Connecticut Appellate Court Reminds Employers: Timing Matters in Pregnancy Discrimination Cases

The Connecticut Appellate Court issued a ruling that employers need to understand when dealing with pregnant employees. The case, Long v. Town of Putnam, reversed summary judgment for the employer and remanded the case to trial.

According to the court’s opinion, Cassie Long was hired as Assistant Finance Director in June 2019. On her first day of work, she told her employer she was pregnant. Before she left for maternity leave in February 2020, her boss allegedly told her she was doing great work.

Then things — at least as alleged — changed fast. While Long was on maternity leave in March 2020, the town hired someone else as Finance Director at a higher salary. When Long returned in May 2020, her duties allegedly shifted to accounts receivable clerk work, her hours were cut, and she lost access to bank accounts and department meetings. Her pay dropped by $15,000 annually.

The town argued Long failed to complete a required audit before her leave. But the Appellate Court found problems with this explanation. The town hired auditors late, knew the audit could not be completed on time, and the newly hired Finance Director also failed to complete the audit. Yet, the Court suggested that only Long faced consequences.

The court reversed summary judgment on the pregnancy discrimination claim, finding genuine issues of material fact about whether the timing and sequence of events showed discrimination. (And it should be noted, as I’ve done on this blog before, summary judgment looks to see if there are disputed issues of material fact — not who’s necessarily right/wrong.)

This case reinforces several key principles for pregnancy discrimination claims under Connecticut law.

First, timing creates inference of discrimination. When adverse actions happen shortly after an employee goes on maternity leave or announces pregnancy, courts will scrutinize your reasons carefully. Long went on leave in February, the town hired her replacement in March, and allegedly changed her duties in May. This sequence raised red flags.

Second, your company’s stated reasons must hold up under examination. The town said Long failed to complete the audit, but the court noted the town set her up for failure by hiring auditors late. When your explanation has holes or there’s a disputed issue of fact, juries get to decide if you’re telling the truth.

Moreover, treat pregnancy leave like any other leave. Long was praised before her leave but supposedly demoted after. If job performance was truly the issue, the court was no doubt wondering where was the documentation before she left?

Also, title changes don’t protect you from demotion claims. Long kept her “Assistant Finance Director” title but lost her actual duties, bank access, meeting attendance, and salary. Courts look at substance, not just titles.

Lastly, inconsistent treatment can torpedo your defense. The town claimed clean audits were required for promotion, but hired someone as Finance Director who also never completed a clean audit. This inconsistency undermined the town’s credibility.

This case went back for trial after the town thought it won summary judgment. Trials are expensive. Discovery is expensive. Defense costs add up quickly when your explanations don’t hold together.

Pregnancy discrimination claims can be tricky and fact-intensive. The time to think about documentation is before the employee goes on leave, not after she files a complaint.

If you’re making decisions about pregnant employees or employees returning from maternity leave, be sure to document your reasons. Make sure those reasons are consistent with how you treat other employees. And recognize that timing alone can sometimes create an inference of discrimination that you’ll need to overcome.