Background
DBDriven.net, LLC hired Chanda Waldenmaier as a junior business systems analyst in 2021. After becoming pregnant and experiencing severe nausea and vomiting, Waldenmaier requested permission to work remotely on her doctor’s recommendation. DBD granted her requests, ultimately approving remote work through her July 2022 due date.
After DBD unexpectedly lost a major Marine Corps contract, it reassigned other employees from that contract but gave Waldenmaier only non-billable administrative work. She alleged that DBD’s chief operating officer criticized her inability to come to the office and said employees with limitations hurt the company. DBD later terminated her, citing a lack of work and her comparatively junior experience and skill set.
Waldenmaier sued under Code § 2.2-3909(B)(2) of the Virginia Human Rights Act, alleging that DBD fired her for using a pregnancy-related accommodation. The circuit court applied but-for causation and granted summary judgment to DBD. It also excluded an audio recording Waldenmaier had secretly made of a Microsoft Teams conversation with the chief operating officer.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeals held that the VHRA’s motivating-factor standard, not but-for causation, governs claims under Code § 2.2-3909(B)(2). Code § 2.2-3905(B)(6) establishes that standard across the VHRA unless the chapter provides otherwise, and discrimination based on an employee’s use of a pregnancy-related accommodation is inseparable from discrimination based on the underlying pregnancy or related medical condition.
The court therefore reversed the summary judgment ruling and remanded for the circuit court to reconsider DBD’s motion under the correct standard. It did not decide whether Waldenmaier had produced enough evidence to defeat summary judgment under that standard.
The court affirmed the exclusion of the secretly recorded Teams call. Because Code § 8.01-420.2 made the recording inadmissible at trial, it could not create a genuine dispute of material fact at summary judgment. The ruling excluded only the recording itself, not otherwise-admissible testimony or other evidence about the conversation.
Key Takeaways
- An employee asserting a claim under Code § 2.2-3909(B)(2) need only show that requesting or using a pregnancy-related reasonable accommodation was a motivating factor in the adverse employment action.
- An employer may face liability even when other considerations also motivated its decision; the accommodation need not be the but-for cause.
- Evidence inadmissible at trial cannot be used to create a genuine factual dispute at summary judgment, although other admissible evidence concerning the same events may still be considered.
Why It Matters
The decision establishes the causation standard for Virginia claims alleging adverse action based on the request for or use of a pregnancy accommodation. By rejecting but-for causation, the court makes clear that employers cannot obtain judgment merely by identifying another legitimate factor that also influenced the employment decision.
The opinion also clarifies Virginia summary-judgment practice: a court must disregard evidence that would be inadmissible at trial, including an unauthorized recording covered by Code § 8.01-420.2.