A handy guide on what not to do.
A federal judge in Florida has ruled that a former Human Resources manager for a law firm will get a jury trial on her claims related to her termination right before she was due to return from maternity leave.
The alleged facts of this case occurred in 2019, long before the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act was signed into law. All the more reason for employers to pay attention. Things are only going to get harder from now on.
Even outside the context of pregnancy accommodation, the case also has some painful reminders about how -- and how not -- to terminate an employee.
Sandy Harrigan was hired in February 2019 to be the law firm’s HR manager. The next month, she learned that she was pregnant, and told her immediate boss and the firm CEO. She requested, and was granted, time off on a number of occasions to go to doctor’s appointments.
In July 2019, she had unspecified complications, and her doctor recommended that she be allowed to “work from home as much as possible to allow for lateral rest time.” I’m not sure what “lateral rest time” means, but I assume that for her it meant taking breaks or lying down periodically throughout the day. Ms. Harrigan asked her boss whether she could work from home.
The boss said no, but said she could work a reduced schedule at the office.
(In the firm's defense, this was pre-COVID, when working remotely was not as common as it was soon to become.)
In any event, the baby was born in October 2019, mother and baby were both fine, and Ms. Harrigan began her maternity leave. While she was on leave, the law firm contacted her and asked her to return to work early. Wow! They must have really liked her! Ms. Harrigan agreed, and an early return date was set. (Since she had been employed less than a year, she would not have been entitled to leave under the Family and Medical Leave Act.)
Ms. Harrington returned to work early, and everyone lived happily ever after.
I was just kidding.
Five days before Ms. Harrington was scheduled to come back to work, the law firm fired her. According to the firm, she was a terrible employee with all kinds of performance issues.
The problem for the firm was that she had never been disciplined or even counseled about any performance issues. Ever. And her alleged worst mistake occurred in July or August 2019, so the firm had had plenty of time to address it before the baby was born.
As the judge noted, “The circumstances surrounding her firing are, at minimum, peculiar.” He got that right.
Why on earth did they ask her to come back early, only to fire her before she could do it? Were they hoping the request to come back early would get her to quit, and she foiled them by agreeing to it? I have no idea, but I agree with the judge that it was "peculiar."
At minimum.
If she was indeed a poor performer, of course the firm should have addressed those issues with her and documented them as well. And they should never have asked her to return to work ahead of schedule, which indicates that she was a good performer.
Ms. Harrington also claimed, in this pre-PWFA lawsuit, that the law firm violated her rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Florida Civil Rights Act by failing to make reasonable accommodations for her pregnancy-related complications.
The firm will have to go to trial on these claims, too.
The firm contended that it could not accommodate Ms. Harrington's need to work from home because being onsite was an essential function of her job. There were a few problems with this, too. The firm already allowed two other management-level employees to work remotely. Also, Ms. Harrington's job description said nothing about the need to be onsite, and the duties specified in the job description that required employee interaction seemed capable of being performed via phone or email.
The firm also tried to argue that, in any event, it did accommodate Ms. Harrington by shortening her work day by two and a half hours. Could be, but Ms. Harrington contended that in fact she was working her full schedule almost every day. Sometimes, she said, she worked more than an eight-hour day. That means a jury will have to decide whether the firm actually gave her a reduced schedule or not.
The court also noted that, since her doctor said she needed “lateral rest,” there was a question as to whether even a reduced onsite schedule would have accommodated her condition. So the jury will also have to decide whether the reduced schedule -- assuming it was provided -- was in fact a reasonable accommodation. And her request to work from home full-time was arguably not “unreasonable” because it was only for a couple of months. And did I mention that they let other people work from home?
Of course, this was only a decision denying the law firm's motion for summary judgment. A jury could end up finding in favor of the law firm. But, as the Magic 8 Ball would say, "Outlook not so good."
You may have deduced that the law firm doesn't do employment law. You deduced correctly.
- Partner
Robin has more than 30 years' experience counseling employers and representing them before government agencies and in employment litigation involving Title VII and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, the Americans with ...
Robin Shea has 30 years' experience in employment litigation, including Title VII and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act (including the Amendments Act).
Continue Reading
Subscribe
Contributors
- William A. "Zan" Blue, Jr.
- Obasi Bryant
- Kenneth P. Carlson, Jr.
- James M. Coleman
- Cara Yates Crotty
- Lara C. de Leon
- Christopher R. Deubert
- Joyce M. Dos Santos
- Colin Finnegan
- Steven B. Katz
- Ellen C. Kearns
- F. Damon Kitchen
- David C. Kurtz
- Angelique Groza Lyons
- John E. MacDonald
- Alyssa K. Peters
- Sarah M. Phaff
- David P. Phippen
- William K. Principe
- Sabrina M. Punia-Ly
- Angela L. Rapko
- Rachael Rustmann
- Paul Ryan
- Piyumi M. Samaratunga
- Robin E. Shea
- Kristine Marie Sims
- David L. Smith
- Jill S. Stricklin
- Jack R. Wallace
Archives
- November 2024
- October 2024
- September 2024
- August 2024
- July 2024
- June 2024
- May 2024
- April 2024
- March 2024
- February 2024
- January 2024
- December 2023
- November 2023
- October 2023
- September 2023
- August 2023
- July 2023
- June 2023
- May 2023
- April 2023
- March 2023
- February 2023
- January 2023
- December 2022
- November 2022
- October 2022
- September 2022
- August 2022
- July 2022
- June 2022
- May 2022
- April 2022
- March 2022
- February 2022
- January 2022
- December 2021
- November 2021
- October 2021
- September 2021
- August 2021
- July 2021
- June 2021
- May 2021
- April 2021
- March 2021
- February 2021
- January 2021
- December 2020
- November 2020
- October 2020
- September 2020
- August 2020
- July 2020
- June 2020
- May 2020
- April 2020
- March 2020
- February 2020
- January 2020
- December 2019
- November 2019
- October 2019
- September 2019
- August 2019
- July 2019
- June 2019
- May 2019
- April 2019
- March 2019
- February 2019
- January 2019
- December 2018
- November 2018
- October 2018
- September 2018
- August 2018
- July 2018
- June 2018
- May 2018
- April 2018
- March 2018
- February 2018
- January 2018
- December 2017
- November 2017
- October 2017
- September 2017
- August 2017
- July 2017
- June 2017
- May 2017
- April 2017
- March 2017
- February 2017
- January 2017
- December 2016
- November 2016
- October 2016
- September 2016
- August 2016
- July 2016
- June 2016
- May 2016
- April 2016
- March 2016
- February 2016
- January 2016
- December 2015
- November 2015
- October 2015
- September 2015
- August 2015
- July 2015
- June 2015
- May 2015
- April 2015
- March 2015
- February 2015
- January 2015
- December 2014
- November 2014
- October 2014
- September 2014
- August 2014
- July 2014
- June 2014
- May 2014
- April 2014
- March 2014
- February 2014
- January 2014
- December 2013
- November 2013
- October 2013
- September 2013
- August 2013
- July 2013
- June 2013
- May 2013
- April 2013
- March 2013
- February 2013
- January 2013
- December 2012
- November 2012
- October 2012
- September 2012
- August 2012
- July 2012
- June 2012
- May 2012
- April 2012
- March 2012
- February 2012
- January 2012
- December 2011
- November 2011
- October 2011
- September 2011
- August 2011
- July 2011
- June 2011
- May 2011
- April 2011
- March 2011
- February 2011
- January 2011
- December 2010
- November 2010
- October 2010