Brittany Simmons received an award of $12,800 in lost earnings and $50,000 in pain and suffering on June 17 after bringing her former employee, TKE Engineering, to court.
Simmons alleged that she was wrongfully terminated and retaliated for her pregnancy on Nov. 3, 2023.
Simmons’ attorney, Yashdeep Singh of Yash Law Group, did not respond to a request for comment.
TKE Engineering’s attorney, Eric Anderson of Brown White & Osborn, said that Simmons had demanded $200,000 before trial—and $450,000 earlier in the suit.
“While we disagree with the jury’s verdict on wrongful termination and retaliation, we are also glad to see that the amount of money being asked for was outrageous. We are also pleased to see that the jury was able to see that TKE did not act with any malice or fraud or any intent to harm Miss Simmons,” Anderson said.
Simmons took to the stand in the Riverside Historic Courthouse on June 11. She testified that she was on probation at TKE for nine months, and was assigned to build bid proposals. In her time on probation, she missed four mandatory meetings with prospective clients: once because a link to the virtual meeting was broken, once because she had a medical appointment, and twice because she did not see the meeting on her calendar.
She claimed that the volume of assignments for her increased—and she was no longer invited to market events—after she told TKE that she was pregnant. She also said the increase in assignments was partly because of her work ethic.
“Yes, I do believe they gave more because I did good work,” she testified.
She also began to come in late—and stay late as a result—after suffering from morning sickness, she testified.
Her probation was extended twice. One letter describing the reason for her probation extension said that she was tardy, took excessive time off, missed deadlines, had late proposal drafts, had her boyfriend on the work site daily and took personal phone calls.
Another letter said that she missed three mandatory meetings and had inaccuracies in proposals. The proposals, the letter claimed, had wrong headers, missing exhibits, and incorrect content pasted from older bid proposals.
Simmons said that her work had never been criticized as much as it was in the letter.
“I felt this was retaliation for me asking for accommodations for my pregnancy. I thought it was retaliation,” Simmons said.
Simmons denied most of the letter’s claims on the stand.
She would take personal calls only outside the office, her boyfriend would be on site only to carpool with her, and she was told that missing the few meetings she did was acceptable, she said.
When asked by her attorney why she was terminated, she said, “Because of my pregnancy. Because I asked for accommodation for my high risk pregnancy, and because I complained.”
She was left without a job in her seventh month of pregnancy—which also resulted in her missing prenatal appointments due to a lack of health insurance. She found a new job 10 months after she was fired, but worked for Instacart in between those jobs, she testified.
Anderson, TKE’s attorney, tried to confirm in examination what kind of accommodation Simmons was looking for. She confirmed that the company had given her time to attend her doctor’s appointments, and that she did not request physical accommodations. She did not ask for a different schedule due to her morning sickness. She said she wanted to be advised of her pregnancy rights, specifically her time off. Anderson attempted to question her on her knowledge of the mandatory work site rights poster, which would contain that information. Simmons did not remember seeing the poster, so he could not bring it into the testimony.
Anderson asked how she could consider the first feedback about her work as retaliation for pregnancy. According to Simmons’ testimony, her supervisor did not know she was pregnant at the time.
“At the time of having this meeting, when they complain you were missing from meetings, they did not know you were pregnant?” Anderson asked.
“Maybe. They could have overheard a call in the parking lot,” Simmons said.
“You were discussing the pregnancy at work by the April 4th meeting? Anderson asked.
“I don’t remember,” Simmons said.
Later, Anderson tried to pin her down on why her supervisors would claim she was yelling on a personal call in the office.
“So, you are claiming that, before the pregnancy, they were making up this story of you yelling?” Anderson asked.
“Yes,” Simmons said.
“So your contention is: ‘They made it up?’”
“Yes.”
“For what reason?”
“I don’t know the reason.”
“Is it possible that you don’t remember making the calls?”
“No.”
Another issue in the case was the lack of medical records. Simmons did not produce her medical records, and did not have doctor’s notes instructing her to get a work accommodation.
Anderson said that five different women have had pregnancies while employed at TKE over the company’s 20 years, and that the company has a proven history of treating people of all backgrounds well.
“I think the jury believed that TKE had made a mistake in certain formalities, and wanted to hold them accountable for that,” he said.