Ex-paralegal alleges pollack firm axed her four days after revealing pregnancy
A former paralegal has filed a federal lawsuit accusing a prominent New York immigration law firm of firing her just days after she disclosed she was pregnant, cutting off her health benefits in the process.
The suit, lodged against Pollack, Pollack, Isaac & DeCicco LLP and its managing partner Conrad Pollack, alleges discrimination, retaliation, failure to accommodate, and unlawful interference with protected leave and employee benefits.
Monika Madoriya claims she told the firm on 5 September 2024 that she was expecting a child and asked for maternity leave paperwork. Four days later, on 9 September, she says she was summarily dismissed without warning.
According to her complaint, the firm immediately cancelled her health insurance coverage, leaving her unable to attend vital prenatal medical tests. The timing of the termination, she argues, shows clear retaliation linked to her pregnancy disclosure and request for leave.
Madoriya accuses the firm of violating federal workplace protections designed to safeguard pregnant employees. These include the Pregnancy Discrimination Act, which bars firing workers because of pregnancy, and the Family and Medical Leave Act, which grants eligible employees leave for childbirth and related medical care. She also alleges the abrupt termination interfered with her right to employee benefits.
Embed from Getty ImagesHer lawsuit claims the firing was calculated and discriminatory. By removing her health coverage during a high-risk time, she says the firm put both her and her unborn child in jeopardy. Missing medical testing, she adds, caused unnecessary stress and compounded the health risks.
Pollack, Pollack, Isaac & DeCicco LLP is a Manhattan-based firm known for handling immigration, family, and personal injury cases. Managing partner Conrad Pollack is named personally in the suit alongside the firm.
The case highlights long-running concerns about workplace discrimination faced by pregnant employees. Despite legal protections, many workers allege employers continue to punish or dismiss them after disclosing pregnancies. Employment lawyers say such cases often hinge on timing: when an adverse action follows closely after a disclosure, courts may view it as evidence of unlawful discrimination.
Madoriya’s case is still at an early stage. The lawsuit seeks compensation for lost wages, reinstatement of benefits, damages for emotional distress, and punitive damages against the firm. No trial date has yet been set.
Neither the firm nor Conrad Pollack has publicly commented on the allegations. The case underscores the reputational risks law firms themselves face when accused of violating employment protections, particularly given their role in advising clients on compliance with workplace law.
If proven, the claims could have significant implications for Pollack, Pollack, Isaac & DeCicco LLP. Beyond financial damages, a ruling against the firm would serve as a cautionary tale for employers in professional services sectors where reputational standing is crucial.
As the case proceeds, it will likely test the strength of federal protections for pregnant workers at a time when US regulators have pledged to step up enforcement. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has already made pregnancy-related workplace rights a priority area in recent years.
For now, Madoriya’s complaint stands as another reminder that even in law firms, where knowledge of compliance obligations is expected, employees can still find themselves battling in court over the right to be treated fairly during pregnancy