Erika Paleny began working for Fireplace Products, U.S., Inc. as a full-time Administrative Assistant in May 2018. In October 2018, Paleny informed her employer that she had begun procedures necessary for egg retrieval.
In November 2018, Paleny’s supervisor informed her that she disapproved of the procedures, and allegedly harassed and scolded Paleny for needing time off for the procedures. In early February 2019, Paleny informed her supervisor that she would need additional time off for another appointment related to her procedures. Paleny alleged that her supervisor became angry and Paleny’s employment was terminated later that same day.
Paleny brought 10 causes of action against her employer and supervisor, including harassment, discrimination, retaliation, and failure to accommodate claims under the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) based on sex (i.e., due to pregnancy).
The supervisor and employer moved for summary judgment, arguing that Paleny could not establish she had a characteristic protected by the FEHA because she was never pregnant or attempting to get pregnant, nor was she disabled or requesting accommodations during her employment. In response, Paleny argued that freezing her eggs for potential future use qualified as a pregnancy “related medical condition.”
During her deposition, Paleny explained that she froze her eggs possibly to donate to others and possibly for her own potential future use. Paleny also admitted that she never requested a leave of absence for a medical condition, nor did she ever need a full day off in the egg retrieval process. She admitted that although she had to take injections to prepare for the procedure that made her nauseated, she did not consider that a disability and she was able to work through it.
The trial court granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment, finding that FEHA’s protections did not extend to medical procedures to donate eggs to others and freeze them for her own possible pregnancy at some unknown time in the future. The trial court found that Paleny could not establish that she suffered from a pregnancy related medical condition nor could she establish that she was disabled or had engaged in protected activity under the FEHA.
On appeal, Paleny argued that the trial court interpreted the FEHA too narrowly, improperly excluding future pregnancies from its protections.
The Court of Appeals noted that all of Paleny’s claims derived from the contention that she was either pregnant or disabled by pregnancy, and the Court of Appeals found that neither was the case. Based on Paleny’s own admissions, Paleny said that she was not pregnant at any time during her employment, and she did not disclose any disabilities or any conditions that impacted her ability to work. Likewise, Paleny’s decision to freeze her eggs did not meet the FEHA’s definition of “disabled by pregnancy,” which occurs when a woman is unable to work or perform essential functions of her job because of pregnancy.
The Court of Appeals also found that Pelany was not suffering from a medical condition related to pregnancy. The Court reasoned that the FEHA’s definition of a related medical condition is “any medically recognized physical or mental condition related to pregnancy, childbirth, or recovery from pregnancy or childbirth. This term includes, but is not limited to, lactation-related medical conditions such as mastitis; gestational diabetes; pregnancy-induced hypertension; preeclampsia; post-partum depression; loss or end of pregnancy; or recovery from loss or end of pregnancy.” The FEHA also defines “condition related to pregnancy, childbirth, or a related medical condition,” as a “physical or mental condition intrinsic to pregnancy or childbirth that includes, but is not limited to, lactation.” Here, Paleny’s circumstances did not meet these definitions. The Court of Appeals was not willing to further expand these definitions and upheld the trial court’s ruling.
Note: As of January 1, 2023, FEHA protected classifications expanded to include “reproductive health decisionmaking,” which would cover egg retrieval procedures. The Court noted that this protection did not apply here because the alleged conduct occurred in 2019, long before the new law went into effect. Schools should keep in mind that this conduct would likely result in a different outcome today.
Paleny v. Fireplace Products U.S., Inc. (June 27, 2024) ___Cal.App.5th___ [2024 Cal. App. LEXIS 410].