Deloitte Consulting Charged with Discriminating Against Employees Who Take Parental Leave

On behalf of herself and other similarly situated workers, Barela advances a disparate impact argument – that policies, although neutral on their face, can affect a protected group of employees unfairly and disproportionately. The lawsuit’s fourteen counts include claims for violations of:

• The Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA);
• Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII);
• The Pregnant Workers Fairness Act (PWFA)
• California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA);
• California’s Pregnancy Disability Leave Law (PDLL); and
• The California Family Rights Act (CFRA).

A star performer – except when she exercised her legal rights

Joanne Barela worked at Deloitte in its Human Capital Consulting practice for 13 years from 2013 to December 30, 2025. She was promoted three times during that period from Consultant to Senior Consultant, Senior Consultant to Manager, and Manager to Senior Manager. Ms. Barela was consistently rated as a high performer, with “Strong” or “Exceptional” ratings across several performance categories.

In 2020 and 2024, she took approved, protected leave for pregnancy-related conditions and to care for and bond with her newborn children. Nonetheless, her ratings in several categories, including sales and leadership, continued to indicate that she was a valuable employee. In 2025, she received a salary increase of $9,100 and a $37,700 bonus.

In December 2025, she was terminated as part of a company-wide reduction in force. Her performance statistics, she was told, were not high enough to justify her retention. It’s hard to make sense of this.

Ms. Barela filed charges with the California Civil Rights Department and the EEOC and was ultimately given the go-ahead to sue.

When the math is fatally flawed

Deloitte has a complicated system for evaluating employment performance. The company measures success in three categories: Client; Marketplace/Firm; and Leadership & Teaming. Management also collects evaluations from supervisors and data regarding sales, margin, and managed revenue. This is then translated into overall ratings of “Below,” “Strong,” and “Exceptional.”.
This is then re-sifted and sorted into five different categories that result in:

• “Highest” salary increases and bonuses;
• “Higher” salary increases and bonuses;
• “High” salary increases and bonuses;
• “Strong” merit increases and bonuses; and
• no increase or bonus.

The more “Exceptional” the performance assessment, the larger the base salary increase and the annual bonus. But the formula has two fatal flaws.

First, employees who take parental, pregnancy, or pregnancy-disability leave in a year are compared, without prorating, to peers who worked the full 12 months of the year. Secondly, the process is cumulative because salary increases and bonus decisions are based on the previous year’s salary and bonus. This creates a permanent disadvantage for workers who take the family or medical leave to which they are legally entitled.

Ms. Barela took parental leave twice before she was fired. It looks like she was the victim of a flawed performance evaluation system – bad math, even if there was no discriminatory intent. Intent is irrelevant in a disparate impact lawsuit; it’s the effect that matters.

California workers are protected when they take family or medical leave

An overarching federal system protects employees from workplace discrimination. These laws work together to provide employees with a safety net to guard parental workplace rights. The laws include:

• Title VII, as amended by the Pregnancy Discrimination Act, prohibits sex discrimination, including pregnancy discrimination, in employment.
• FMLA provides eligible employees with up to 12 weeks of unpaid, job-protected leave for childbirth or placement of a child. It prohibits employers from interfering with, terminating, or discriminating against employees for taking this leave. Retaliation, such as denying promotions or firing employees for using FMLA, is illegal.
• PWFA requires  covered employers to provide a “reasonable accommodation” to a qualified employee’s or applicant’s known limitations related to, affected by, or arising out of pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions, unless the accommodation will cause the employer an “undue hardship.”

Although not at issue in Barela, the Americans with Disabilities Act also safeguards the employment rights of disabled workers who take leave or require workplace accommodations.

California law, often modeled on federal law, adds additional California-specific layers of protection.

Under FEHA, as applied in conjunction with CFRA and PDLL, it is illegal to discriminate against employees taking parental, pregnancy, or maternity leave. Together, the laws prohibit termination, harassment, demotion, or denial of reinstatement based on taking protected leave to care for a new child.  

With the benefit of both federal and California labor laws, California workers have ample protection against workplace discrimination. If you were fired or retaliated against for taking parental leave, you may be entitled to lost wages, benefits and damages. Be sure to collect records, such as performance reviews, and reach out to legal counsel.