Fmr. CU Employee Claims She was Fired for Having Abortion, Judge Moves Case Forward

A federal judge ruled there were enough facts in a former credit union employee’s lawsuit that alleged she was fired by the $493 million Florida Central Credit Union because of her choice to have an abortion.

The Tampa-based credit union flatly denied Elena DeJesus’ claim, saying she was terminated from her teller job in 2016 for tardiness, an unscheduled absence and a lack of communication, according to FCCU’s court documents filed in U.S. District Court in Tampa. The credit union also denied that it discriminated against DeJesus under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act that protects women from discrimination based on their choice to have an abortion.

In June, Florida Central CU asked U.S. District Court Judge Charlene Edwards Honeywell to dismiss the lawsuit arguing that DeJesus did not sufficiently plead a claim for discrimination under Title VII and for failing to first exhaust administrative remedies.

But the federal judge ruled against the credit union’s motion to dismiss last month, which allows the former employee’s lawsuit to move forward.

“DeJesus has pleaded enough facts in her amended complaint to allege a cause of action for discrimination based on sex under Title VII,” Judge Honeywell wrote in her October 11 ruling. “Her allegations, although not the model of clarity, permit the court to sufficiently draw the inference that FCCU terminated her because of her choice to have an abortion, which may be a basis for sex discrimination.”

After learning she was pregnant on Nov. 2, 2016, DeJesus informed her branch supervisor that she needed to schedule one day off for a medical procedure to terminate her pregnancy. The supervisor approved DeJesus’ day off for Nov. 10.

After DeJesus returned to work, she met with two supervisors for her two-week performance evaluation, which “went well.” The supervisors noted DeJesus had no disciplinary issues, according to the lawsuit.

However, after the performance evaluation on Nov. 16, 2016, DeJesus met with the branch manager who fired her for absence from work. The branch manager allegedly said that the medical procedure was not an appropriate excuse for her absence even though it was approved by a supervisor.

In addition to having no disciplinary history or unapproved absences, FCCU fired DeJesus because of her decision to terminate her pregnancy, according to DeJesus’ lawsuit. Because of the credit union’s alleged discriminatory treatment toward DeJesus, she is seeking punitive damages against the credit union.

In its court documents, FCCU pointed out that federal law mandates all employers treat pregnant employees the same as non-pregnant employees who are similarly situated with respect to their work. However, the credit union argued DeJesus did not indicate she was treated differently than any other FCCU employee.

“The (DeJesus) amended complaint does not provide any factual content that would support an inference that the plaintiff (DeJesus) was terminated due to her choice to have an abortion,” FCCU said in its court documents. “Rather, the amended complaint provides that the Plaintiff was notified she was being fired for missing work and then leaps to the conclusory pronouncement that she was fired ‘because of her decision to terminate her pregnancy.’”

What’s more, an FCCU supervisor “explicitly stated” that DeJesus should not have opted to do the procedure on a day she was scheduled to work.

DeJesus’ lawyers argued the purpose of her firing was “pretextual” or “unworthy of belief” based on the supervisor’s previous approval of her time off until the former teller’s branch manager said the abortion procedure was not an approved reason for taking a day off.

Unless an out of court settlement is reached during a mediation hearing in January, the case is scheduled to be heard before a jury in July.