personal belongings from her desk, according to the opinion.

When Doe heard about this, she called Kohl, who told her she had been fired, the opinion says.

Doe sued the company in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania under Title VII, claiming that she was fired because she underwent an abortion.

C.A.R.S. countered that Doe was fired because she failed to call in on a daily basis while she was "on vacation" after the abortion.

The District Court granted summary judgment to C.A.R.S. and sealed the record.

Doe turned to the 3rd Circuit, which reversed and remanded, saying she established a prima facie case under the PDA by showing that:

• She is a member of a protected class;
• She was qualified for her position;
• She was pregnant, and C.A.R.S. knew she was pregnant; and
• She suffered an adverse employment action.

The facts that Doe was required to call in to Kohl on a daily basis while other employees were not and that she was fired just three days after her husband told Kohl about the abortion raise an inference that her termination was causally related to her decision to end her pregnancy, the panel said.

Since there were fact issues as to whether the company's proffered reasons for firing Doe were a pretext for discrimination, the appeals court panel reinstated her claims and remanded for a trial.

To comment, ask questions or contribute articles, contact West.Andrews.Editor@Thomson.com.

Doe is represented by Gary Davis in Pittsburgh.Counsel for C.A.R.S. is Robert Waine in Murrysville, Pa.