Maldonado v. U.S. Bank and Manufacturers Bank

In early 1997, Jessica Maldonado (plaintiff) was hired as a part-time teller at U.S. Bank and Manufacturers Bank (the Bank) (defendant). Part-time tellers performed the same duties as full-time tellers and were required to be available six days per week to fill in for absent full-time tellers. During the interview process, Maldonado’s supervisor, Amalia Gonzalez, informed Maldonado that the Bank’s need for part-time tellers peaked during the summer months when more full-time tellers were on vacation. Three days after Maldonado’s interview, she discovered she was pregnant and due in July. Shortly thereafter, on February 20, Maldonado began the training course at the Bank to become a part-time teller. While still in training, on March 3, Maldonado informed Gonzalez that she was pregnant. Gonzalez fired Maldonado the following day. Maldonado sued the Bank under the Pregnancy Discrimination Act (PDA), 42 U.S.C. § 2000e(k), alleging that she was wrongfully terminated because of her pregnancy. At trial, Maldonado testified that Gonzalez explicitly told her that the firing was “due to [Maldonado’s] condition.” The Bank did not dispute that Maldonado was fired due to her pregnancy, but argued that it was permissible, because Maldonado’s pregnancy, if carried to term, would make her unavailable in the summer months and thus unable to perform the job for which she was hired. The district court granted summary judgment in the Bank’s favor. Maldonado appealed.