Could your leave policies land you in court? See why HR leaders are watching this case closely
A Connecticut appeals court has revived a pregnancy discrimination lawsuit, putting HR practices around maternity leave and job reinstatement under the microscope.
On November 11, 2025, the Connecticut Appellate Court ruled that Cassie Long’s claims against the Town of Putnam should proceed to further review. Long, who served as assistant finance director, alleged that she was not reinstated to her original or an equivalent position and was denied a promotion after returning from maternity leave. These allegations are at the center of the case and are particularly relevant for HR professionals navigating leave and reinstatement policies.
Long was hired as assistant finance director in 2019, with the understanding that she could be promoted to finance director after demonstrating sufficient expertise. She informed the town of her pregnancy on her first day of work. The finance department had a history of high turnover and late audits, and Long was expected to help address these issues.
Long alleged that after she began maternity leave in February 2020, the town hired another individual, Maureen Benway, as finance director. When Long returned from leave in May 2020, she claimed her job duties were significantly reduced. She stated that she was reassigned to accounts receivable tasks, her work hours were cut by eight per week, her pay was reduced by $15,000, and she was reclassified as an hourly employee. Long also alleged she lost access to certain financial systems and was excluded from meetings she previously attended. She claimed these changes amounted to a demotion and were related to her pregnancy and maternity leave.
The Town of Putnam, in response, argued that Long was not demoted and that any changes to her role or hours were due to departmental needs and budget constraints, not discrimination. The trial court initially granted summary judgment in favor of the town, dismissing Long’s claims of pregnancy and gender discrimination.
The Connecticut Appellate Court, however, found that Long had presented sufficient evidence to create genuine issues of material fact regarding whether she suffered adverse employment actions and whether the town’s stated reasons were a pretext for discrimination. The court noted the timing and sequence of events, including the hiring of Benway during Long’s leave and the changes to Long’s duties and pay upon her return. The appellate court reversed the summary judgment on the pregnancy discrimination claim and remanded the case for further proceedings. The court declined to review the gender discrimination claim due to inadequate briefing.
This case highlights the importance of carefully managing leave, reinstatement, and promotion decisions, and ensuring that employment actions are well-documented and consistent with policy. The Long v. Town of Putnam decision serves as a reminder that courts will closely examine employer conduct following protected leave, and that allegations of discrimination can proceed where factual disputes exist.
