Court: Lawsuit against 3M for firing pregnant employee can move forward

The Minnesota Court of Appeals ruled Monday that a lawsuit alleging 3M fired an employee because she was pregnant has merit and should move forward, reversing a Ramsey County District Court judge’s decision to dismiss the case last year.

The lawsuit, filed by Samantha Wakasugi, argues that she was fired one month before giving birth not because of her performance, but because it was convenient.

Wakasugi is seeking damages for sex discrimination under the Minnesota Human Rights Act and employer retribution under the Minnesota Parental Leave Act.

Judge Margaret Chutich, who retired as a Minnesota Supreme Court justice in 2024, was appointed to hear the case and wrote the unanimous opinion alongside Chief Judge Jennifer Frisch and Judge Randall Slieter.

The opinion states that the evidence, which must be viewed in a light favorable to Wakasugi, shows there is an argument to be made that 3M violated her rights by predetermining she should be fired because of her pregnancy and upcoming leave.

“A reasonable juror could determine that the timing of her pregnancy and maternity leave when the company needed to reduce her five-person unit by one person was a motivating factor in the decision to eliminate her position,” Chutich wrote.

Paul Dworak, representing Wakasugi, said in a statement the case was heading to a jury, “where it belongs.”

“No mother should be forced out of her job in the eighth month of pregnancy merely because it’s convenient for an employer,” Dworak said. “Working mothers deserve to spend their child’s first months focused on bonding and caregiving, not job hunting. Minnesotans should expect more from their largest employers. Ms. Wakasugi looks forward to sharing her story and holding 3M accountable.”

Emails and phone calls seeking comment were left with attorneys for 3M.

The Court of Appeals opinion details the dense layering of corporate decisionmaking when it comes to layoffs at 3M and shows how Wakasugi argues that her name was already the top choice for termination before her performance was fairly considered.

She was hired by 3M in 2016 to be a customer account representative and was promoted to price change specialist in 2021. She received positive work reviews in 2021 and 2022. In October 2022, she told her boss, Joyce Hatch, she was pregnant and would be taking parental leave in March 2023. Hatch got Wakasugi’s permission and told her boss, Jody Gaffney, about the pregnancy.

That same month, Heather Blasingame, a newly appointed marketing operations director, was at a conference planning corporate restructuring that needed to take effect the same month of Wakasugi’s parental leave. Blasingame’s boss, Nancy Mallory, was tasked with “eliminating positions deemed unnecessary or transferable to lower-cost global service centers.”

Part of the restructuring involved eliminating the price change specialists that worked as a team, including Wakasugi. Blasingame was able to convince Mallory not to eliminate the entire team, but to keep four employees and eliminate one. She had until March to make the decision.

Blasingame called Gaffney and asked, “Who would you select” to be fired?

Gaffney selected Wakasugi. Blasingame entered her name on a spreadsheet for termination.

Three months later, in January 2023, Blasingame sent an email to a “people relations manager” at 3M saying one position would be eliminated from the price change team. She forward that email to Mallory with the name Samantha Wakasugi written in bold letters.

Six days later, Wakasugi and the rest of the price change team were asked to come in and do a skills assessment to determine their value to the company. Three managers rated their skills. 3M’s termination policy requires that someone can be fired based only on their skills assessment and that when company directors are discussing layoffs they are to consider positions only, not individuals who fill those positions.

Ross Kent, the senior manager of human resources, gave everyone identical scores of 2, an “effective performance” that meets expectations. He did not know Wakasugi was pregnant.

Blasingame and Hatch scored Wakasugi the lowest. On the same day that she received these scores in 2023, Wakasugi also received her performance review for 2022. It was written by Hatch. He rated her performance effective, gave no criticism and praised her relationship building inside 3M.

“Looking forward to your accomplishments in 2023!” Hatch wrote.

Wakasugi argues there was no squaring up that positive annual performance review and the negative comments and scoring she received in the skills assessment.

Shortly after that, Wakasugi was told her position was being eliminated in 45 days. She met with Hatch, who told her there were “no performance issues” and wasn’t sure why Wakasugi was chosen. Wakasugi alleged that Hatch then said it was “poor timing with the baby due soon” but that now she could devote all of her time and energy to her pregnancy and raising the baby.

Hatch denies that.

3M paid for Wakasugi’s full parental-leave benefits from March 13 to July 3, 2023.

Lawyers for 3M argued that Wakasugi was laid off because it was necessary and that her only claim for pregnancy discrimination is that she happened to be pregnant.

The company said there is a difference between an annual performance review, and the language around that review, and “a determination of the relative skills of the pricing team, upon which its reduction-in-force decision was solely made.”

The Court of Appeals opinion argues that Wakasugi has valid legal arguments that wasn’t the case, pointing to the litany of emails and conversations that used her name specifically around the need to reduce the price change team by one member and because those conversations took place before the skills assessment. 3M has argued her name was just a placeholder.

On top of that, there was conflicting testimony given during discovery by the three-member panel that performed the skill assessment. Blasingame, who knew Wakasugi was pregnant and had no direct contact with her or oversight of her work, said all of the scores came from Hatch — Wakasugi’s supervisor. Hatch and Kent both testified that Blasingame contributed to the ratings and the comments on each performance.

Wakasugi was the only employee to receive a low score of 1 and the only employee not to receive a high score of 3. She was also the only price change specialist who received any negative feedback during the process.

Those comments said she is not always proactive. Does not always follow through on commitments. Does not follow up in a timely manner. Has difficulty synthesizing data and information. And “lacks deep understanding of pricing structures.”

The opinion notes that other employees “received glowing reviews, sometimes with identical language.”

3M also claimed that Wakasugi had the “lowest comparable skills” but Chutich writes that fact has not yet been established.

Wakasugi said before that assessment she had never received criticism about missing a deadline or not being up-to-date on projects. She also claims the other price specialists each had “identified areas for improvement” in their reviews.

The Court of Appeals ruled that Wakasugi has “established a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the stated reason for her dismissal” was true or not.

For that reason, it will be sent back to Ramsey County District Court for continued litigation.