A denied promotion, revoked remote work, and a call during leave allegedly preceded the firing
A federal lawsuit accuses Wawa of sidelining a pregnant employee one decision at a time — from a denied promotion to termination.
The case, filed on March 20 in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (Vandermay v. Wawa, Inc., No. 2:26-cv-01840), lays out how a series of management choices allegedly unraveled a four-year employment relationship. The suit raises claims of pregnancy discrimination, retaliation, and hostile work environment under Title VII, the Pregnancy Discrimination Act, the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act, and the Family and Medical Leave Act. No court has ruled on the merits.
The plaintiff, who worked as an SQF Practitioner at Wawa's beverage processing plant in Media, PA, says she disclosed her second pregnancy in late 2024. Her first pregnancy in 2023 had gone smoothly — no workplace friction, no issues upon return. But the second time around, under new management, things allegedly took a different turn.
In May 2025, at roughly eight months pregnant, she told her new manager she wanted to be considered for a promotion to QA Senior Supervisor — a role she says she had effectively been doing for years. The response, according to the lawsuit: "We need to do what is best for the facility right now." The job was then posted externally. It was the only one of three open positions that year opened to outside candidates.
Around the same time, a work-from-home Friday arrangement she had maintained since 2021 — and that was standard among corporate staff — was pulled. She was told her presence was needed in the office five days a week. When she asked to work remotely during the final weeks of her pregnancy, as she had during her first, she was required to submit a doctor's note. The request took roughly two weeks to process because the person handling it was on PTO.
During her 15-week maternity leave, a manager allegedly called and suggested she come back early for an audit, noting it "could be nice to take [leave] during the holidays." HR later confirmed she was not required to cut her leave short.
On her first day back, the lawsuit says she was pulled off the audit she had long overseen, told to let a newer hire take the lead, and reminded — again — of the in-office requirement. Her responsibilities, according to the filing, had already been gradually reassigned before she left.
Within two weeks of her return, she was let go. The reason given was budget cuts. But in a later filing with the EEOC, the company's explanation shifted, according to the suit — her role had been deemed unnecessary by a supervisor who, the lawsuit alleges, did not know about the termination until after it happened. She was, according to the filing, the only employee cut.
The case has not been decided. But for HR professionals, the pattern it describes — schedule changes, accommodation delays, contact during leave, stripped responsibilities, and a termination with a shifting rationale — is the kind of sequence worth examining closely.
