## Facts

- Kimberly Turic worked for Holland Hospitality, Inc., which operated a Holiday Inn in Holland, Michigan, as a restaurant busser and room-service attendant.
- Turic became pregnant and communicated that she was considering an abortion.
- The district court found Holland Hospitality discharged Turic because she became “the subject of controversy among the hotel staff” due to her contemplated abortion.
- Holland Hospitality contended Turic was fired for performance deficiencies and failure to complete assigned responsibilities.
- The district court credited Turic’s account, found intentional sex-based discrimination under Title VII as amended by the Pregnancy Discrimination Act (PDA), and awarded back pay, compensatory damages (including emotional-distress damages), and punitive damages.

## Issues

1. Whether Title VII, as amended by the PDA, prohibits discharging an employee because she is pregnant and contemplating an abortion.
2. Whether sufficient evidence supported the finding that the employer’s motive was pregnancy/abortion-related rather than performance-based.
3. Whether Title VII authorizes back pay, compensatory damages, and punitive damages for this form of intentional discrimination.

## Decision

- The Sixth Circuit affirmed the judgment in relevant part.
- The court held that adverse action based on having had, obtaining, or contemplating an abortion is discrimination “because of pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions” within the PDA.
- The court upheld the district court’s finding that Turic was discharged for abortion-related reasons, not for performance, and reiterated that a plaintiff’s testimony plus surrounding circumstances may suffice to prove discriminatory motive.
- The court held that Title VII permits back pay and, for intentional discrimination, compensatory and punitive damages, and it found no reversible error in the damages awarded.

## Legal Principles

- Under the PDA, discrimination “because of sex” includes discrimination because of pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions; abortion, including a contemplated abortion, falls within related medical conditions.
- An employer violates Title VII when it discharges an employee because she is pregnant and has had, is planning to have, or is considering an abortion.
- In Title VII cases, a factfinder may credit a plaintiff’s testimony and circumstantial context to determine discriminatory intent, and appellate courts defer to credibility-based fact findings absent clear error.
- Remedies for intentional Title VII discrimination may include back pay and, where authorized, compensatory damages (including emotional distress) and punitive damages.

## Conclusion

The Sixth Circuit held that firing an employee due to pregnancy and a contemplated abortion constitutes sex discrimination under Title VII as amended by the PDA, and it affirmed liability and the award of back pay, compensatory damages, and punitive damages based on the district court’s supported finding of discriminatory motive.


Turic v. Holland Hospitality, Inc., 85 F.3d 1211 (6th Cir. 1996)