Lefort v Kingsbrook Jewish Med. Ctr.

What the court decided

A hospital employee was told on her first day back from maternity leave that her position had been eliminated and replaced by a new title she was said to be unqualified for. Pregnancy discrimination is gender discrimination under the State and City Human Rights Laws. The court found triable issues on every contested point: an offer of a temporary social worker job at the same salary, without her management duties, could itself be a materially adverse change; her supervisor allegedly disparaged her pregnancy and leave, asked to discuss her return and was present when she was let go; the decision-maker admitted he knew she was on leave; the stated reason (no business education) was not a requirement of the new job, and her evaluations showed she did marketing work; and the employer later offered her the new job in a letter calling it "virtually identical" to her old one. That letter was admissible because the offer was not conditioned on dropping her claims.

Who won

The employee won this round. The Appellate Division reversed and reinstated her State and City discrimination claims for trial.

Why it matters for workers with a medical condition

A "restructuring" that lands on someone returning from maternity leave deserves a close look: who was in the room, what the new job actually requires, and what the employer said about it later.

Key passage: 203 A.D.3d at 709–12.

We do not host a copy of this decision. The full text is available free from New York State Law Reporting Bureau (official slip opinion).

This page summarizes the decision in plain language.