Amber Payne worked as a probationary custodial employee at Western Michigan University (WMU) for five months before her employment was terminated in August 2023. Payne learned she was pregnant the same week she began working and later alleged that WMU fired her because of her pregnancy. She sued the University for pregnancy discrimination under Title VII and for failure to accommodate her pregnancy under the federal Pregnant Workers Fairness Act (PWFA). Both parties moved for summary judgment.
The record reflected that Payne struggled with performance issues almost immediately after she started. Supervisors testified that she did not follow instructions, delivered inconsistent results, and had to redo cleaning tasks. At her 30-day evaluation, she received unsatisfactory ratings for the quality of her work, acceptance of direction, and attendance. At 60 days, she showed some improvement, but supervisors testified that her performance declined again soon afterward. Multiple custodial staff reported concerns, including that Payne frequently used her phone during shifts, left work areas without informing coworkers, and at times “disappeared” during work hours. Shortly before her final probationary evaluation, a supervisor found her lying or sitting in a dark room during work time; Payne said she felt dizzy from pregnancy but acknowledged she did not tell the supervisor she was unwell. That supervisor, along with others, recommended she fail probation.
Payne asserted that certain remarks by her trainer, Juanita Snell, revealed discriminatory animus. According to Payne, Snell said her pregnancy was “terrible timing,” told her not to treat it as a disability, and questioned how she planned to manage her symptoms. Payne admitted she did not report the comments, and Snell denied making them. Payne also conceded she did not request any accommodations or tell supervisors that her pregnancy was affecting her work. The individual who made the decision to terminate her employment was the director of labor relations, Kurt Graham, who testified that he relied on input from several supervisors and did not base his decision on pregnancy-related attendance issues.
The Court rejected Payne’s argument that Snell’s alleged comments constituted direct evidence of discrimination, explaining that Snell was not the decision-maker and that Payne offered no evidence tying her comments to the termination decision. Payne therefore proceeded under the McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting framework. For a plaintiff alleging discrimination based on pregnancy, she must show she was (1) pregnant, (2) qualified for the job, (3) subjected to an adverse employment action, and (4) that there is a nexus between the pregnancy and adverse employment decision. If the plaintiff establishes a prima facie case, the burden shifts to the defendant to provide evidence of a legitimate nondiscriminatory reason, and then the burden shifts back to the plaintiff to show that the real reason was pretext for an unlawful action.
On the prima facie case, the Court held that Payne could not establish a causal nexus between her pregnancy and termination. Although the University knew of her pregnancy by late May, she was not fired until late August, and the Court found the three-month gap insufficient to raise an inference of discrimination absent additional evidence. Payne also failed to identify any similarly situated employee who performed as poorly during probation yet was retained, and the evidence showed multiple pregnant custodial workers, including Payne’s sister, completed probation without adverse action.
Even assuming Payne established a prima facie case, WMU articulated a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for termination: consistently poor performance. The University offered extensive supervisor testimony and written evaluations detailing deficiencies in her work quality, reliability, adherence to directions, and attitude. Payne offered no evidence demonstrating these reasons were pretextual. She did not dispute many of the documented performance problems, provided no evidence that WMU overlooked similar deficiencies in non-pregnant employees, and failed to show that the decision-maker relied on inaccurate or fabricated information.
The Court also rejected Payne’s claim under the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act. While she argued that WMU failed to accommodate her pregnancy symptoms, the Court found that she never informed supervisors that she needed any accommodation apart from excused absences, which WMU granted. The doctor’s notes she provided requested only that she be excused from specific days of work, and nothing in the notes or the record notified WMU of limitations requiring workplace modifications. Payne testified she never asked for help or communicated that her pregnancy interfered with performing essential job duties. Because the University lacked notice of any requested accommodation beyond excusal from work, her PWFA claim failed as a matter of law.
The Court granted WMU’s motion for summary judgment and denied Payne’s.
Payne v. W. Mich. Univ. (W.D.Mich. Nov. 13, 2025) 2025 LX 575070.
Note: This decision underscores the importance for employers—including schools—to document performance concerns and ensure decisions are grounded in well-supported, nondiscriminatory reasons. For PWFA compliance, the case highlights that employers must respond to communicated limitations, but employees must first make their limitations and needed accommodations known.