Supervisor’s remark leads 6th Circuit to revive discrimination claim

Gather round, friends, and let me tell you of a strange story and a strained decision from the U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals (whose rulings apply to all employers in Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio, and Tennessee).

‘Strained’ reaction and an estranged relationship

What’s strangest about the story is that it involves layoffs in a healthcare system during the peak of COVID in 2020. (And, no, that wasn’t even the employee’s pretext argument). Jackilyn Bunnell was an ultrasonographer for the William Beaumont Hospital System. In December 2019, she announced her pregnancy, and her supervisor congratulated her and immediately granted her first accommodation request not to be exposed to X-rays during her pregnancy.

In late February 2020, Bunnell’s coworkers complained she was refusing to enter the rooms of patients with infectious diseases. She hadn’t cleared that with Tracy Zeiter, her immediate supervisor, who told her she wasn’t relieved from entering these rooms. Bunnell then gave Zeiter a doctor’s note that cursorily said, “Jackilyn is pregnant and must not be exposed to any infectious disease at work.” Zeiter reacted by calling Bunnell a “disappointment” and accused her of putting a “strain” on the department. She apologized for her reaction soon after, but when Bunnell pressed her, Zeiter maintained that while Bunnell herself wasn’t a strain, it strained the department when employees had limitations.