She got a raise, announced her pregnancy, then lost her job within three months
A pregnant worker got a pay raise, then lost her job within three months. A Tennessee appeals court said that timeline deserves a closer look.
The Court of Appeals of Tennessee, in a decision filed October 9, 2026, reversed summary judgment for The Corporate Image, Inc. (TCI) and sent a pregnancy discrimination claim back for trial.
The worker started at TCI in January 2016 as a senior project manager. By March 2017, she had positive reviews and a ten percent raise. On May 12, 2017, she told the company president she was pregnant.
Within weeks, the president twice asked whether she planned to return from maternity leave full time. Both times, she said yes. She contends he responded with words to the effect of “best laid plans can change. I understand how that changes with a second child.”
On July 26, while she was on vacation, TCI lost a major client - one it described as her “main client . . . and the largest portion of her work and salary.” She returned July 31 and kept working. Two days later, the president told her he was “going to have to let [her] go at the end of the month.” She contends he added she would “be gone for a while anyway.” He denies it.
On August 8, a non-pregnant colleague was promoted to vice president over the division. Two other non-pregnant colleagues kept their jobs despite the same downturn.
On August 14, management moved her exit date up a week. When told she might lose her accrued sick leave, she produced a doctor’s note releasing her from work - one she conceded she used “as a way to take her sick days before her last day.” TCI sent her home.
That afternoon, she emailed 31 clients saying she had been “let go” due to loss of business, then deleted it. When TCI found out, it recharacterised her departure as a discharge for breaching her nondisclosure agreement.
The appeals court found TCI offered legitimate reasons for the termination. But it held the worker raised enough pretext evidence to reach a jury: the repeated leave-plan questions, the disputed comment, the retention of non-pregnant colleagues, and a timeline under three months from pregnancy announcement to termination.
Even if the email was misconduct, the court noted, it “could potentially limit her damages but would not completely bar her claim.” The case heads to trial.
For HR teams: when a termination lands soon after a pregnancy disclosure, shifting explanations can become evidence of pretext.
