It has in the case of WNBA 🏀 player Dearica Hamby.

Hamby, a prominent WNBA player and Olympic medalist, filed a lawsuit against the WNBA and her former team, the Las Vegas Aces, alleging pregnancy discrimination and retaliation. A copy of the complaint is attached to my LinkedIn post.

Hamby, now a forward for the Los Angeles Sparks, contends that she was unfairly traded and mistreated by the Aces after announcing her pregnancy, and that the WNBA failed to adequately address the situation.

1️⃣ Discrimination Claims

Hamby alleges that after she revealed her pregnancy to the Aces in August 2022, her treatment by the team deteriorated. She claims that the Aces delayed payment for her daughter’s school tuition and removed her from team-provided housing. According to the complaint, in January 2023, Aces’ head coach Becky Hammon allegedly questioned Hamby’s commitment and accused her of not disclosing her pregnancy when signing a contract extension. Hamby was traded to the Los Angeles Sparks shortly afterward.

2️⃣ Retaliation and Investigation

After the trade, Hamby publicly criticized the Aces which prompted the WNBA to investigate. The investigation, which included interviews and document reviews, resulted in a two-game suspension for Hammon and the loss of a future draft pick for the Aces. Hamby argues that the WNBA’s actions were insufficient and did not fully address the harm she experienced or deter future misconduct. She asserts that the league failed to properly investigate or impose meaningful sanctions.

3️⃣ The Complaint

Hamby has filed a federal lawsuit claiming Title VII pregnancy discrimination and retaliation, seeking economic damages, compensatory and punitive damages, and attorney’s fees. The lawsuit alleges that the Aces and the WNBA violated both federal and Nevada state civil rights laws.

As to the pregnancy discrimination claim against the Aces, it is premised on the team trading Hamby to what Hamby describes as a “less competitive team.” Hamby claims that because of the trade, which she says was motivated by her pregnancy, she was, among other things, prohibited from competing for a championship, lost marketing opportunities, and lost money due to state taxes.

The real question here is whether the trade constitutes an adverse action. Hamby’s problem is that it is likely that her player contract, like most pro-athlete player contracts, gives the team an unfettered right to trade the player.

The team will likely take the position that a trade is per se not an adverse action, arguing that whether Hamby still competed for a championship (because every team plays the season) and that the supposedly lost marketing opportunities are not recoverable damages. If they were, then every player could claim such when traded. The team will also likely argue that the motivation for a trade is immaterial.

The case is, of course, in its infancy, but as I see it, Hamby has a tough rode establishing the required adverse action against the team to make out a claim of pregnancy discrimination.