Reis v. McKinsey & Company, Inc.

Background

L. Reis alleged that McKinsey & Company, Inc., her former employer, terminated her employment because she engaged in protected activity involving pregnancy and family medical leave. The complaint asserted eight California-law claims: wrongful termination in violation of public policy; pregnancy-related sex discrimination; whistleblower retaliation; retaliation for requesting sick leave; retaliation for requesting pregnancy-disability leave; retaliation for requesting family medical leave; retaliation for requesting disability leave; and failure to prevent discrimination and retaliation.

The complaint alleged that Reis returned from maternity leave in December 2023, became pregnant again, and told human resources about her pregnancy in March 2024. She alleged that she was not assigned some client-facing projects because she could not make the required weekly travel, but that McKinsey later placed her in an internal role where she excelled and was offered a permanent, higher-level position. A hiring freeze prevented that transfer. She began short-term disability leave in August 2024, gave birth on October 25, 2024, began maternity leave, and was terminated on November 19, 2024. She alleged that McKinsey ordinarily gave employees a chance to improve before termination and that she was terminated without that opportunity.

McKinsey moved to dismiss, arguing that Reis improperly used her first initial and last name and that the complaint did not adequately support several claims. The court applied the rule requiring a complaint to provide enough factual allegations to make a claim legally plausible, while accepting the complaint’s factual allegations as true for purposes of the motion.

Pseudonym

The court held that parties generally must use their real names. It found that Reis had not shown why concealing her identity was necessary. The court also concluded that the case involved pregnancy discrimination rather than the kind of sensitive privacy interests that can justify anonymity, and that Reis had not shown a risk of retaliation supporting use of a pseudonym. The court therefore required her to proceed under her full name.

Claims the Court Allowed to Proceed

The court found that Reis plausibly pleaded the FEHA claims concerning pregnancy discrimination, retaliation for requesting disability leave, and failure to prevent discrimination and retaliation. The court also allowed the wrongful-termination claim to proceed because the parties agreed that it was based on the FEHA discrimination and retaliation claims.

The court said Reis alleged positive performance reviews, pregnancy-related medical leave, a request for and grant of leave, and termination during that leave in violation of company policy. It also held that the allegations supported an inference of pregnancy discrimination and a connection between her pregnancy-related protected activity and her termination.

The court rejected, for purposes of the motion, a theory that McKinsey violated FEHA by failing to accommodate Reis through client assignments. It said that consulting required essential travel, which Reis could not perform because of her pregnancy, and that McKinsey accommodated her by assigning her to an internal role in which she qualified for a promotion, although the promotion did not occur because of the hiring freeze.

The court found that the Family Rights Act claim, claim six, was plausibly pleaded because Reis alleged that she was entitled to maternity leave, began that leave, and was terminated during it.

Dismissed Claims

The court dismissed claim three, the whistleblower-retaliation claim under California Labor Code section 1102.5, because Reis did not allege that she disclosed a violation of a specific statute, rule, or regulation to McKinsey. The court allowed amendment if she could allege those facts.

The court dismissed claim four, retaliation for requesting sick leave, because Reis did not oppose McKinsey’s argument concerning that claim. The dismissal was with leave to amend.

The court dismissed claim five, retaliation for requesting pregnancy-disability leave. It explained that McKinsey argued at the hearing that, because Reis had given birth, the pregnancy-disability law no longer applied and the Family Rights Act was the relevant law. Reis did not respond to that argument at the hearing. The court dismissed claim five with leave to amend.

Disposition

Magistrate Judge Laurel Beeler granted McKinsey’s motion to dismiss in part. The court dismissed claims three, four, and five with leave to amend and otherwise denied the motion to dismiss. Any amended complaint had to be filed within four weeks and include a blackline comparing it with the current complaint.