Pregnancy Discrimination On Trial In Washington

• Published date: 12 January 2022
• Subject Matter: Employment and HR, Discrimination, Disability & Sexual Harassment, Employment Litigation/ Tribunals
• Law Firm: Wood, Smith, Henning & Berman LLP
• Author: Wood, Smith, Henning & Berman LLP

After appealing the trial court's grant of summary judgment, a hospital manager will get her day in court. In Crabtree v. Jefferson Healthcare, the Court of Appeals (Div. 3) found that a genuine issue of material fact exists as to the reasons for the employee's termination of a pregnant employee and subsequently, the case should be heard and decided upon by a jury.

Background

Plaintiff, Jillian Crabtree, was employed by the defendant, Jefferson Healthcare, as the manager of patient access services. She began her employment in May of 2018. About seven months into the position, Crabtree received her first performance evaluation. In the evaluation, Crabtree was rated as 'meeting expectations' in 12 out of 16 categories. In addition, the areas that needed improvement were noted and she was given direction on how to improve in these areas. A two page letter from her supervisor was also included in the performance review that indicated that she was having a 'nice first year' and 'had done a nice job stepping into an entirely new career.'

In December 2018, Crabtree informed her supervisor that she was pregnant. The supervisor replied, 'Wow. Poor Jen. She's going to be without a whole staff this spring/summer.' The supervisor was referring to the fact that another manager on the team was pregnant as well and due during the same timeframe. Upon relaying this information to a second supervisor, Crabtree was congratulated, asked if she planned to take leave, and also asked if she would be interested in taking a lesser role upon her return. Crabtree responded that she did plan to take leave, but that she liked her job and would not be interested in taking a lesser role upon her return. At a staff meeting, the same supervisor informed the team that they would be short-staffed for spring and summer because Crabtree and her co-worker were both pregnant.

In February, 2019, Crabtree went to Human Resources to discuss her options for maternity leave. The day after this meeting, Crabtree was informed that she was being placed on a thirty day 'Performance Improvement Plan' (PIP). Her supervisor stated that they had 'noticed large gaps in her success and that she had significant performance issues.' The supervisor went on to list ways she was not meeting expected job performance and told Crabtree that it was unlikely that she would be able to bridge the gap in the thirty days given her to improve under the PIP. She also stated that she may want to consider roles with less...