A guidance counselor of Indian descent who had taken approved maternity leave had her contract non-renewed by a new superintendent who explicitly cited her maternity leave as the reason — and who later referred to her as "culturally different" and stated she did not grasp the "dysfunctionality of Americanism." After she left the school, the superintendent provided negative references to at least two prospective employers and told one district not to hire her, despite having offered a positive reference as a condition of her resignation. After she filed a charge of discrimination with the EEOC, the superintendent continued to interfere with her employment prospects. She sued the superintendent and the school district for violations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Pregnancy Discrimination Act of 1978, and the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination.
The client is a female of Indian descent. In 2011, she was hired by a public school district as a guidance counselor. She was well qualified for the position and performed satisfactorily throughout her employment. Around November 2012, she took an approved maternity leave through June 2013.
In November of the following school year, a new superintendent was hired at the district, replacing the superintendent who had approved her maternity leave. In March 2014, the new superintendent informed her that her contract would be renewed for the following school year. The following month, the superintendent was informed that her maternity leave had interrupted her tenure track, pushing her tenure decision to January 2015. He told her that her maternity leave had been inconvenient to the district and that, as a result, he would not agree to renew her contract. He advised her that non-tenured staff was not supposed to take extended maternity leave and that doing so had hurt her chances of continued employment.
A few days later, she discovered that non-U.S. citizens are ineligible for tenure. She was not a U.S. citizen at the time and held permanent residence. She emailed the superintendent to inform him of her ineligibility for tenure, noting that this made his stated reason for non-renewal open to discussion, and expressed her desire to remain employed at the school and her willingness to be mentored by a more experienced counselor.
On or about May 1, 2014, she met with the superintendent about her employment. He reiterated that he would not recommend the renewal of her contract, stating that because he was a new superintendent who had only been serving for five months, he was not comfortable committing to her given her tenure ineligibility. In an attempt to convince her to resign, he offered her a choice: if she were terminated, she could collect benefits but he would not give her a recommendation; if she resigned, she would not collect benefits but he would provide a recommendation wherever she applied.
The superintendent then stated that the real reason her contract was not being renewed was that she had been out on maternity leave the prior year. He then stated it was because she was "culturally different" and did not grasp the "dysfunctionality of Americanism." He then offered yet another reason — that there had been six parent complaints about her — though she had never been told of any complaints before. When she asked what the real reason was and noted she had never been given the opportunity to address any complaints, the superintendent dismissed her concerns, cut her off, and told her the meeting was over.
In or around June 2014, she interviewed for a position at another school district and was strongly recommended for the role by the counselor she would be replacing, who was scheduled to go on maternity leave. She believed the interview had gone well, but did not hear back for several weeks. When she followed up, she was informed that the superintendent had given her a poor reference and told the district not to hire her. She was left unemployed with no benefits, despite the superintendent's offer of a positive reference in exchange for her resignation. The superintendent admitted to telling the district they should hire another candidate.
She subsequently filed a charge of discrimination with the EEOC. In response, the superintendent continued to interfere and retaliate against her. In or around July 2015, she interviewed with another public school, having been highly recommended by someone who was resigning from that position after more than six years. She informed the assistant principal during the interview that she and the superintendent had not parted on good terms and suggested they contact her other supervisors for references. After being told she would hear back within two weeks, she never received any communication from the school, leading her to believe the superintendent had interfered with that process as well.