3:25-cv-00393
N.D. Cal.Jun 30, 2025Background
- Plaintiff, a former McKinsey & Company employee, alleges she was terminated after taking pregnancy and family medical leave.
- She was denied certain work assignments after disclosing her pregnancy, but received strong performance reviews and was offered a promotion (unrealized due to a hiring freeze).
- Plaintiff was terminated during her maternity leave, contrary to usual company procedure providing an improvement period for poor performance.
- After her termination, plaintiff received conflicting information from HR regarding her health and parental leave benefits.
- Plaintiff asserts multiple claims under California law, including sex discrimination, retaliation, and wrongful termination tied to her pregnancy and protected leave.
- McKinsey moved to dismiss based on naming requirements and failure to state legally cognizable or factually sufficient claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Use of Pseudonym | Plaintiff sought to proceed under first initial and last name | McKinsey argued full name required by rule | Plaintiff must use her full name |
| FEHA Discrimination/Retaliation | Terminated following protected leave despite strong reviews | Plaintiff was accommodated; reassigned due to inability to travel | Claims plausibly pleaded; survives dismissal |
| Whistleblower Retaliation | Complained about unlawful practices, faced termination | No disclosure of a specific statutory violation | Claim dismissed with leave to amend |
| Retaliation for Sick Leave/Pregnancy Disability Leave | Retaliated against for requesting protected leave | Arguments that claims lack factual basis and legal applicability | Dismissed with leave to amend (claim four and five); Family Rights Act (claim six) may proceed |
Key Cases Cited
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (pleading standard for plausibility in complaints)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (further clarifies plausibility in federal pleadings)
- Doe v. Kamehameha Schools/Bernice Pauahi Bishop Estate, 596 F.3d 1036 (presumption that parties' identities are public in litigation)
- Morgan v. Regents of the Univ. of Cal., 88 Cal. App. 4th 52 (elements for FEHA retaliation claims)
- Nealy v. City of Santa Monica, 234 Cal. App. 4th 359 (reasonable accommodations for disability under California law)