News

Pregnancy Discrimination in 2025: The Manhattan Case Making Waves

Introduction

In a high-stakes legal battle unfolding in Manhattan, a former HR professional has brought pregnancy discrimination claims against one of the largest banking institutions in the world. This case has ignited widespread discussion about how companies respond to pregnant employees, and whether internal policies truly protect them from bias and retaliation.

Despite evolving legal protections and increased awareness, the lawsuit illustrates that many pregnant workers still face career-altering consequences after disclosing their pregnancies. The implications are clear: failure to adequately support expecting employees not only carries legal risks but also reflects deeper cultural issues within workplace leadership.

The Allegations and Legal Action

The plaintiff, a mid-level HR business partner, was employed at a major bank headquartered in Manhattan. According to the complaint, she had a history of solid performance and had received positive reviews prior to a change in management. Once her new supervisor assumed control—and shortly after she disclosed her pregnancy—her work environment allegedly shifted.

The complaint alleges that within weeks of sharing her pregnancy news, the plaintiff was placed on a 30-day performance improvement plan. After she completed that plan, the company extended it for another 90 days, citing alleged deficiencies in time management and communication—issues she claims were never raised prior to her pregnancy disclosure.

Eventually, her employment was terminated. The plaintiff asserts that the performance-related justifications were merely pretext and that her dismissal was motivated by discriminatory views about her pregnancy and future availability.

While the court dismissed her retaliation claim, the judge ruled that there was sufficient evidence for a jury to consider whether pregnancy discrimination occurred. The lack of documentation regarding the alleged performance problems weighed heavily in that decision.

Understanding Pregnancy Discrimination

At its core, pregnancy discrimination occurs when an employee is treated unfavorably due to pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions. It can manifest in various forms: denial of promotions, unwarranted discipline, termination, or failure to provide reasonable accommodations.

What makes these cases especially challenging is the subtlety with which discrimination can occur. Rarely do employers state explicitly that a decision was based on pregnancy. Instead, biased actions are often cloaked in vague language about “performance,” “team fit,” or “availability.”

In this case, the employer’s claims that the termination was related to performance are not unusual. However, the timing of the disciplinary measures—occurring only after the pregnancy announcement—raises serious red flags.

The Legal Landscape in 2025

Legal protections for pregnant workers have expanded in recent years, most notably with the passage of the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act. This federal law requires covered employers to provide reasonable accommodations for pregnancy-related limitations, treating such requests similarly to those for temporary disabilities.

New York law also provides some of the strongest pregnancy protections in the country, including mandates for workplace accommodations, protections against harassment, and prohibitions against retaliation. Yet, this case proves that laws alone are not enough.

Even in jurisdictions with robust statutes, enforcement depends on a company’s internal policies, HR culture, and whether employees feel empowered to speak out. Too often, discrimination persists in subtle forms—making litigation one of the only avenues for justice.

Cultural Implications: What This Case Reveals

The Manhattan lawsuit reveals more than just a potential legal violation—it shows how corporate culture can quietly undermine the rights of pregnant employees.

1. Performance Standards as a Weapon

Many companies continue to use performance improvement plans (PIPs) to paper over discriminatory motives. While PIPs can be legitimate tools for accountability, they’re also routinely misused to sideline or remove employees under the guise of neutrality. When PIPs are initiated immediately after a protected disclosure—like a pregnancy—they raise serious concerns about intent.

2. Mistrust of Pregnant Workers

Despite growing awareness, outdated beliefs about pregnant employees still linger. Employers may fear a lack of commitment, prolonged leave, or perceived inefficiency. These assumptions are not just unfair—they are illegal. Yet they often surface subtly in promotion decisions, project assignments, and, as in this case, termination.

3. The Chilling Effect of Retaliation

Many pregnant workers remain silent about unfair treatment due to fear of job loss or reputational harm. Even those working in HR or legal departments—like the plaintiff—are not immune to internal pressure and risk. When the people responsible for enforcing policy feel targeted, it signals a systemic cultural issue.

The Risk to Employers: Beyond Legal Exposure

Companies that fail to address pregnancy bias face significant risk. In addition to potential multi-million dollar verdicts, the reputational damage can be long-lasting. Public lawsuits like this one erode trust, damage recruitment efforts, and may lead to regulatory scrutiny.

But the real cost goes beyond litigation. When employees see that pregnancy leads to discipline or dismissal, workplace morale suffers. Retention of female talent—especially at the mid- and senior-levels—declines. And company values start to ring hollow.

Conclusion: A Call to Do Better

This Manhattan case is more than a lawsuit—it’s a mirror reflecting how even well-resourced companies can fail to support pregnant employees. The legal system is beginning to catch up, but corporate culture must evolve alongside it.

Employers must be proactive. That means training managers to identify bias, documenting performance issues consistently and fairly, and fostering a culture where pregnancy is viewed as a life event—not a liability. The risks of ignoring this are no longer hypothetical. They are real, public, and growing.

‍

BACK TO BLOG

News

Insights