Photo: Shutterstock

A federal judge has rejected a Philadelphia law firm's efforts to dismiss a former docketing coordinator's pregnancy discrimination lawsuit.

U.S. District Judge Wendy Beetlestone of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on Tuesday denied Condo Roccia Koptiw's motion to dismiss the lawsuit that ex-employee Summer Uchin brought alleging pregnancy discrimination and retaliation.

Although the nearly 20-attorney intellectual property law firm had contended that Uchin failed to make a case, Beetlestone said Uchin alleged sufficient facts to pass the initial motion to dismiss phase.

“Taken together, the allegations of defendant's antagonism to pregnancy generally and to plaintiff in particular support a plausible inference that discovery will reveal evidence of a causal connection between plaintiff's pregnancy and her eventual termination,” Beetlestone said.

According to Beetlestone's seven-page opinion, Uchin began working as a docketing coordinator for the firm in 2011, where she was overseen by Jennifer Rassa, the firm's managing paralegal, as well as the firm's three name partners, Joseph Condo, Vince Roccia and Michael Koptiw. Beetlestone said that for the first few years, Uchin had strong performance reviews, and was given annual pay raises and bonuses.

However, according to the allegations, that changed after Uchin became pregnant in October 2015. Beetlestone said Uchin did not disclose that she was pregnant for several weeks, and in November 2015, during a discussion about another co-worker's pregnancy, Rassa allegedly said, “nobody else better become pregnant because I cannot stand it.”

Uchin alleged that she met with Rassa and Condo in December 2015 and informed them she was pregnant. Condo then, according to the allegations, said that due to an accounting error, Uchin would not be receiving a year-end bonus.

Then, in May 2016, Rassa allegedly cancelled Uchin's midyear review, and said the meeting would happen after Uchin returned from maternity leave. However, after Uchin returned from work, Rassa allegedly stopped returning Uchin's emails and refused to meet with her in person. Uchin alleged that she complained to Condo and Koptiw, and they promised to investigate, but, according to the allegations, they never did.

Uchin also alleged that Koptiw criticized her for having poor communication at work over the previous six months, which was the time period since she had returned from maternity leave. Uchin again did not receive a raise or a bonus in 2016, she contended.

According to the allegations, Uchin also developed anxiety, and requested a leave of absence in January 2017. Upon returning, Uchin met with Condo and Roccia, who terminated her employment, Uchin alleged.

Uchin sued alleging violations of Title VII and the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act, and Condo Roccia filed a motion to dismiss, contending that Uchin failed to present a prima facie case.

Beetlestone noted that to meet the elements of a pregnancy discrimination claim, a plaintiff must show the employer was aware of the pregnancy, that she was qualified for the position, that she suffered an adverse employment action, and that there was a significant nexus between the pregnancy and the adverse employment action.

The sufficiency of Uchin's claims, Beetlestone said, came down to the nexus question, and the judge ultimately determined that the plaintiff had pleaded sufficient facts to establish a nexus both in the discrimination and the retaliation claims.

“Plaintiff alleges facts demonstrating that, after she informed defendant of her pregnancy, her relationship with her supervisors became strained,” Beetlestone said.

Jamie Ford of Sidney L. Gold & Associates, who is representing Uchin, said she thought Beetlestone made the right decision.

“We are happy [Uchin] will be able to proceed with her pregnancy discrimination and retaliation claims,” Ford said.

Marie Sarkess Barbich of Bunker & Ray is representing Condo Roccia. She declined to comment.