“There is no sin except stupidity”

by Donna Brooks

We confess: In these days of dry Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) lawsuits, newspaper battles over immigration laws and school calendars, and court opinions focusing on sufficiency of evidence or burdens of proof, any day that we get to write an article about “sin” is a good day. While actual “sinning” abounds in the typical litigation fact pattern, we don’t often get to talk about it. A recent case from the U.S. 11th Circuit Court of Appeals (whose rulings apply to Alabama, Florida, and Georgia employers) puts the issue of sin front and center. Unfortunately, the issue of pregnancy was right there front and center with it, which complicated the case for the employer.

Oh, and by the way, we notice we’re writing lots of articles about pregnancy lately. Must be something in the water. That fact serves as a good reminder that the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) and employees’ attorneys get pretty excited about pregnancy discrimination. In the following case, the employer may have gotten a little too excited.

The short story

The court probably gives the best summary of this case: “A woman of child bearing age was hired as a teacher at a small Christian school. Then she got pregnant, married, and fired. In that order. Then she filed a lawsuit.”

The long story (or “Birth of a lawsuit”)

Jarretta Hamilton started teaching at Southland Christian School in January 2008. Sometime in 2009, she and her then-fiancé conceived a child and got married the following month. On April 5, 2009, Hamilton met with the school administrator and the assistant administrator to let them know the joyful news and ask for maternity leave during the upcoming school year. During the meeting, she apparently admitted that she had conceived the child out of wedlock (which makes you wonder how that whole conversation went). She was fired a few days later because she had “sinned” (ever put that on a termination form?) by engaging in premarital sex, and as John Ennis, the school administrator put it, “there are consequences for disobeying the word of God.” Well now.

Hamilton sued the school for pregnancy discrimination―presumably because she couldn’t produce a similarly situated comparator who had also sinned but had not been fired. And let’s face it: It’s probably because all her coworkers were sinless, right? The trial court dismissed her claim, and she appealed to the 11th Circuit.

Fired for sin or maternity leave?

The case came down to one issue―whether Hamilton was fired because she was pregnant. If she was fired for engaging in premarital sex (or “sinning”), then she could have a claim only if (1) someone outside her protected class did the same thing, (2) the employer knew about it, and (3) the employer treated that person more favorably than Hamilton. However, the court said that if Hamilton was fired for pregnancy, “Title VII [of the Civil Rights Act of 1964] does protect the right to get pregnant,” meaning she would have a claim worthy of taking to a jury if she could show that her pregnancy led to her termination.

While the school argued that Hamilton had to produce a similarly situated comparator to prevail on her claim, the court determined that she had to produce only enough circumstantial evidence to show that her discharge was motivated by her pregnancy. The court found that she presented evidence supporting the idea that Southland was really more concerned about her pregnancy and her request for maternity leave than it was her admission of premarital sex.

Hamilton testified that after she told school administrators that she was pregnant (but before she told them the conception occurred before marriage), Ennis “put his head back” and said, “We feared something like this would happen.” So there was an expression of dismay and frustration before the “sinning” part of the story was ever at issue. Further, the administrators seemed very concerned about her request for maternity leave and noted how difficult it was to cover for a teacher taking leave midyear. When Hamilton asked, “What is the issue here? Is it because of the coverage [for me while I’m out]? Or is it because of the premarital conception?” Ennis responded that it was “both.”

Finally, Ennis testified that the real issue was that Hamilton never showed any remorse or admitted that she had “sinned against the Lord.” He indicated that she wouldn’t have been terminated if she had expressed those sentiments. Hamilton, however, testified that she in fact had been very remorseful, begged for the Lord’s forgiveness, and told Ennis that she was sorry and felt the Lord had forgiven her. With that dispute in testimony, a jury trial was born.

Message delivered

A jury can be a dangerous concept when dealing with a pregnancy discrimination claim; generally, our culture is very protective of mothers and pregnant women. Needless to say, this will be a risky case to take to trial. So for those of you who don’t usually deal in the realm of “sin” at the workplace (and frankly, for those of you who do), what can you learn from this case? There are a couple of things.

1. Have a reasoned response and refrain from demonstrating dismay when an employee informs you she is pregnant. It’s never convenient to arrange coverage for someone on maternity leave, but keep those concerns to yourself, and express support.
2. If the line for a termination is blurred between pregnancy and some other reason, you’re on dangerous ground. Be clear about the reason for discharge, and make sure it has nothing to do with the pregnancy.

They said it . . .

Some rise by sin, and some by virtue fall.

―William Shakespeare

After the first blush of sin comes its indifference.

―Henry David Thoreau

Donna Brooks is an attorney with Lehr Middlebrooks & Vreeland, P.C., in Birmingham, Alabama. She is a shareholder with the firm and has represented management in employment litigation matters since 1999. She can be contacted at dbrooks@lehrmiddlebrooks.com.

It ain’t no sin if you crack a few laws now and then, just so long as you don’t break any.

―Mae West

• Alabama Employment Law Letter
  Excerpted from Alabama Employment Law Letter, and written by attorneys at the law firm of Lehr Middlebrooks Vreeland & Thompson, P.C. The Alabama State Bar requires the following disclosure: "No representation is made that the quality of the legal services to be performed is greater than the quality of legal services performed by other lawyers." Contact the attorneys at Lehr Middlebrooks Vreeland & Thompson, P.C.