Doe v. C.A.R.S. Protection Plus, Inc.

In May 2000, Jane Doe (plaintiff) informed her supervisor, Fred Kohl, at C.A.R.S. Protection Plus, Inc. (CARS) (defendant) of her pregnancy. In early August, Doe had to take multiple days off work to undergo medical tests. Doe’s husband continued to update Kohl on the situation and request leave for Doe. On August 10, Doe’s husband informed Kohl that Doe would need to undergo a surgical abortion. Doe’s husband requested that Doe receive one week’s vacation. The pregnancy was terminated on August 11. A funeral was held on August 16, and on that day, Doe learned she had been terminated for failing to provide a daily notice of her absence, as required by company policy. Doe sued CARS in federal district court on the ground that she had been terminated for exercising her right to an abortion, which constituted discrimination under the Pregnancy Discrimination Act (PDA). CARS argued that Doe was terminated for failing to call in. Doe presented evidence that other employees were not terminated for failing to call in. Additionally, a coworker testified that Kohl knew that Doe would be absent for a week. Doe also argued that the fact that she had been terminated three business days after the abortion created an inference that she had been terminated because of the abortion. The district court granted summary judgment in CARS’s favor on the ground that Doe failed to establish a prima facie case of pregnancy discrimination and, alternatively, had failed to show the nondiscriminatory reasons CARS gave to support Doe’s termination were pretextual. The matter was appealed.