Reported / Citable
Background
Natalie Smith began working for Xpansiv Data Systems, Inc. in May 2023 and underwent a 12-week training period. Xpansiv said her supervisor, Rebecca Teigen, observed problems involving time management, preparation, note-taking, and client communications. Smith countered that Teigen gave her no formal negative feedback during that period and praised her work.
Smith disclosed her pregnancy during an August 10, 2023 meeting. She alleged that Teigen’s management style then changed almost immediately, with increased scrutiny and documentation of purported performance deficiencies. Xpansiv placed Smith on a performance improvement plan in September. Smith complained that the PIP followed her pregnancy disclosure and suggested an improper motive. Xpansiv terminated her on October 13, 2023, asserting poor performance.
Smith sued under Title VII, the Pregnancy Discrimination Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act, and the Texas Labor Code. She asserted pregnancy and disability discrimination, retaliation, failure to accommodate, and hostile-work-environment claims. Xpansiv moved for summary judgment on all claims.
The Court’s Holding
The court granted summary judgment to Xpansiv on Smith’s pregnancy-discrimination claims because she did not identify a similarly situated employee outside her protected class who received more favorable treatment under nearly identical circumstances. It also dismissed her ADA disability-discrimination and failure-to-accommodate claims because being at risk of developing high blood pressure or preeclampsia did not establish a disability. Smith’s ADA retaliation claim failed because she did not identify an ADA-protected activity causally connected to her termination, and her Title VII hostile-work-environment allegations were not sufficiently severe or pervasive.
The court denied summary judgment on Smith’s PWFA failure-to-accommodate claim. Smith requested a delayed start time, frequent breaks, and permission to leave her desk and walk around. Conflicting evidence about whether Teigen approved or prohibited those accommodations created genuine disputes of material fact.
The court also allowed Smith’s retaliation claims under Title VII, the PDA, and the Texas Labor Code to proceed. Her complaint that the PIP was imposed because of her pregnancy was protected activity, and the timing supported a prima facie causal inference. Although Xpansiv offered poor performance as a legitimate reason for termination, a jury could find pretext based on evidence that Teigen anticipated litigation, documented alleged deficiencies after Smith complained, and recommended termination despite Smith passing her final training panel.
Key Takeaways
- The PWFA claim survives because the evidence conflicts over whether Xpansiv granted or denied Smith’s requested pregnancy-related accommodations.
- A jury may decide whether Xpansiv’s stated performance rationale was genuine or whether alleged deficiencies were documented or manufactured in response to Smith’s discrimination complaint.
- The pregnancy-discrimination claim itself fails for lack of a similarly situated comparator, while the asserted risk of future pregnancy complications does not establish an ADA disability.
Why It Matters
The decision distinguishes pregnancy discrimination from an employer’s separate accommodation obligations under the PWFA. Even though Smith could not establish the comparator element required for her disparate-treatment theory, disputed evidence about her accommodation requests was sufficient to require a trial under the PWFA.
The ruling also illustrates how a retaliation claim may survive despite an employer’s documented performance rationale. When the timing and circumstances permit an inference that performance documentation was created in anticipation of a discrimination suit, the credibility of that rationale may be a question for the jury.