If a man fires his pregnant secretary to appease his jealous wife, can the secretary sue him for discrimination? In the case of Mittl v. New York State Division of Human Rights, an appellate court in New York said no. But isn't this a classic case of sex discrimination?

The plaintiff in the New York case worked as a secretary for a physician at Columbia Presbyterian Hospital. About a year after starting work, she announced that she was pregnant. Her boss initially greeted her announcement “in good spirit” and gave her advice about seeking disability benefits during maternity leave. But, as the date grew closer, the tone of his reaction changed. The reason for the change, it turned out, was that his wife was angry because she believed that her husband might have fathered the child.

There was no apparent evidence that the wife's belief was correct; indeed, the appellate court described it as “irrational.” Nor was there even any evidence that the doctor-secretary relationship was anything other than professional. Nevertheless, the doctor's wife clung to her belief. She made hostile phone calls to the plaintiff and, at some point, even threatened to fire her, although she had no authority to carry out such a threat. The doctor at first found his wife's reaction humorous, but his efforts to calm her down were ultimately unsuccessful. He thus fired his secretary to placate his wife.

THE LAWSUIT AND THE DECISIONS OF THE AGENCY AND THE APPEALS COURT

The secretary then filed a lawsuit alleging that she had been subjected to pregnancy discrimination, in violation of New York's antidiscrimination law. (That law is roughly coextensive with the federal ban on sex and pregnancy discrimination, embodied in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended by the Pregnancy Discrimination Act of 1978.)

Her boss was found liable by the agency charged with implementing this law and ordered to pay nearly $200,000 in damages. However, with little or no analysis, the appellate court reversed the agency's decision. The only facts the court seemed to find relevant were that the doctor had not initially reacted negatively to the secretary's announcement, nor had he given her any initial indication that her condition would jeopardize her employment.