Erika Paleny worked for Fireplace Products U.S., Inc. Paleny informed her manager of her plans to undergo oocyte (egg) retrieval procedures for donation and future personal use. Paleny claimed that her manager disapproved of the procedures and scolded her for needing time off. After Paleny asked for additional time off for her procedures, her manager allegedly became angry and terminated Paleny’s employment that same day.
Paleny then brought 10 causes of action against her employer and manager, 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). Her manager and employer argued that oocyte retrieval was not considered 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” under the FEHA.
The trial court granted the employer’s and manager’s motion for summary judgment, finding that FEHA’s protections did not extend to medical procedures to donate eggs to others or freeze them for a possible future pregnancy. The trial court found that Paleny could not establish that she had a pregnancy-related medical condition, nor could she establish that she was disabled, or had engaged in FEHA-protected activity.
On appeal, Paleny argued that the trial court interpreted the FEHA too narrowly because procedures for future pregnancies were protected.
The California Court of Appeal found that Paleny was not pregnant nor disabled by pregnancy during her employment, and thus could not claim entitlement to FEHA’s pregnancy disability law. The Court also found that Paleny did not have a medical condition related to pregnancy. The egg retrieval procedure did not constitute a medical condition related to pregnancy under the FEHA because Paleny was undergoing an elective medical procedure without an underlying medical condition related to pregnancy. Therefore, Paleny did not have a protected characteristic under the FEHA.
Paleny v. Fireplace Products U.S., Inc., 103 Cal.App.5th 199 (2024).