2
***Respond JD ( no more than 200-250 )
I would expect the following to be written evidence: All email communications between Mavis, Carlee, and Bigly (plus any other email communication with “AC” employees in reference to Mavis’ pregnancy and potential repercussions/accommodations. It is important to highlight that several times it was suggested by management that Mavis move into a lesser role once her pregnancy became known. The performance improvement plan definitely needs to be included because it acknowledges Mavis’ attendance issues were directly pertaining to her pregnancy related doctors’ visits and disciplines her regardless (this to a neutral third-party would clearly look like AC is attempting to build a paper trail against Mavis).
For any potential litigation that may result, Mavis as the ‘alleged’ victim of pregnancy discrimination would have to give deposed testimony. She could give a first-hand account of her clear attempts to comply with the law and company policy, of how she repeatedly sought feedback on job analysis, and how the increased workload related stress affected her during the pregnancy. Carlee and Bigly on the other hand would likely have to be deposed to give testimony about the situation. Carlee would have to attempt to reconcile her December evaluation of Mavis, and her acknowledgement in the PIP that the absences by Mavis were pregnancy-related and explain why those items conflict. Plus, she needs to explain the failure to provide timely work-related feedback when requested. Almost more troubling would-be Biglys’ assertions that woman not returning from maternity leave, him putting forth a demotion as an acceptable solution, and the decision to terminate a woman in the hospital who was actively giving birth.
(**This is Jacob’s actual opinion here, jeez the actions taken by Bigly and Carlee are utterly repugnant and indefensible, aren’t they?)
Take-Away Lesson for Businesses
As seen in the simulation from this week, direct interaction with supervision and management in relation to issues like pregnancy can go sideways real-quick. I would recommend that Companies always have an HR department, and it would be that departments responsibility to comply with company policy AND the law regarding pregnancy-care, maternity-leave, etc. Sort of like how it’s advisable for Corporations to have an Ethics Officer and policy. As it relates to this case, a strong HR department would provide training for L-coded employees (employees with direct reports) on PDA requirements, prohibiting comments about pregnant employee’s intent to return or asserting that they won’t return from leave, and ensure proper oversight of performance evaluations/ discipline so that those items cannot be weaponized against pregnant employees
**Respond VD ( no more than 200-250 words)
Based on the Simulation Case Study Evidence File, there is sufficient evidence to support a claim of pregnancy discrimination under Title VII as amended by the Pregnancy Discrimination Act (PDA). The evidence suggests that the employee was treated less favorably after disclosing her pregnancy and was subjected to adverse employment actions that were not imposed on similarly situated non-pregnant employees.
From the materials provided—meeting notes, internal emails, and recorded conversations—it is reasonable to anticipate testimony showing a shift in managerial attitude and expectations following the pregnancy disclosure. Likely testimony would include statements by supervisors expressing concern about the employee’s “availability,” “reliability,” or “future commitment,” which courts have consistently recognized as indicators of pregnancy-based bias. These comments, while sometimes framed as operational concerns, can serve as circumstantial evidence that pregnancy was a motivating factor in employment decisions.
Key depositions would likely include the immediate supervisor, HR personnel involved in performance discussions, and decision-makers responsible for discipline or termination. Written evidence would include internal emails discussing staffing adjustments, performance documentation created after the pregnancy disclosure, and any deviations from established accommodation or performance-management practices. Temporal proximity between the pregnancy disclosure and adverse actions strengthens the inference of discriminatory motive.
Analyzing the employer’s conduct over the relevant period reveals a pattern of inconsistent application of policy. Performance concerns appear to emerge only after the pregnancy became known, and there is no indication that the employer engaged in a good-faith interactive process to assess whether the employee could continue working with reasonable accommodation. Instead, the employer’s actions suggest reliance on assumptions about pregnancy rather than individualized assessment, which is precisely what the PDA prohibits.
Take-away lesson for businesses:
Employers must treat pregnancy as a neutral condition, not a proxy for reduced capability or commitment. The most important risk-management lesson is that employment decisions must be grounded in documented, objective performance criteria applied consistently across all employees, and employers should engage proactively in dialogue about accommodations rather than acting on stereotypes. Clear policies, supervisor training, and early HR involvement are essential to preventing PDA violations and protecting both employees and the organization.
