Dumoulin v. Formica

**What happened:** A female employee sued McDonald's Ravena Franchise claiming pregnancy discrimination, failure to accommodate her pregnancy-related needs, breach of contract, and wrongful termination. The employee alleged that McDonald's treated her unfairly because of her pregnancy and failed to provide reasonable accommodations for her condition before ultimately firing her. **What the court decided:** The court reached a split decision. It dismissed the employee's contract-related claims, ruling in favor of McDonald's on those issues. However, the court allowed the pregnancy discrimination and Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) claims to move forward to trial. The court found there were genuine factual disputes about whether McDonald's real reasons for its actions were discriminatory, meaning a jury would need to decide these questions. **Why this matters for workers:** This case shows that pregnancy discrimination claims can survive even when employers provide seemingly legitimate reasons for their actions. Courts will look beyond surface explanations to determine if discrimination was the real motive. Workers facing pregnancy discrimination should know that even if their employer claims other reasons for adverse actions, they may still have viable legal claims if evidence suggests pregnancy was actually a factor in the employer's decision-making.