The consequences of the failure to properly train supervisors regarding a company’s responsibilities to employees who become pregnant can be seen in the case of Arismendez v. Nightingale Home Health Care, Inc.
Mariluz Arismendez (“Arismendez”) was a customer service representative for Nightingale Home Health Care, Inc. (“Nightingale”). Shortly after starting her employment, Arismendez discovered she was pregnant with her third child. Approximately five months into her pregnancy, Arismendez began experiencing abdominal pain related to her pregnancy. Arismendez’s doctor ordered bed rest. Thereafter, Arismendez’s doctor extended her period of bed rest several times, setting a new work release date after each extension.
While attempting to deliver notice of her doctor’s most recent extension of her period of bed rest to her supervisor, Arismendez was told she had been terminated several weeks prior for “excessive sick leave/job abandonment.” Arismendez’s supervisor also stated that although it was illegal to fire an employee because the employee was pregnant, the supervisor had a business to run and “could not take having a pregnant woman in the office.” Thereafter, Arismendez filed suit alleging pregnancy discrimination.
At trial, the jury found in favor of Arismendez and awarded her damages of $26,150 in back pay, $10,000 in compensatory damages and $1,000,000 in punitive damages, later reduced by the trial court to $200,000 because of a statutory damage cap. Upon a post-trial motion, the trial court rejected the jury’s verdict and dismissed Arismendez’s case holding she had not presented sufficient evidence of pregnancy discrimination.
On appeal, Arismendez argued the supervisor’s statements were sufficient evidence to establish pregnancy discrimination. Nightingale responded that the supervisor’s comments could not establish liability because the supervisor did not make the decision to terminate Arismendez. The court agreed with Arismendez, holding that her case involved a question of credibility, which the jury could answer in her favor based on the supervisor’s statements. Moreover, the fact that the supervisor did not make the decision to terminate Arismendez did not shield Nightingale from liability because it was the supervisor’s recommendation to the decisionmaker which led to Arismendez’s termination. Accordingly, the jury verdict was reinstated.
The Arismendez case demonstrates the importance of training supervisory personnel about pregnancy discrimination. If the Nightingale supervisor had been trained not to make decisions based upon, nor comments about, an employee’s pregnancy, the judgment against Nightingale may have been avoided.
If you have a question about pregnancy discrimination, please telephone a member of the firm.