The Sixth Circuit recently emphasized the importance of how supervisors manage pregnancy-related accommodations and workplace communications.
Background
Jackilyn Bunnell, a hospital ultrasonographer, told her supervisor that she was pregnant and requested certain accommodations, such as avoiding X-rays and patients with infectious diseases. While initially supportive, her supervisor was unhappy with the proposed accommodations. She told Bunnell that her requests were “putting a strain on the department” and suggested she needed to be “more flexible.”
During COVID-related layoffs, Bunnell and another pregnant employee were selected for termination, ostensibly based on performance metrics. Bunnell argued these metrics were subjective, inconsistently applied, and failed to account for her significant workload, which were the second highest hours worked in her department. After taking FMLA leave for childbirth, she inquired about returning.
The hospital instituted a program attempting to bring the laid-off employees back to work. At some point, it was made known to the supervisor that another position existed in a different location that Bunnell may be qualified for upon her return from leave. However, she did not disclose to the person who inquired that Bunnell might be available, nor did she make this position known to Bunnell when she called later that same day to inquire about returning to work. Bunnell was ultimately permanently laid off. She filed suit alleging violations of Title VII (pregnancy discrimination and retaliation), the ADA, the FMLA and related state laws.
Court Rulings
The District Court granted the hospital’s motion for summary judgment and dismissed all federal claims in favor of the hospital. The Sixth Circuit reversed in part, reinstating Bunnell’s claims for pregnancy discrimination and interference under the FMLA.
The appellate court emphasized that pregnancy discrimination does not require proof of different treatment compared to non-pregnant employees, only that pregnancy factored into the layoff. Here, the supervisor’s negative comments, the subjective or selective application of the performance metrics, and the fact that both terminated employees were pregnant created enough evidence to raise a genuine question of pretext and whether her pregnancy was a motivating factor for her layoff.
The court also found that the hospital’s failure to notify Bunnell about the open position constituted interference with her FMLA rights, effectively penalizing her for taking protected leave.
Key Takeaways for Employers
- Supervisor statements matter. Remarks linking pregnancy to workplace strain or flexibility can establish a discriminatory motive and serve as powerful evidence of discrimination.
- Objective data must be truly objective. Subjectively or selectively applied performance metrics may support a finding of pretext.
- Pregnancy nexus standard is distinct. Under the circumstances, the law only requires showing that pregnancy factored into the decision, not unequal treatment.
- FMLA obligations include communication. Employers must inform employees on leave about available positions; withholding opportunities can amount to interference.
Conclusion
This ruling serves as a reminder that compliance with Title VII, the Pregnancy Discrimination Act and the FMLA requires more than formal policies—it requires careful communication, transparency and fair application of performance criteria. Employers should train supervisors on pregnancy-related accommodations and ensure that workforce reduction decisions are both consistent and well-documented.
Contact
To discuss further, contact KJK Labor & Employment attorneys Maribeth Meluch, Beth Spain or Alan Rauss by calling our office at 216.696.8700.