respond to Savuth using simple words and ask a question at the end.

Hello all. After reviewing the case study, Mavis Employee's termination by AlderlyCare appears to violate the Pregnancy Discrimination Act (PDA). After announcing her pregnancy, Mavis was questioned about whether she would return to work, offered a demotion, put on a performance improvement plan for pregnancy-related absences, and asked to take on extra duties without extra pay. These events suggest her employer treated her differently due to her pregnancy. A recent case, EEOC v. Polaris Industries, Inc. (2024), highlights this issue. Polaris allegedly failed to accommodate a pregnant employee's medical restrictions and penalized her for absences related to her pregnancy, which ultimately compelled her to resign. The EEOC argued that such actions violated the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act (PWFA). Similar to Mavis, the employee faced pressure and a lack of support, despite federal protection. (Source: EEOC Press Release, 2024) "Pretext for discrimination" means that an employer's stated reason for firing someone is false and used to conceal illegal discrimination. In Mavis's case, the claim of poor performance doesn't hold up when compared to her previous positive reviews and ongoing contributions, including managing dual roles and submitting the report draft before her early maternity leave. The strongest evidence of discrimination is the change in treatment after her pregnancy was uncovered. Management's fixation on her absence, the refusal to provide support, and ultimately using early labor as the reason for her termination imply a bias. Management should take away that even small companies must follow federal law and need proper HR. training to ensure fair treatment of pregnant employees