(Bloomberg Law) -- AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals LP must face trial on a sales specialist’s claims that her sex, use of leave, and disabilities she developed post-pregnancy led her to be included in a layoff.

The ruling Tuesday by the US District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania is a reminder that employers can be liable when job decisions are influenced by the animus of a nondecision-maker. Comments made by Gina Woods’ supervisor while she was working on the company’s diabetes team could convince a jury her termination was tainted by discrimination even though he didn’t make the firing decision, the court said.

The comments allegedly included that Woods, who had received positive performance reviews and an award for her sales record prior to two pregnancies and associated leaves, wasn’t going to last “with your medical issues.” Her supervisor also said he was going to need to hire more employees in case she got pregnant again. And he allegedly gave an article titled “How to Handle Work When Your Child Is Sick” to Woods and two other female subordinates who had young children, the court said.

A trial could show AstraZeneca’s explanation that Woods was terminated for underperformance was a pretext for sex and disability discrimination and for interference with her Family and Medical Leave Act rights, Judge Robert D. Mariani said. He cited inconsistencies in the justification offered for firing Woods.

A jury could also reject the underperformance explanation based on evidence that a male sales specialist whose performance score fell into the same range kept his job because he allegedly was trending in the right direction and experienced extenuating circumstances, the judge said. AstraZeneca provided no meaningful assessment of, or credit for, Woods’ extenuating circumstances, he said.

There were also problems with regard to the sale of two drugs that were out of her control, the judge said.

And the process AstraZeneca used to determine which employees to cut based on underperformance relied on earlier performance reviews by their supervisors, which “highlights the subjective component of the termination decisions,” the court said.

Woods’ hypertension, migraines, and gastrointestinal conditions could qualify as disabilities under federal and Pennsylvania law, and her use of leave could be a disability accommodation and linked to her firing, the court said.

The jury also must decide Woods’ sex-, disability-, and leave-based retaliation claims, Mariana said.

AstraZeneca was entitled to summary judgment on her harassment claims based on those protected traits, he said.

Karpf, Karpf & Cerutti PC represents Woods. Littler Mendelson PC represents AstraZeneca.

The case is Woods v. Astrazeneca Pharm., LP, 2023 BL 74270, M.D. Pa., No. 3:19-cv-00230, 3/7/23.

To contact the reporter on this story: Patrick Dorrian in Washington at pdorrian@bloomberglaw.com

To contact the editors responsible for this story: Rob Tricchinelli at rtricchinelli@bloomberglaw.com; Nicholas Datlowe at ndatlowe@bloomberglaw.com

©2023 Bloomberg L.P.