Necessity of Demonstrating Pretext in Pregnancy Discrimination and ADA Claims for Probationary Employees

Introduction

Sharise Parker v. Children’s National Medical Center, Inc. (4th Cir. 2025) concerned a training specialist—Sharise Parker—who was hired on a six-month introductory period. During that probationary timeframe she learned she was pregnant and later suffered a medical condition requiring bed rest and an eight-hour work-day restriction. Her employer, Children’s National Medical Center (“Children’s National”), terminated her employment before the end of her probationary period, citing persistent performance deficiencies. Parker sued, alleging pregnancy discrimination under Title VII as amended by the Pregnancy Discrimination Act (PDA), retaliation and failure to accommodate under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and ADA Amendments Act (ADAAA), and parallel state-law claims. The district court granted summary judgment for the employer, and the Fourth Circuit affirmed.

Summary of the Judgment

The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court’s ruling in favor of Children’s National Medical Center. Applying the McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting framework, the court assumed for summary judgment that Parker established prima facie cases of discrimination and retaliation. The employer then articulated clear, non-discriminatory reasons for termination—documented, repeated performance shortcomings during Parker’s introductory period. Parker failed to produce evidence raising a genuine issue that those reasons were a pretext for pregnancy discrimination or retaliation. The court also upheld dismissal of her ADA failure-to-accommodate claim, noting her probationary status limited her rights to certain benefits, and that she had not shown she could perform essential job functions even with the requested eight-hour accommodation.

Analysis

1. Precedents Cited

McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973) – Framework for burden-shifting in discrimination cases.
Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Products, Inc., 530 U.S. 133 (2000) – Clarification that proof of false employer justification may suffice to establish pretext.
Foster v. University of Maryland–Eastern Shore, 787 F.3d 243 (4th Cir. 2015) – Prima facie elements for retaliation.
Summers v. Altarum Institute, Corp., 740 F.3d 325 (4th Cir. 2014) – ADAAA’s broader definition of “disability.”
Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a) – Summary judgment standard.

2. Legal Reasoning

a. McDonnell Douglas Framework
The court assumed Parker’s prima facie cases for discrimination and retaliation. Under McDonnell Douglas, once a plaintiff makes a prima facie showing, the employer must articulate a legitimate reason for the adverse action. Children’s National did so by submitting extensive documentation of Parker’s missed deadlines, incomplete work, repeated redos, and supervisory interventions while she was on probation.

b. Pretext Inquiry Post-Reeves
Under Reeves, a plaintiff may prove pretext by showing the employer’s stated reason is unworthy of credence or by adducing circumstantial evidence probative of discrimination. The Fourth Circuit emphasized that disproving the employer’s justification alone is insufficient; the factfinder must also be able to conclude that discrimination or retaliation was the real reason. Parker failed to identify any meaningful inconsistency, falsity, or contradictory record showing that her poor performance was a cover for discrimination.

c. ADA Failure to Accommodate
To prevail, Parker needed to show (1) a “disability” under the ADA/ADAAA, (2) employer knowledge, (3) that a reasonable accommodation would enable her to perform essential job functions, and (4) employer refusal. The court noted that her introductory (probationary) status excluded her from certain benefit entitlements, and in any event she did not show she could meet essential duties even if restricted to eight hours per day.

3. Impact

This decision reinforces critical principles in employment discrimination and ADA law:

Probationary employees can be terminated for documented performance deficiencies, even amidst pregnancy disclosures and medical accommodation requests, if no evidence of pretext exists.
Requests for accommodations under the ADA by probationary employees are subject to the same “essential functions” analysis, but some benefit-eligibility rules may not apply during an introductory period.
The decision underscores the necessity for thorough documentation of performance issues and managerial communications to withstand discrimination challenges.
Plaintiffs must offer more than temporal proximity or isolated remarks; they must present evidence from which a rational factfinder could conclude that discrimination or retaliation actually motivated the adverse action.

Complex Concepts Simplified

McDonnell Douglas Burden-Shifting: A three-step method—(1) plaintiff’s prima facie showing; (2) employer’s legitimate reason; (3) plaintiff’s proof of pretext—to analyze discrimination claims when no direct evidence exists.
Pretext vs. Pretext-Plus: The Supreme Court in Reeves rejected the older “pretext-plus” requirement that plaintiffs must bring in independent proof of discrimination beyond falsity. Now, undermining the employer’s reason may suffice if discrimination emerges as the most likely explanation.
Prima Facie Case: In a pregnancy-discrimination suit under Title VII/PDA, a plaintiff must show she was in a protected class (pregnant), suffered an adverse action (termination), was meeting employer expectations, and that similarly situated non-pregnant employees were treated more favorably (or other evidence eliminating nondiscriminatory inference).
Essential Functions & ADA Accommodations: Even when an employee has a disability, she must show that with reasonable accommodations she can still perform the core duties of her job; a medical note alone does not fulfill this requirement.
Introductory Period vs. Regular Employee: Employers may limit certain rights—including some accommodation or benefit entitlements—during a pre-established probationary period, provided they apply such rules uniformly and without discriminatory intent.

Conclusion

Sharise Parker v. Children’s National Medical Center, Inc. affirms that employers may lawfully terminate probationary employees for documented performance failures, even after pregnancy disclosures and accommodation requests, so long as there is no genuine dispute that the stated reasons are pretextual. The decision underscores the enduring importance of comprehensive performance records, consistent application of probationary policies, and the plaintiff’s ultimate burden to prove that discrimination or retaliation truly motivated the termination.