What happens when a simple HR request spirals into a legal nightmare of pregnancy discrimination? Join Mark Carey in this riveting episode of the Employee Survival Guide® as he unravels the gripping case of Jennifer Guerrero vs. Constellation Health Services—a cautionary tale that underscores the precarious balance between pregnancy discrimination, employee rights and corporate policies. Guerrero, a dedicated field nurse, found herself navigating the treacherous waters of employment law when her high-risk pregnancy collided with the rigid structures of her employer’s HR policies.
As Guerrero requested essential accommodations, including time off and a medical exemption from a COVID-19 vaccine mandate, the tension escalated, revealing the often-overlooked implications of pregnancy discrimination and workplace accommodations. This episode dives deep into the critical eight minutes that changed Guerrero’s career, illustrating how a seemingly minor interaction can lead to significant legal disputes, including issues surrounding the ADA, FMLA, and state-specific regulations.
Mark dissects the legal complexities and the importance of the interactive process in HR, emphasizing that effective communication is paramount. When employers fail to engage in meaningful dialogue, the consequences can be dire—not just for the employee but for the organization as a whole. This episode serves as a stark reminder of the need for corporate empathy and flexibility, particularly in sensitive situations involving employee health and well-being.
Listeners will gain valuable insights into navigating workplace issues, understanding employee rights, and the intricacies of employment law. With a focus on the broader implications of Guerrero’s case, including workplace discrimination, employee empowerment, and the necessity for reasonable accommodations, this episode is a must-listen for anyone interested in the evolving landscape of employee rights and corporate responsibility.
Whether you’re an employee seeking to understand your rights or an employer striving to foster a more inclusive workplace culture, this episode of the Employee Survival Guide® equips you with the knowledge you need to navigate the complexities of employment law. Tune in to discover how to advocate for yourself, negotiate effectively, and ensure that the workplace is a safe and supportive environment for all.
If you enjoyed this episode of the Employee Survival Guide please like us on Facebook, Twitter and LinkedIn. We would really appreciate if you could leave a review of this podcast on your favorite podcast player such as Apple Podcasts and Spotify. Leaving a review will inform other listeners you found the content on this podcast is important in the area of employment law in the United States.
For more information, please contact our employment attorneys at Carey & Associates, P.C. at 203-255-4150, www.capclaw.com.
Disclaimer: For educational use only, not intended to be legal advice.
Transcript:
Speaker #0 Hey, it’s Mark here and welcome to the next edition of the Employee Survival Guide, where I tell you, as always, what your employer does definitely not want you to know about and a lot more. Speaker #1 Eight minutes. That, that is the specific unit of time we are going to be kind of obsessing over today. Speaker #0 Just eight minutes. Speaker #1 It’s a tiny fragment of a workday. It’s, you know, less time than it takes to… make a cup of coffee or scroll through your inbox in the morning. But in this stack of documents we’re looking at, those eight minutes represent the difference between a pretty standard, maybe even forgettable, HR interaction and a federal lawsuit that drags on for years and years. Speaker #2 It really is a sliding doors moment, isn’t it? When you look at the timeline laid out in these court filings, you just want to reach through the pages and almost scream at the people involved to just slow down. Speaker #1 Just take a breath. Speaker #2 Just take a breath, because once that clock starts ticking on that phone call, the legal machinery takes over and it is so, so hard to stop. Speaker #1 We are looking at a case today that is on the surface about a nurse and her employer, an employment dispute. But when you really start peeling back the layers of the complaint and the defense’s answer, and especially the judge’s order, it’s actually a case about the collision of two, I guess, massive tectonic plates in the American workplace. Speaker #2 That’s a great way to put it. Speaker #1 On one side, you have the biological reality of pregnancy, high risk, unpredictable, messy, you know, human. And on the other side, you have the rigid, almost checklist driven machinery of corporate human resources. Speaker #2 And that machinery is fueled by what we often call the alphabet soup of employment law. I mean, you have the ADA, the Americans with Disabilities Act. Right. You have the PDA, the Pregnancy Discrimination Act. You’ve got the FMLA, the Family and Medical Leave Act. And then you have these state-level layers like the NYSHRL, the New York State Human Rights Law. Speaker #1 It just sounds like a compliance nightmare. Speaker #2 It is. It absolutely is. But the fascinating thing about this case, and the case is Jennifer Guerrero v. Constellation Health Services, is how those laws overlap, or maybe more accurately, where the gaps are between them. It’s not just about one law being broken. It’s about what happens when an employee falls into the crack between, say, eligible for FMLA and protected by the ADA. Speaker #1 And that crack is exactly where Jennifer Gouraud found herself in August of 2021. So we have a massive stack of documents here for our deep dive. We’ve got the plaintiff’s complaint, which gives us that emotional narrative, you know, the allegations from her perspective. We have the defendant’s answer, which gives us the corporate defense, their version of events. But the star of the show today really is the memorandum in order from U.S. District Court Judge Aurelia E. Merchant. dated September 2025. Speaker #2 And Judge Merchant does not hold back this document. It’s a ruling on something called a motion for summary judgment. And we’ll get into the mechanics of what that means later, because it’s actually crucial to understanding how the legal system filters these disputes. But essentially, she is deciding whether this story is messy enough to require a jury to sort it out. Speaker #1 And spoiler alert, Speaker #2 it is very, very messy. Speaker #1 So our mission today isn’t just to, you know, gossip about a fired nurse or critique a bad HR call. We want to use this specific case to understand something called the interactive process. We want to unpack why asking for indefinite leave is considered such a legal trap for both sides. And we really want to understand how a simple typo in a doctor’s note can almost derail a person’s entire livelihood. Speaker #2 And of course, before we dive in, we should offer our standard disclaimer. We are analyzing court filings. These are allegations. They’re legal arguments presented by lawyers. We’re neutral observers here. We’re trying to extract the lessons, the logic and the so what. Not to, you know, render a verdict ourselves. We’re just reporting on what the judge has said so far. Speaker #1 Absolutely. So let’s rewind the clock to 2021. Let’s meet the players on this stage. Our protagonist, the plaintiff, is Jennifer Guerrero. At the time of these events, her name was actually Jennifer Pikarski. Speaker #2 Right. That’s an important detail. And she is a registered nurse. But it’s really important to understand the specific type of nursing she was doing. She wasn’t, say, working on a ward in a hospital with doctors and support staff all around her. Speaker #0 Yeah. Speaker #2 She was a field nurse case manager. Speaker #1 I was looking at the job description involved here, and this is not a desk job. This involves getting in your car, driving to clients’ homes, carrying medical equipment with you, assessing patients in their own living rooms, educating them on their care, and then… documenting everything. It requires a lot of autonomy, but also a lot of physicality. Speaker #2 Exactly. You’re on the road. You’re going up and downstairs in people’s homes. You’re in uncontrolled environments. She was hired by Constellation Health Services in April 2021. And by all accounts in the record, she was good at her job. Speaker #1 The documents do mention she received good evaluations. She was licensed in multiple states, New York, Nevada, Wisconsin, New Hampshire. I mean, that suggests someone who is career focused, mobile and pretty experienced. Speaker #2 For sure. She wasn’t some entry level hire who didn’t know the ropes. Speaker #1 And then we have the defendants, Constellation Health Services and Constellation Home Care. They’re the health care provider requiring these field visits. But, you know, institutions don’t make decisions. People do. And the key figure we need to focus on. the person who effectively becomes the antagonist in this lawsuit is Nicole Sturtz. Speaker #2 Nicole Sturtz, the director of human resources. Speaker #1 Correct. And she is named individually in the lawsuit, which is a big deal. Speaker #2 It’s very significant. We can talk about personal liability later, but just know that when an HR director sees their own name on the caption of a federal lawsuit, the stakes become incredibly personal. She is the primary point of contact for Jennifer Guerrero throughout this entire saga. Speaker #1 So let’s get the setup. Guerrero starts in April 2021. It’s the height of the pandemic era. Healthcare workers are in huge demand. Shortly after she finishes her training, she discovers she’s pregnant. And this isn’t a smooth ride. It’s classified pretty early on as a high-risk pregnancy. The complaint lists a whole laundry list of complications. Gestational diabetes, pelvic pain, contractions, hypertension, a shortened cervix. Speaker #2 And here, here is where we have to pause. And really dig into the legal context, because this is the absolute foundation of the entire case. There’s a very common misconception that pregnancy is automatically a disability. Speaker #1 Well, I mean, it certainly feels like one if you ask anyone who’s been through it. Your body changes, your capabilities change pretty drastically. Speaker #2 True, completely true from a human perspective. But legally speaking, under the ADA, pregnancy itself, a healthy, uncomplicated pregnancy, is not considered a disability. It’s considered a fundamental natural biological function. For years, courts would just throw out ADA claims by pregnant women saying you aren’t disabled, you’re just pregnant. Speaker #1 That seems like a distinction without a difference if you physically can’t do your job anymore. Speaker #2 It was a huge point of contention. Yeah. A massive one. But that changed significantly with the ADA Amendments Act of 2008. Congress basically looked at how the courts were interpreting the law and said, whoa, stop being so stingy with the definition of disability. They explicitly instructed courts to interpret the term disability. in favor of broad coverage. Speaker #1 So where does the line get drawn now? What’s the new standard? Speaker #2 The line is drawn at complications. A normal pregnancy isn’t a disability, but a pregnancy with pathological complications is. So in this case, Guerrero isn’t just expecting a child. She has gestational diabetes. She has hypertension. Speaker #1 I looked up shortened cervix in some of the medical literature provided in the source notes. It’s essentially a structural failure. The body is struggling to hold the pregnancy in. And the prescription is almost always stop moving, stop gravity from doing its work, get off your feet. Speaker #2 Exactly. And under the law, you have to ask, does this condition substantially limit a major life activity? Well, standing is a major life activity. Right. Lifting is a major life activity. Working is a major life activity. If you have a condition that requires you to lie down to prevent premature labor, you are, by definition, substantially limited. Speaker #1 So Guerrero isn’t just an employee expecting a baby. legally she is an employee managing a disability. And that distinction, that’s what unlocks the door to all the ADA protection. Speaker #2 Precisely. And the judge in this case also cites the New York State Human Rights Law, the NYSHRL. And New York, like many states, is even more protective than the federal government. Under New York law, you don’t even need to prove the limitation is substantial in the same way. You just need to show a medical impairment. So on the question of is she disabled? The plaintiff wins that argument hands down. The defense’s argument doesn’t really get off the ground. Speaker #1 OK, so the stage is set. We have a high performing nurse with what is legally a protected disability. Now let’s look at the rising action. Because before everything blows up in August, there were some early tremors. This relationship didn’t just collapse out of nowhere. Speaker #2 No, not at all. There was friction. It started relatively small. In June 2021, Guerrero asked for time off for an emergency ultrasound. That gets granted. No problem there. That’s, you know. Standard procedure. Speaker #1 But then comes July, and this is where we start to see the gears grinding a little bit. Guerrero needs to see her doctor on a Friday, July 23rd. She asks Sturtz for the time off, and Sturtz says no. Speaker #2 Well, she initially denies it. The reason she gives is that too many nurses are already off that day. And she also points out, and she’s technically correct here, that Guerrero hasn’t been there long enough to be eligible for paid time off. Speaker #1 This feels like a classic HR spreadsheet versus human need moment. But Spurs doesn’t just say no, does she? She tries to negotiate. She says something like, OK, if you need Friday off, can you work Saturday instead? Speaker #2 Which, on paper, seems like a logical compromise. You know, it covers the shift. But Guerrero refuses. She explains that the medical procedure might take overnight, so she can’t guarantee she’ll be available to work on Saturday. Speaker #1 So Sturtz tries again. OK, not Saturday. How about Sunday? Speaker #2 And Guerrero have to refuse again. She explains that she has an older child who is on the autism spectrum and she simply doesn’t have child care for Sunday. Speaker #1 I want to pause on that detail for a second. The child with autism, it adds so much pressure to her life. But does it matter legally in this specific case regarding her pregnancy accommodation or is it just color? Speaker #2 It’s mostly color, but it’s important color. Tangentially, yes, it matters. It explains why she can’t just be flexible. It shows that her rigid schedule isn’t a preference. It’s a necessity. But more importantly, from a legal perspective, this back and forth, this is an early example of what the law calls the interactive process. Speaker #1 The interactive process. We hear that term a lot in these kinds of cases. Speaker #2 It is the absolute heartbeat of ADA law. It is, at its core, a negotiation. It’s a mandatory conversation. The employee says, I have a restriction and the employer has to say, OK, how can we make this work? It can’t be a one way street. Speaker #1 And in this July instance, they actually did reach a resolution. Sturtz eventually allowed abbreviated hours. Guerrero could work from 8 a.m. to 12 0 p.m. on that Friday and then go to her appointment. Right. Speaker #2 So they worked it out. In that specific case, the system worked. Speaker #1 It did. But it shows that the relationship is already transactional. It’s not collaborative. Sturtz is looking at the schedule. Guerrero is looking at her medical survival. And then in August, we get another layer of complexity thrown on top of everything. The vaccine mandate. Speaker #2 Right. August 2021. This is the height of the pandemic mandates. Constellation requires all its employees to get the COVID-19 vaccine. Guerrero requests a medical exemption because of her high-risk pregnancy. Speaker #1 And Sturtz denies it. But you have to look at how she denies it. It’s very revealing. She doesn’t deny it because she thinks Guerrero is lying or that the medical risk isn’t real. She rejects the request because the form, the paperwork, didn’t state specific restrictions, didn’t clearly explain the risk to the pregnancy. And get this, it lacked a proper electronic signature. Speaker #2 So it’s not we don’t believe you. It’s you didn’t fill out our form correctly. It’s bureaucracy as a weapon. And to a lawyer, those technicalities might matter. But to an employee who was high risk, terrified of COVID and worried about her baby, it probably felt like the company was putting up roadblocks just for the sake of it. Speaker #1 It sets a tone of resistance. Speaker #2 It absolutely does. It signals to the employee, we are not on your side. We are on the side of the form. Speaker #1 And that brings us to the climax, the week of August 24th, 2021. Things go from this sort of bureaucratic annoyance to a full-blown medical emergency very, very quickly. Speaker #2 On August 24th, Guerrero experiences sharp pelvic pain. It feels like a contraction. She immediately goes to her doctor, a Dr. Linder. Speaker #1 And Dr. Linder writes a note. And I have to point this out because it’s just one of those human moments you find in a legal file where you realize how fragile communication can be. The note says she should stop working out until August 30th. Speaker #2 Yes. The judge even called this out in her decision. It is almost certainly a typo. You know, a slip of the finger on a keyboard. The context implies stop working, but the note literally said working out. Like, don’t go to the gym. Speaker #1 If I’m a cynical HR director and I see a note that says stop working out, I might think, great, she can still drive to patients’ homes. She just can’t do CrossFit on her lunch break. Speaker #2 Exactly. And if you are looking for a reason to be difficult or to deny something, you latch on to that ambiguity. The medical reality was much clearer. By the very next day, August 25th, her high-risk specialist, Dr. L. Cody, steps in. And his advice is much more severe. The nuances are gone. He says she needs to stop working entirely, period. Speaker #1 So we arrive at August 26th. It’s 12.26 p.m. Guerrero sits down at her computer. She writes an email to Nicole Sturtz and her direct supervisor. I want to analyze the text of this email because in a retaliation case, the protected activity, the moment you ask for help, is everything. Speaker #2 Absolutely. The tone is crucial. Read it out. Speaker #1 Okay. She writes, unfortunately, my doctor feels I need to stop working at this time due to the risk to my pregnancy secondary to new complications. I want to note, she says, at this time. Speaker #2 Yes, that implies a temporary state, not a permanent one. Speaker #1 She continues, if you could please help and guide me as to what I do next. I would appreciate it as I have never had to do this before. She explicitly mentions short-term disability and asks, do I file for FMLA as well? Speaker #2 She’s asking for a roadmap. She’s admitting ignorance. She’s basically saying, I have a medical crisis. Tell me which lever to pull. She is trusting HR to be the expert in the ring. Speaker #1 She also expresses regret. She says, it was not my desire to stop working as I really do enjoy it, but I have to put my child first. I mean, this is not a disgruntled employee flipping over a table. This is a plea for assistance. Speaker #2 And she attaches the note from the specialist, Dr. El-Kady. The note says she should be out of work indefinitely due to her high-risk pregnancy. Speaker #1 And that word indefinitely, that is a landmine. We will come back to that because it becomes the absolute centerpiece of the defense’s legal argument. But for now, just keep that word in your head. Speaker #2 So the email goes out at 12 more to 6 p.m. At approximately 12.34 p.m., Nicole Sturtz calls Jennifer Guerrero. Eight minutes later. Speaker #1 Let’s talk about temporal proximity. It sounds like a term from a science fiction movie. Speaker #2 It does. But in employment law, it is the strongest circumstantial evidence you can possibly have for a retaliation claim. To prove retaliation, you have to show that the adverse action, in this case the firing, happened because of the protected activity, the email asking for help. Speaker #1 And when the gap is eight minutes? Speaker #2 When the gap is eight minutes, the causation is almost implied. It’s incredibly difficult for an employer to argue that the firing was completely unrelated to the request when they happened in the same breath. It just, it defies common sense. Speaker #1 So Sturtz picks up the phone and this phone call. This is where reality splits. This is the Rashomon moment of the case. We have two very, very different movies playing on the same screen. Speaker #2 Let’s start with movie A, the defendant’s version of events. Sturtz claims that she called to discuss the note. She claims Guerrero requested indefinite leave. Sturtz then explained that Guerrero wasn’t eligible for FMLA because she hadn’t been with the company for a full year. Speaker #1 Which is factually true, right? She was hired in April. It’s now August. You need 12 months for FMLA protection. Speaker #2 Correct. FMLA is a specific statute with very strict eligibility rules. So Sturtz gives her this bad news. And according to Sturtz’s testimony, Guerrero got angry, got frustrated that she couldn’t get leave, and then hung up the phone. Speaker #1 And HR interpreted that as a resignation. Speaker #2 Yes. Their logic was essentially, you told us you can’t work. You aren’t eligible for job protected leave. So by hanging up, you are effectively quitting. Speaker #1 Okay. That’s the company line. She quit because she couldn’t work. Now, let’s look at movie B, the plaintiff’s version. Guerrero says she picked up the phone hoping for that help and guidance she asked for in her email. Instead, she gets told she has no options. And she alleges she asked a very specific, very pointed question. So you are firing me. Speaker #2 That is a crucial question. It forces the employer to define the action. Are you terminating me or am I leaving voluntarily? Speaker #1 Guerrero claims Sturtz told her that the company views it as a resignation because she is medically unable to work and they can’t hold the position for her. Guerrero then claims she explicitly replied, I am not resigning. Speaker #2 And if a jury believes that single statement, I am not resigning, it absolutely devastates the company’s defense. You cannot accept a resignation that was never offered. A resignation must be voluntary and clear. Being told you have no choice is not a resignation. It’s what lawyers call a constructive discharge. It’s a firing in disguise. Speaker #1 And there’s also this issue of the notes, right? Sturtz took notes during or after the call. But in discovery, the process where both sides exchange evidence, it came out that there are two different versions of these notes. Yes, Speaker #2 this is a terrible fact for the defense. They’re labeled termination notes hashtag one and termination notes hashtag two. This is why lawyers love discovery. In one version, it documents Guerrero asking, so you’re firing me. It also notes H.R. advising that they view it as a resignation. Speaker #1 OK. Speaker #2 But the second version adds more color. He claims Guerrero said Sturge was screwing her. Speaker #1 Screwing her. Speaker #2 That’s the allegation in the second set of notes. And then it says she hung up saying, yay, whatever. Speaker #1 Why on earth would there be two versions? Speaker #2 Well, a skeptical plaintiff’s attorney would argue it’s an attempt to sex up the notes after the fact. to make the employee look more unreasonable, more hostile, to better justify the termination after the fact. It raises serious questions about the credibility of the note-taker. If the notes evolved, can we really trust Sturtz’s memory of the conversation? Speaker #1 Regardless of who said what, the outcome was immediate and brutal. Guerrero is out of a job. Speaker #2 According to Sturtz’s deposition, she was placed on inactive status. But according to a formal letter sent on September 2nd, she was officially terminated. Speaker #1 And the practical effect for her. She loses her benefits. She loses her health insurance. She is five months pregnant with a known high-risk pregnancy. And suddenly she is uninsured in America. Speaker #2 That is the ultimate nightmare scenario. And just to close the loop on the personal tragedy here, she gives birth in December 2021. The child, it turns out, has Down syndrome, which was undiagnosed in utero. Speaker #1 Which just adds a whole other layer of retroactive validation to her high-risk claim. Her body knew something was different. Speaker #2 It absolutely does. And interestingly, in a final twist, Constellation offers her the job back in February 2022, after the baby is born. Speaker #1 Which, according to the documents, she does not respond to. Speaker #2 Can you blame her? If you believed an employer fired you the moment you needed them the most, would you ever go back? Speaker #1 So she sues. She files a complaint alleging discrimination and retaliation. And that brings us to the main event, Section 4, the legal deep dive. The case goes before Judge Merchant. The company files a motion for summary judgment. Expert, I want you to really explain this concept because we hear it on TV shows, but what is the actual mechanism? Speaker #2 Sure. Think of a lawsuit like a boxing match. The trial is the actual fight in the ring. A motion for summary judgment is the referee stepping in before the fight even starts and saying, you know what, we don’t need to fight. One of you has already lost based on the undisputed facts. Speaker #1 And how does the judge decide that? On what basis? Speaker #2 The judge has to look at all the evidence that’s been gathered, the emails, the depositions, the different versions of the notes. And she has to view that evidence in the light most favorable to the person not asking for the judgment. Speaker #1 So in this case, she has to look at the facts and assume the plaintiff, Guerrero, is telling the truth. Speaker #2 100%. She has to assume Guerrero did say, I am not resigning. She has to assume the phone call went down exactly as Guerrero described. And if, even assuming all of that is true, there is still some legal reason the company automatically wins, then the judge grants summary judgment and the case is over. But if there is a genuine dispute of material fact, if a jury could reasonably believe the plaintiff’s story and find the company liable, then the judge must deny the motion and let the case go to a jury trial. Speaker #1 It’s It’s the system’s firewall against weak cases. And in this case, Judge Merchant denied the motion on almost all the main claims. She basically said, this is going to trial. Let’s break down why topic by topic. Speaker #2 Let’s start with deep dive topic one. Is she disabled? We touched on this, but the defense really tried to argue that she just had standard aches and pains of pregnancy. They even brought in their own medical expert, Dr. Klein. Speaker #1 And what was Dr. Klein’s argument? What was his take? Speaker #2 Essentially, the pregnancy is uncomfortable. And what Guerrero was feeling was just the normal burden of carrying a child to term. But the court looked at her actual medical records, bleeding, contractions, a shortened cervix. The judge ruled that under the expanded definition of the ADA and the very broad protections of the NYSHRL, these are not normal. These are physiological impairments that limit major life activities. Speaker #1 So the whole pregnancy isn’t a disability. Defense just. Failed completely. Speaker #2 It failed completely. Top one goes to the plaintiff. No question. Speaker #1 Okay. Topic two, essential job functions. Now, this is an interesting one because this is where the plaintiff actually lost an argument. The company argued she couldn’t do the essential functions of the job. The job is visiting patients. If she’s on bed rest, she can’t drive. She can’t walk. She can’t work. Speaker #2 And this is where the plaintiff’s legal team tried to get a little creative. Guerrero argued that driving wasn’t an essential function because someone else could drive her. Speaker #1 Like a chauffeur. Or she could take an Uber to her patient’s homes. Speaker #2 Or a family member, yeah. But the court shut that down pretty quickly. The essential function isn’t just sitting in a car. It’s the entire field visit. It’s the autonomy, the ability to respond to situations as they arise. And since remote work wasn’t an option for a field nurse, you can’t change a wound dressing over Zoom, the court agreed with the company on this point. She could not perform the essential functions of the job as it existed at that moment. Without some kind of accommodation. Speaker #1 But that leads to the critical pivot, doesn’t it? If she can’t do the job today, does a leave of absence count as a reasonable accommodation so she can come back and do the job tomorrow? Speaker #2 Precisely. And this leads us directly to deep dive topic three, the indefinite leave trap. This is really the intellectual core of this whole dispute. Speaker #1 OK, so unpack this for us. Why is indefinite leave such a big deal in employment law? Speaker #2 Because as a general rule. An employer is not required to hold a job open forever. It’s considered an undue hardship. If an employee comes to you and says, I’m sick, I can’t work, and I have absolutely no idea when I’ll ever be back, the courts usually say it’s unreasonable to expect the employer to keep that spot open indefinitely. You can’t run a business with a perpetual question mark on the schedule. Speaker #1 And Dr. Altati’s note used that exact word, indefinitely. The defense must have thought they had a slam dunk. Speaker #2 Oh, absolutely. If I’m the lawyer for the defense, I am highlighting that word in neon yellow. I am slamming that doctor’s note on the desk and saying, case closed. She asked for an indefinite accommodation, which is per se or automatically unreasonable. Speaker #1 But the judge didn’t buy it. Why not? Speaker #2 Context. Context is everything. The judge applied a biological common sense lens to the legal text. She said, essentially, look, she is five months pregnant. Pregnancy has a biological endpoint. Speaker #1 The baby is coming out eventually. It’s not a mystery. Speaker #2 Exactly. Even if the doctor used the word indefinitely, a reasonable jury could easily interpret that to mean until the baby is born and she recovers. That is not forever. That is a finite period, maybe four or five months away. Speaker #1 So because there was a foreseeable end date birth, it wasn’t truly indefinite in the eyes of the law, even if the note used that word. Speaker #2 Correct. It created a factual dispute for a jury to decide. The judge is saying you can’t use a doctor’s poor word choice to ignore the obvious reality that this condition is, by its very nature, temporary. Speaker #1 That is fascinating. It feels like a victory for common sense over rigid literalism. Speaker #2 Which brings us to topic four. The interactive process breakdown. We talked about the Rashomon phone call. Why is the interactive process a legal obligation and not just, you know, a nice thing to do for your employees? Because the ADA explicitly requires it. The law places an affirmative burden on the employer to engage. It’s a two-way street. When an employee asks for an accommodation, the employer cannot just say no. They have to say no, but, or let’s talk about, they have to brainstorm. Okay, you can’t drive. Can you work from home? No. Can you take unpaid leave? Can we temporarily move you to a desk job? They have to have that conversation. Speaker #1 And here the breakdown was total. Speaker #2 The breakdown was absolute and instantaneous. Eight minutes. The judge pointed out that there is zero evidence in the record that Sturtz offered any alternatives at all. She didn’t say, OK, you aren’t eligible for FMLA, but our company has a personal leave policy. Let’s look at that. She didn’t say, let’s see if there are any desk duties you could perform. Speaker #1 It sounds like the company got stuck on one track. She’s not eligible for FMLA. completely forgot about the ADA. Speaker #2 That is the masterclass lesson here for any HR professional or manager listening. This is where companies fail over and over again. FMLA and the ADA are two different statutes that do different things. FMLA is an entitlement. If you meet the criteria, 12 months of service, 1,250 hours, you get 12 weeks of leave, no questions asked. The ADA is a civil right. If you’re disabled, you get a reasonable accommodation, unless it’s an undue hardship for the employer. Speaker #1 And unpaid leave can be an ADA accommodation. Speaker #2 Yes, that’s the key. Unpaid leave is one of the most common ADA accommodations. Even if you aren’t eligible for a single day of FMLA, you might be eligible for months of 880 leave. Stir Ted Tunnel Vision. She checked the FMLA box, saw a red X, and stopped thinking. That failure to pivot to the ADA analysis is likely what killed their summary judgment motion. Speaker #1 And finally, topic five, retaliation and temporal proximity. We keep coming back to those eight minutes. Speaker #2 devastating evidence for the defense. The judge ruled that the Title VII and ADA retaliation claims survive and can go to a jury. The timing is just too suspicious to dismiss. However, there was a weird nuance with the New York state law. Speaker #1 Right. Something about protected activity. What was that about? Speaker #2 Yes. It’s a legal technicality under the NYSHRL. For some reason, just requesting an accommodation isn’t considered protected activity. for the purposes of a retaliation claim in the same way it is under federal law. It’s a quirk of New York statutes, the courts have pointed out. So that specific state-level retaliation claim was dismissed, but the federal ones, the big ones, they stand. Speaker #1 OK, let’s briefly look at the specific defenses the company tried to use in Section 5, because they’re pretty telling. They argued the harm was self-inflicted. What does that even mean? Speaker #2 They argued that by asking for indefinite leave, she basically fired herself. This is what’s called the constructive resignation theory. The judge rejected this for the reasons we just discussed. A jury could find it wasn’t truly indefinite. And more importantly, a jury could believe her when she says she explicitly told them, I am not resigning. Speaker #1 And the resignation versus firing debate, the judge seemed to think a jury could see right through that resignation label. Speaker #2 The judge used the legal term adverse employment action, and she made it clear that a jury could easily find That’s what happened here. If you tell your boss, I am not resigning, and the company sends you a termination letter saying we accept your resignation, a jury can look at that and say that’s a firing dressed up in a polite costume. Speaker #1 It’s a polite firing, but it’s a firing nonetheless. Speaker #2 Especially when you combine it with the fact that they immediately shut off her email access, cut off her benefits. They treated it like a termination in every practical way. Speaker #1 So after all that legal analysis, where do we stand now? Section six, the outcome of the motion. Speaker #2 The motion for summary judgment was, as they say, granted in part and denied in part. Speaker #1 So what got thrown out? What did the company win on? Speaker #2 A few things. The claims against the Connecticut-based entity were dismissed. She works for the New York entity, so that’s just a jurisdictional cleanup. And that one NY state retaliation claim we mentioned was also dismissed because of that legal quirk. Speaker #1 But the big stuff survived. Speaker #2 Oh, yes. The core of the lawsuit proceeds to trial. includes Disability discrimination for failure to accommodate, wrongful termination, sex and pregnancy discrimination, the federal retaliation claims, and crucially, a claim for aiding and abetting against Nicole Sturtz personally. Speaker #1 I want you to focus on that for a second. Aiding and abetting. That means Nicole Sturtz, the human being, not just the company, is on the hook here. Speaker #2 In New York, yes. The state human rights law allows for individual liability. Speaker #0 If an individual has the power to make personnel decisions and they actively participate in the discrimination, they can be sued personally. Speaker #1 Wow. Speaker #0 It means Sturtz isn’t just a witness in the company’s case. She is a defendant herself. Her personal assets could theoretically be at risk, though usually the company indemnifies the manager. But the reputational damage and the sheer stress of being personally named in a federal lawsuit? That’s very real. Speaker #1 That has to be keeping her up at night. It really raises the stakes for every HR professional listening. You aren’t just an agent of the company hiding behind the corporate veil. Speaker #0 Exactly. If you’re the one pulling the trigger on the firing, you better be absolutely sure the gun is aimed correctly and you have a legal basis to do so. Speaker #1 So after this whole deep dive, what does this all mean for us, for the learner listening to this? What are the big takeaways? Speaker #0 There are several really clear aha moments here. First, for any employee out there who’s pregnant or managing a medical condition, you do not need to say magic words. You don’t need to cite Section 112 of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Guerrero just asked for help and guidance. That was enough to trigger her legal protections. Speaker #1 So no legalese required. Just state the need clearly. Speaker #0 Second lesson, and this one is for both sides. Indefinite doesn’t always mean forever. Speaker #1 Context matters. Speaker #0 Context is king. If there is a baby due, there is an end date. Employers can’t just seize on that one word to shut down the conversation. Speaker #1 And third, the incredible danger of the checklist mentality. Speaker #0 Yes, this is so important. Sturtz looked at a checklist in her head. Eligible for FMLA? No. Okay, conversation over. Speaker #1 Yeah. Speaker #0 She failed to look at the human being in front of her or the broader universe of laws like the ADA. That’s still applied. That rigid adherence to one policy, the FMLA policy. blinded her to the massive liability waiting under another. Speaker #1 It brings us right back to those eight minutes. Speaker #0 It all comes back to the eight minutes. If they had waited a day, if they had just emailed back instead of calling, if they had consulted legal counsel for five minutes before making that phone call, we probably wouldn’t be reading this court order today. Speaker #1 It just highlights the critical importance of that interactive process. It’s not just a legal term. It’s a conversation. It’s about actually trying to solve the problem together. Speaker #0 And that leads to our final thought, I think. If the employer just said, look, we can’t approve indefinite leaves and you don’t qualify for FMLA, but let’s talk about other options. Let’s look at unpaid leave until December. We can hire a temp to cover your field visits. Would we even be here? Speaker #1 Almost certainly not. It just shows that communication breakdowns are often as legally perilous as the underlying policies themselves. Speaker #0 Absolutely. The breakdown in the interactive process is essentially a breakdown in human empathy and basic problem solving. and the courts. as we see here, do not look kindly on employers who just decide to hang up the phone. Speaker #1 This case is a stark reminder that the law is always watching the clock. Whether it’s the 12 month clock for FMLA, the nine month clock of a pregnancy, or the eight minute lock of a retaliation claim, time matters. Speaker #0 And in those moments of crisis, for everyone involved, slowing down is usually the best legal advice you can get. Speaker #1 A fascinating and cautionary tale from the case of Guerrero v. Constellation. Thanks for diving in with us. Speaker #0 Always a pleasure. Speaker #1 Stay curious. Maybe read your emails twice before you send them, and we’ll catch you on the next deep dive. Speaker #2 Hey, it’s Mark, and thank you for listening to this episode of the Employee’s Fiber Guide. If you’d like to be interviewed for our podcast and share your story about what you’re going through at work and do so anonymously, please send me an email at mcary at capclaw.com. And also, if you like this podcast episode and others like it, please leave us a review. It really does help others find this podcast. So leave a review on Apple. or spotify or wherever you listen to podcasts thank you very much and glad to be of service to you