Roseville Store Sued For Harassment By Pregnant Employee, Part 7 of 19

(Please note: the names and locations of all parties have been changed to protect the confidentiality of the participants in this workplace harassment/sex discrimination case and its proceedings.)


There is ample direct evidence that Plaintiff was fired over her pregnancy/accommodation and complaints. First, both Mr. Davis and Mr. Chan constantly told Plaintiff to quit or go on disability over her pregnancy and accommodation requests. Second, the other comments that were made (i.e., don’t give a shit about your claims of harassment, pregnant women have hormones and attitudes and you should quit or go on disability, can’t ask for help to lift things, etc.) were made by Mr. Davis and Mr. Chan as well. Third, when Plaintiff asked to go to the doctor she was suspended to not going back to work.

Aside from all the comments and statements there is further direct evidence in the actions taken against her. First, Plaintiff was verbally disciplined for talking about her pregnancy. Healthmart Foods uses a progressive discipline scheme with the typical steps being: 1) verbal, 2) 1st written, 3) 2nd written, and 4) final. The verbal/action plan for telling people she was pregnant was the first step of the discipline. In the termination decision, Mr. Davis looked back to see if she had each step and the fact that she did factored into his decision to fire her. He very possibly would not have fired her had she not had all the steps of the discipline.

Finally, Mr. Davis admitted in deposition to a bias in his mind about Plaintiff’s pregnancy. Mr. Davis thought in his head that the reasons that Plaintiff was disputed the counseling is because she was pregnant and she did not have to worry about anything. That is the attitude he had and he listed it in his email. (See Part 8 of 19.)

For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.

Contact Information