Jessica Maldonado v. U.S. Bank and Manufacturers Bank Case Brief
Complete case briefs with LSD+
Every LSD.Law brief pairs a full IRAC analysis with opinion summaries at three levels of depth, written by a team of Harvard Law and MIT graduates - a quick synopsis when you are pressed for time, the complete reasoning when you need to go deep.
Adaptive Case Views
Toggle between Flash, Standard, and Expanded. Get what you need, when you need it.
Exam-Ready IRAC Format
We deliver the precise structure professors look for in exam answers.
Complex Cases, Clarified
We break down dense legal reasoning into something digestible, helping you grasp core concepts.
Case Brief Summary & Legal Analysis
tl;dr: An employer fired a new teller the day after she announced her pregnancy, assuming she would be unavailable for summer work. The court reversed summary judgment for the employer, finding a triable issue of fact as to whether the firing was based on discriminatory stereotypes about pregnancy.
Legal Significance: An employer cannot take anticipatory adverse action against a pregnant employee based on stereotypes or assumptions about her future availability, absent a good faith basis supported by strong evidence that she cannot perform an essential job function.
Case Facts & Court Holding
Key Facts & Case Background
Plaintiff Jessica Maldonado was hired by U.S. Bank as a part-time teller, a position that required her to be available to substitute for full-time tellers, particularly during the peak summer vacation months. During her training period, on March 3, 1997, Maldonado informed her supervisor, Amalia Gonzalez, that she was pregnant and due in July. The following day, Gonzalez terminated Maldonado’s employment. Maldonado alleged that Gonzalez explicitly told her she was being fired “due to [her] condition” and because the bank needed someone to work the entire summer. Maldonado maintained that she had expressed her intent to work until her delivery date. The bank contended it terminated Maldonado because she would be unavailable to cover summer vacations, an essential job function. Gonzalez stated in an affidavit that she “anticipated” Maldonado would be unable to work. The district court granted summary judgment for the bank, finding Maldonado failed to establish a prima facie case and, alternatively, failed to show the bank’s reason was pretextual.
Court Holding & Legal Precedent
Issue: Can an employer, consistent with the Pregnancy Discrimination Act, lawfully terminate a pregnant employee based on an assumption that her pregnancy will render her unable to meet future job requirements, without specific evidence that she will in fact be unavailable?
No. A genuine issue of material fact exists as to whether the Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur
IRAC Legal Analysis
About IRAC analysis
IRAC (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion) is the structure professors expect in exam answers. Each LSD.Law brief states the issue, the governing rule with citations, the court's application of that rule, and the conclusion - the same reasoning pattern you will use on exams and in practice.
Legal Issue
Can an employer, consistent with the Pregnancy Discrimination Act, lawfully terminate a pregnant employee based on an assumption that her pregnancy will render her unable to meet future job requirements, without specific evidence that she will in fact be unavailable?
Conclusion
This case reinforces that the PDA protects employees from adverse actions based Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in
Legal Rule
Under the Pregnancy Discrimination Act, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e(k), an employer may Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non
Legal Analysis
The Seventh Circuit analyzed the case under the direct method of proof Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. U
Flash-to-Full Case Opinions
Flash Summary
- An employer violates the Pregnancy Discrimination Act (PDA) by firing an