*1 $100,000, limiting Vaughan’s Mr. claim to less pursuant Disability
benefits received to the
Act. argues
Nationwide that Mr. and Mrs. together subject
Vaughan were
$100,000 pursuant limit in policy
language of the insurance contract. As ex-
plained pol- in their “The brief: Nationwide $100,000
icy provides ‘[b]odily injury’ limit (Mr. person’ Vaughan,
‘for one ‘bodily
‘person’ injury’) here who sustained legal by damages anyone’
‘for all claimed
(including bodily Vaughan) injury’ Mrs. ‘for
(Mr. claim) Vaughan’s ‘or loss services of (Mrs. claim) person’ Vaughan’s
one ‘as a (the motorcycle
result of one occurrence’ ac-
cident).” agree We with Nationwide language policy is clear and that Vaughans
the claims are considered one.18
to be
Affirmed.
Beverly DUNCAN, Appellant,
CHILDREN’S NATIONAL MEDICAL
CENTER, Appellee.
No. 96-CV-441. Appeals.
District of Columbia Court 4,
Argued 1997. June
Decided 1997. Nov. Whitney’s injury, ages” stemming from Mrs. 18. This outcome also consistent the D.C. person” Fetisoff, Sure- Circuit’s decision in GEICO v. to the “each limitation. U.S.App. ly ambiguous D.C. F.2d 1137 the word "all”—one the least interpreted very language—leaves English case the court simi- no room circuit language uncertainty lar insurance and found of Mr. Whit- as to inclusion ney's that: even if about the сlaim. And some doubt purview remain, person" Whitney’s clearly “each limitation "arises of” his Mr. claim out by injury; Whitney dependent clause it is removed wife’s Mr. have "including damages of ser- for care and loss claim for loss of under the insur- consortium vices,” consortium-type injury plainly suffered Mrs. refers to ance absent the Whitney policy. in an accident covered claims. result, claim, at Whitney’s Mr. like Id. at 958 F.2d As a "all dam- *2 Branch, DC, app for Washington, David A. ellant.* Damato,
Joseph with Russell H. R. whom brief, DC, Washington, Gore on the was appellee. SCHWELB, FARRELL
Before
RUIZ,
Judges.
Associate
PER CURIAM.**
National
Beverly Duncan sued Children’s
(“CNMC”)
ter-
Medical Center
of contraсt and
mination
on breach
intentional in-
public policy, and
violation of
appeals
distress. She
fliction of emotional
her com-
court’s dismissal of
from the trial
**
*
III,
II,
opinion were au-
Parts
and IV of this
represent
Ms. Duncan
Branch did
Mr.
RUIZ;
Judge
part V
thored
Associate
court.
trial
Judge
FARRELL.
authored Associate
12(b)(6),
delivery.
pursuant
cautionary
measure until after
plaint,
Rule
for failure
a claim on
could be
placed
to state
which relief
Duncan on ad-
Subsequently, CNMC
affirm.
granted. We
it conduct-
pay
ministrative leave
while
investigation into the matter.
ed its own
I.Facts
inves-
Following completion of its internal
*3
gleaned
complaint,
frоm
the
As
Duncan’s
“numerous
refused Duncan’s
tigation, CNMC
facts are as follows: In December
“findings”
the
and “conclu-
requests” for
attempted to
Duncan from
CNMC
transfer
investigation.
of CNMC’s
sions”
position
Developmental
her
Methods
E
quoted
complaint,
Section
As
Technologist,
position
she had held since
paragraph
Pregnancy
3 of the
and Radiation
September
position
the
Senior
provides as follows:
Technologist.
position Plan
Medical
The latter
required
eight
her to
train for
weeks
Options
Employee
E.
Bank, performing
applications
clinical
above,
consideration to the
With
using equipment
radioisotoрes
that utilized
re-
pregnant
radiation worker will be
Cesium,
expose
her to
a continu-
sponsible making
of one
the decision
was
ous emitter of radiation.
who
following options:
time,
pregnant
feared the
six months
at the
on staff and as-
1. Worker remains
exposure might
harmful in her
radiation
duties are
sumes normal duties. These
condition.
above conditions.
According
the CNMC
request
can
to be trans-
2. Worker
Safety Emergency
and Radiation
to another
within
ferred
Plan”)
(“Pregnancy
is a
and Radiation
hospital if available.
policy implemented by
governs
CNMC that
apply
for a Leave of
3. Worker
pregnant
exposure
emрloyees
to radia-
Absence.
policy
make
requires
tion. The
CNMC
resign
her
Worker
pregnant
exposed
workers
aware
to radiation
hospital.
from
potential
exposure
risks of radiation
to radia-
being exposed
about
Concerned
appropriate protective
and to take
measures.
tion,
in the Blood
Duncan refused to work
Among
things,
policy requires
requested
transferred
Bank and
that she be
to monitor
on a
exposure
CNMC
levels
Dun-
department.
denied
monthly
by
monitor-
issuing
basis
a radiation
instead,
and,
request
request-
transfer
per-
can’s
ing badge
employees
while
family
use
leave for
that Dunсan
or sick
forming
exposure
duties in
areas.
ed
Duncan “did
alleges
pregnancy.
failed to follow the duration of
by failing
policy
notify
absence]
her of the
three
[a
not elect
leave
potential dangers
hardship
the radiation
the financial
that would
because of
policy
failing
further
to follow its
being
from
of work without
have resulted
out
concerning
monitoring badge
even
repeated requests
pay.”
response
subjected
though she was
to direct radiation
family
or sick
superiors
she take
exposure.1
leave,
superiors
her reason
she told the
family
it
using the
was “because
for not
leave
Rаdiation Safe-
Duncan consulted CNMC’s
expectant mother
only used when the
was
Officer,
suggested
time
ty
she limit her
who
delivery,
time that
and at the
was close
Bank,
personal
her own
in the Blood
take the
urging
were
her to
superiors
who,
into the
investigation
after an
physician,
delivery.”
ready for
child,
family leave she was not
dangers to
unborn
potential
Duncan’s
at home
During the time that Duncan was
recom-
physician
wrote to CNMC.
family
of her refusal to use
direct or
“because
she be
mended that
removed
involuntarily
leave,”
pre-
nevertheless
exposure to
as a
constant
the radiation
monthly
required.
In either situa-
itself
аs the
appears to contradict
1. Duncan’s
monitoring
point
badge, alleging
tion,
complaint alleges
at one
as to the
that no such
having
that CNMC
badge
supplied to her after
was
Pregnancy and Radiation
to follow the
failed
badge
supplied
earlier
that a
Plan.
tri-monthly
than
rather
but
to be checked
discrimination,
family leave,
placed
including pregnancy
her on
had
and when she
based
leave,
sick
exhausted
and/or
and childbirth. D.C.Code
1-2505
terminated her.
Hospital, 702 A.2d
See Carl v. Children’s
(D.C.1997)
J.,
(Terry,
concur
162-163
II. Standard of Review
J., Farrell, J.,
joined by Wagner,
ring,
C.
challenge
sufficiency
A
of a
J.) (“[T]he
Ruiz,
recognition
any public
12(b)(6)
presents quеs
under Rule
law,
exception to the
must
and thus
at-will doctrine
tions of
this court conducts de
record, construing
novo review of the
solidly
regulation
on a
statute
light
facts and inferences in
most favor
particular public policy to be
that reflects the
taking
com
able to
(if appropriate)
a constitutional
applied, or
plaint’s allegations
as' true. See Atkins
concretely applicable to the defen
provision
Ass’n, 660
Industrial Telecommunications
4-5,
conduct.”);
*4
dant’s
id. at 163 nn.
see
cf.
(D.C.1995).
885,
A.2d
887
A
(Steadman, J., dissenting,
2
id. at 197 n.
also
long
“fairly puts
sufficient so
as it
the defen
J.)
concurring
joined by King,
(acquiescing in
against
dant on notice of the claim
[her].”
(D.C.
177,
Covington,
Nelson v.
A.2d
178
519
Rights
plurality opinion). Yet the Human
1986). Accordingly,
pleading
rules of
liberal
af
specifically requires
Act
that “[w]omen
normally
protect a
from dismissal at
or related
fected
childbirth
pleading stage
complaint can be
when the
same
shall
treated the
medical conditions
be
to state a claim if all inferences are
said
... as
employment-related purposes
for all
plaintiffs
Way
drawn
favor. See Bible
persons
similar
not so affected but
Our
Church
Lord Jesus Christ
of
ability
inability
to work....”
their
419,
Beards,
430
Apostolic Faith v.
680 A.2d
l-2505(b).
(D.C.1996).
act
not
A
not be dis
does
should
D.C.Code
plain
a
missed because
court doubts that
dispensation
special
pregnant
for
create a
McBryde
prevail
tiff will
on a claim.
v.
See
women,
only requires
they not be
but
Co.,
(D.C.1979).
200,
404
203
Amoco Oil
A.2d
against
em
discriminated
nor denied
However,
state a
dismissal for failure to
pregnancy.
ployment opportunity due to
may properly
“ap
granted
claim
where
Union,
rule is reflected in
This
International
beyond
plaintiff can
pears
doubt
Controls,
Auto., etc. v.
499
Johnson
United
prove
support
of facts
claim
[her]
set
187,
1196,
L.Ed.2d 158
111 S.Ct.
113
U.S.
entitle
Con
[her]
which would
to relief.” See
(1991),
Gibson,
41, 45-46,
in which
Court held
ley v.
355 U.S.
78 S.Ct.
102,
211 distress, liability employers imposed par- than to the who hire those mental ents. all causes mental distress. conduct which Thompson, 570 See District Columbia Id. at 111 at 1207.3 S.Ct. (citation (D.C.1990) omitted), A.2d In Armstrong Hosp., v. Flowers 33 F.3d (D.C.1991). Rather, modified, (11th Cir.1994), court, applying a claim for intentional infliction emotional Controls, Johnson reiterated that the deci- outrageous in contemplates distress acts “so particular job sion whether to continue in a character, degree, go and so extreme pregnant employee rests with the and not beyond decency.” Id. possible bounds of “generally the employer, prohibited who is (citations omitted). The trial found court deciding pregnant employee for a what rise to the conduct course best for her.” of action is Id. at 1316. as a required outrageousness matter level of Instead, may choose to “[s]he continue work- agree. law. We ing, to seek a situation with strin- work less gent requirements, determining or leave the whether the con workforce. In cases, outrageous may, question these in- duct in is extreme and some alternatives deed, law, present appli a matter court a difficult choice.” Id. at 1315. as considers standards, community Duncan faced with such a difficult choice cablе the nature of the activity issue, relationship to work in the Bank. at between the chose not parties, particular judicially cogni- has not identified and the environment *5 public imposes place. King zable the took See v. upon that CNMC which conduct (D.C.1993). Kidd, 656, duty 640 The position transfer Duncan to A.2d 668 to new activity in in question to accommodate her this case CNMC’s otherwise concerns. to staffing To the decision transfer extent that has identified the administrative public policy prohibiting required to which discrimination on Duncan a new against exposure the it radiation while she was basis of militates some to and, foregoing, pregnant subsequently, the to terminate cause. Given we hold that our employment. fails to state a claim that Duncan’s While cases rec Duncan’s ognize outrageous for failure to work in that “extreme and dismissal the Blood public policy. Bank character conduct arise from the violates of the peculiarly knowledge actor’s that the other Intentional Infliction IV. of distress, by susceptible reason to emotional Emotional Distress physical pecu of condition or some or mental liarity,” A.2d complaint alleges Drejza, supra, that 650 at 1314 Duncan’s intentionally (quoting (Second) CNMC inflicted dis emotional ToRts Restatement (1965)), by forсing § f that Duncan tress on Duncan her to to 46 cmt. to the extent continue Bank, distress, it was not as a either in the Blood where her suffered emotional work radiation, part exposed to result of intentional conduct fetus would be or to job. had a choice to work “[to] lose her In order succeed on a CNMC. Duncan Although that choice and claim intentional infliction of emotional Blood Bank. (1) distress, consequences may plaintiff must show have been onerous extreme time, unappealing Duncan at the outrageous part conduct on the to (2) in a intentionally her to remain situation or reckless force dеfendant (3) exposed to she radiation. ly severe emotional where causes Vaccaro, 1308, Thus, impute intentionality it Drejza is difficult to distress.” Further, (D.C.1994) (citations omitted). our cases 1312 There is recklessness to CNMC. that, employer-employee general duty causing generally, to show no of care avoid pregnan- job of her language Pregnancy because functions of 3. The Discrimination Act, 2000e(k) (1994), § cy-related to 42 U.S.C. is identical in the same manner as condition Rights quoted language of the Human Act employees.” temporarily disabled treats other prohibition above. latter adds that 1—2505(b). The argue Duncan does not D.C.Codе against pregnancy-related in- discrimination tempo- vis á that she discrimination vis suffered requirement employer cludes that an must "a rarily workers. disabled employee temporarily perform treat unable to an 212 outrageous dispute level There is
conflicts do not rise to the CNMC terminat- See, e.g., Thompson, question supra, employment. conduct.4 570 ed (D.C.1990) (holding A.2d pat at 290 that a she a claim that it has stated did so misrepresentation tern employment policies of criticism and cou in violation of written pled alleged employee assault of (specifically Radiation Plan) subsequent not constitute of her pаrt that were or became con- conduct); Best, outrageous Howard Univ. v. employment tract of On with CNMC. (D.C.1984) (stating 484 point—whether A.2d latter the Plan conferred professional responsibilities agree interference with rights contractual on Duncan—we does not constitute intentional infliction of that the case resolved on a motion cannot be distress); Hogan see also wrong- emotional v. For to dismiss. the issue becomes So Co., syth Country N.C.App. Club 340 fulness or her termination. not of (1986) (finding S.E.2d that a refusal depends question answer to grant permission pregnancy go leave or Plan, which, squarely on E of the section cursing pregnant employ hospital and “the recited leaves ee, improper, did not outra while constitute responsible making ... radiation worker law). geous as a matter of The facts conduct following options” the decision of one alleged are insufficient perceives when she herself at risk undue impute outrageousness recklessness or job: staffing implementing its internal 1. Worker remains on staff assumes changes. Nor can CNMC’s actions be said are normal duties. These duties go beyond the bounds established well the above conditions.5 community re standards request to 2. Worker can be transferred lationship. Because conduct hospital within the underlying Duncan’s claim for inten if available. tional infliction of emotional distress is not *6 apply for a Leave of 3. Worker can Ab- “outrageous” as a sufficiently matter of law sence. action, to the cause of we affirm the sustain
trial of Duncan’s claim for court’s dismissal resign position 4. Worker from of emotional intentional infliction distress. hospital. fairly alleges that complaint If Duncan’s she Employment Contract
V. options, three given none of the first was that her then she has a claim termi- stated reject Finally, Duncan’s claim of we wrongful. nation was based on wrongful termination a claim that she agreement. Duncan has not stated employment an We breach of to wrongfully denied a transfer another emphasize that this a cause of was at the outset is in explicit saying department. The Plan is wrongful termination. However action for transfer, may request such complaint may otherwise that worker unclear Duncan’s in if a another be, stating that an which will honored explicit in is “[t]his it is n Nothing in is available. ... to relief the unlawful action obtain inference complaint counters the obvious employment.” It is not termination from this rested within business or that decision damages, either to Duncan herself suit for útero, Duncan judgment of Nor does even to radia CNMC. then in child was allege that of a transfer un- the denial CNMC’s Blood tion while she worked sup- of a arbitrary, in violation Thus, in fact reasonable or not CNMC Bank. whether or fair posed implicit duty good faith deal- safety precautions governing failed to follow ing part. CNMC’s at issue in case. exposure is not this radiation "conditions,” alleged, include moni- suggest 5. Those as that there can never be a not This does insuring toring exposure records dis- infliction of claim for intentional emotional ionizing permissible radiation to dose of arising employer-employee rela- from an tress embryo/fetus exposed is not exceed- which the is tionship. ed. hand, instead, of her in the words On the other Duncan’s concession out of hand dismiss, “attempt- complaint that to the motion opposition “remain[ ] she refused to to by request- on staff [in assume[] [CNMC’s Plan] to Bank] ed adhere 1) sufficient, (option normal duties” not until ing transferred to another location to be itself, option pregnancy,” request to defeat her That claim. of her the end “subject expressly obliged made condi employer grant. to the above was not supra, is, tions,” see note to CNMC’s must, course, read We taking measures stated earlier present pur- liberally in favor of Duncan for expo Plan to monitor control radiation nothing in the even so poses, but there complaint alleges sure. The that CNMC her disavow- complaint sufficient overcome Dun implement protections failed those available to having pursued an al of can’s case. present in her her if she declined continue if Duncan Yet even not satisfied with were duties. implementation safety mea- CNMC’s Affirmed. sures, did not leave her with (the resignation equivalent choice but RUIZ, part: Judge, dissenting in Associate termination). Option says that a worker majority affirms of Duncan’s A dismissal may “apply for a Leave of Absence.” based on claim for termination say the leave I employment agreement. an dis- breach of paid although permitted unpaid, was we model agree. although not a may assume it was of both a combination clarity, out a claim on breach sets (depending on how annual much sick and meet employment an contract sufficient accumulated). leave a worker had If requirements pleading. the minimal of notice request if it option, refused to even Further, allegations if the pay period, meant leave without limited for a inferences are construed therefrom discharge then CNMC’s it deter- of her once Duncan, they light most favorable to placement mined that no other available be, a claim that the must states and she refused to continue her “normal Pregnancy and Radiation Plan constituted duties,” wrongful. have been agreement and Duncan and between CNMC pay Leave without would still be was in breach of CNMC, not termination. obligations Duncan under CNMC’s expressly in the states employment agreement. *7 option she three complaint that “did not elect alleg- count hardship of the that would because financial Preg- failed es that CNMC to adhere being from without have resulted out of work Plan, copy which nancy Radiation a pay.” paragraph again In 46 she states that provided, governed situations she was telephone invita- she “declined endless may exposed pregnant employees be family superi- tions to use leave made her quotes The from the complaint radiation. specific a that she ors.” That is concession places. in a number The option avail herself 3. The com- did not poli- general the Plan alleges that declared allege plaint goes on to that she was involun- cy: anyway, tarily placed family leave Hospital Na- policy ex- of Children’s discharged after she “had It is the that she was (or leave).” to ensure that all family But her sick tional Medical Center hausted ensure measures are taken to allege practical that she re- nowhere ionizing radia- permissible dose of of absence quested and was denied leave embryo/fetus exceeded permitted is not have her to remain tion to that would gestation. ruing period after the entire employer [sic] to work with the and return Further, to- rejected option it is the of CHNMC delivery. the leave She species Absence” Although say presumably a of "Leave of does not 6. sepa- family paid unpaid meaning leave was if taken within leave, rately annual from accumulаted sick or apply for a Leave of Ab- 3. Worker inform female radiation workers exposrue to ion- sence. [sic] risks associated with
izing uring preg- involved [sic] radiation may resign her 4. Worker nancy options and of their to continue em- hospital addition, ployment. ... employee by preventing
should assist the According Duncan re- unnecessary presure conflict or quested [sic] a transfer family. (the prvacy “refused to option), [sic] but CNMC second request.” Duncan could not comply with the added.) (Emphasis option, continuing with her choose the first policy, complaint al- Pursuant to that Bank, in the Blood because normаl duties requires to take leges that the Plan by “unknown danger and stress caused preventive specific measures: exposure,” as regarding the radiation factors noti- supervisor has received 1.Once monthly monitoring of the lack of a result pregnancy, of a worker’s fication radiation inform Duncan of the refusal to CNMC’s Ra- will be started. The pregnancy file investigation. Dun- results of its internal Office, Safety along with the indi- diation explains that she did not complaint also can’s review the historical radiation vidual will option, applying for a the third leave choose radiation work- records of the absence, hardshiр of the financial because er.... family if she and because it would cause she early leave had taken Safety and the 3. The Radiation Office medical her available would have exceeded monthly closely supervisor will monitor terminated as a family leave and been this individ- exposure records for that, in- alleges that result. they . minimal and insure that are ual to deed, termi- what occurred when CNMC stays below that the cumulative her available leave ex- Duncan once nated period. during gestation 125 mrem involuntarily placed had pired after CNMC her on leave. a TLD monitor- The worker will be issued discharged “аt employee An at-will all times at badge at ing [sic] work reason, for no reason any time and apron, in addition to level under the waist Co., all,” George & at Adams v. W. Cochran during per- duties regular badge, film their (D.C.1991), “subject, exposure areas. in direct formed course, employer may that an to the caveat “ig- complaint alleges that CNMC a reason that discharge employee an Specifical- safety precautions. nored” these specifi by a statute has been made unlawful alleges Duncan was not ly, the re cally applicable employer-employee expo- “badge” to monitor her
provided with a
159, 162
Carl,
A.2d
n.
lationship.”
supra, 702
monthly
radiation and
instead
sure to
recognizes that
1. The District of Columbia
exposure,
monitoring of Duncan’s radiation
the lan
may arise from
“implied
contract
exposure was to be moni-
required, her
*8
manual.”
employee handbook or
guage of an
intervals.
only in three-month
tored
Co., 620 A.2d
Labor
Ins.
v. Union
Smith
Life
alleges
further
that under
complaint
The
also,
(D.C.1993);
v. GSA
Sisco
269
see
preg-
Plan a
Pregnancy and Radiation
the
Union, 689 A.2d
Capital Fed.
Nat’l
Credit
exposed to radiation “will be
employee
nant
(D.C.1997).
Interpretation of a con
of
making
of
responsible
the decision
for
one
deрen
it is
law unless
question
a
tract is
following options”:
the
credibility
or the
evidence
dent on extrinsic
and assumes
remains on staff
1.
Potomac As
Worker
See 1010
of extrinsic evidence.
Inc.,
to
duties are
duties. These
Grocery
normal
America
sociates
Mfrs.
(D.C.1984).
the above conditions.
Concomitant
interpreted
writing “must be
ly, a contractual
transferred
request to be
2.
can
Worker
reasonable, lawful,
whole,
and
giving a
hospital
as a
the
department within
to another
Id.; Re-
terms.”
meaning to all its
effective
if available.
202(2)
Blood
radiation in the
unlimited levels of
(SECOND)
STATEMENT
OF
CONTRACTS
reassigned.
had been
to which she
employee
In the context
Bаnk
action,
turn,
handbook,
to
decision
this court
“both the That
led CNMC’s
looks to
and sick
of its
Duncan once
terms
the manual and the manner
to terminate
expired.
help interpret
and deter-
leave had
distribution” to
it
presumption
mine
the at-will
whether
concludes,
majority
on the
of the
basis
The
Sisco,
jury
presented.
overcome and a
issue
excerpts
in the
that
limited
supra,
tion unnecessary respect to that contractual With by preventing transfer. [Duncan] “assist *9 although majority concludes that prvacy option, in presure [sic] conflict or [sic] “request,” right to compelled Duncan had the family.” CNMC’s breach request. obligation grant de- had no request her transfer after course, right is at all nied, expos- right request, of in stay at home order to avoid are hardly of which contrаcts apparently the stuff ing herself to unmonitored and light allegation, inference majority’s interpretation is of that made. The odd have favorable to Duncan is that she would vacuum, in a without reference to reached request- similarly terminated if she had been broadly-stated policy, without hav- the Plan’s having of absence without the sick ed a leave entirety, ing contract in its seen necessary family leave to cover the entire any knowledge and without of how CNMC Otherwise, terminating period. instead may interpreted implemented have up, as Duncan once her leave was used al- obligations employ- in whеre other situations involuntarily leged, have CNMC would Instead, requested have a transfer. ees leave, just placed unpaid as it had her on majority simply makes the “obvious infer- involuntarily placed family her on previously ence” that the decision whether to transfer leave. judg- Duncan “vested within the business by Dun- put on notice CNMC had been contrary ment of That inference is CNMC.” complaint of the nature of her contract- can’s charge in to our to make inferences favor of claim. Constru- Duncan’s claim. ing light in most favorable all inferences allegations assuming all her to Duncan Third, on the reason silent true, it cannot be sаid that request for for CNMC’s denial of Duncan’s support of her prove could no set of facts transfer, simply “re- but states discovery claim. It be that after some comply.” majority fused to As the acknowl- submissions, undisputed and additional edges, complaint does not state whether summary support facts would a motion grant request CNMC’s refusal to the com- judgment CNMC. To dismiss reason, no reason or was for business preliminary stage, plaint at this majority order to force Duncan out. The opportunity to deprive of an unfavorably silence—again infers from part prove her claim. I reverse to Duncan’s claim—that CNMC’s refusal of Duncan’s trial court’s dismissal good-faith must have been for a business proceedings to determine and remand for reason. Radiation Plan whether the contract, if constitutes an Finally, majority’s conclusion that so, obligations of its whether CNMC’s breach Duncan “conceded” that she did not avail Duncan under that contract resulted to take a leave of ab- herself her termination. Dun- complaint. sence contradicted specifically alleges that she did not have family enough sick and leave to see available through pregnancy. of her the remainder though Duncan not choose to take
Even
family during or sick leave involuntarily placed her on and, according to the termi-
leave expired time
nated Duncan once her leave absent without leave.
because she was