By Beth Kahn and Timothy J. Toohey, Morris Polich & Purdy LLP
A California employer fired a pregnant employee for violating its policy on reporting missing customer deposits. On appeal, the California Court of Appeal considered whether the employee had a claim for pregnancy discrimination and whether the employer had a legitimate reason for terminating her.
 |
Tiffany Stueland, a manager at Petco, discovered that she was having twins. She informed her general manager, Laura Nelson, about her high-risk pregnancy. Although Nelson allowed her to take time off for doctors’ appointments, Stueland claimed that her manager was “standoffish” and “rude” about her requests for leave.
Stueland’s responsibilities included opening and closing the store and placing deposits in a safe. On June 3, 2013, she opened the safe and found only two deposits instead of the three she had expected. She didn’t inform anyone about the missing deposit and only mentioned it 10 days later when she received an e-mail asking about it.
On June 20, 2013, a Petco manager interviewed Stueland about the missing deposit and her failure to report it. Stueland denied taking the deposit and said she had no idea what happened to it. She was given a weeklong suspension for failing to inform Petco about the missing deposit and was fired on June 27 for violating company procedures.