District Court Denies Motion to Dismiss in Pregnancy Discrimination Case Over Dispute on Whether Employee Was Fired or Resigned

HOUSTON (LN) — U.S. District Judge Andrew S. Hanen on March 31, 2026, denied a motion to dismiss in a pregnancy discrimination lawsuit brought by Taylor Campos against K&N Holdings LLC, holding that the former employee plausibly alleged she was fired for her pregnancy rather than quitting her job as a Return Merchandise Authorization Coordinator.

Campos, who worked at the company’s Houston showroom, claims she was subjected to a discriminatory plot after informing her supervisor of her pregnancy in July 2023.

According to the complaint, Campos was moved into a salaried RMA Coordinator role in August 2023, splitting the position with a coworker, Amador Rodriguez. Her supervisor, Shawn Edge, told her he “did not want her in the warehouse now that she was pregnant,” and allowed her to work partially remotely.

In December 2023, Edge informed Campos that the company’s CEO, Blair Drenner, no longer wanted her working from home and presented her with a 13-day Performance Improvement Plan. Campos alleges the PIP lacked quantifiable metrics and deviated from the company’s standard 30-day plans.

Edge suggested Campos was no longer a good fit for the position due to her pregnancy. When Campos refused to sign the PIP pending a discussion with Drenner, Edge told her she could not resume work and instructed her to turn in her company laptop and phone.

Edge later told Campos she had quit. When she returned to the office to dispute the claim, Drenner maintained she had resigned, presented her with a letter falsely claiming she terminated her own employment, and refused to speak further for “legal reasons.”

K&N Holdings argued Campos failed to state a claim because she resigned, her job duties differed from Rodriguez’s, and she was treated equally to her comparator.

Hanen rejected those arguments, noting that at the pleading stage, the court must accept well-pleaded facts as true. He held that Campos sufficiently alleged an adverse employment action by contesting the characterization of her departure as a resignation.

The judge also declined to dismiss the case based on the “similarly situated” comparator analysis, stating that determining whether Rodriguez and Campos held comparable roles is more appropriate for summary judgment than a motion to dismiss.

“Defendant, however, remains free to raise the same arguments again at a later stage,” Hanen wrote.

Campos filed the lawsuit on April 25, 2025, alleging violations of Title VII and the Pregnancy Discrimination Act.