A recent legal filing alleges that a healthcare employer wrongfully terminated an employee in violation of federal civil rights protections, raising questions about workplace retaliation and pregnancy discrimination. The complaint was filed by Grace Martin in the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina on April 18, 2026, naming Advocate Health and Hospitals Corporation doing business as Atrium Health Cabarrus as the defendant.
According to the court documents, Grace Martin worked as an Environmental Services Technician at Atrium Health Cabarrus. She claims she consistently received positive performance reviews and had no disciplinary history prior to her suspension and subsequent termination. The dispute centers around events that began in July 2025 when a coworker, Syracuse Cody, reported “serious workplace threats and safety concerns involving another employee.” The complaint states that this activity is protected under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act.
Martin alleges that she was closely associated with Cody both professionally and personally, a fact known to management. On October 22, 2025, an incident occurred between Cody and another employee in Operating Room 13. Martin asserts she was not present during this incident, stating that witness Robert Morrison can confirm her absence. Despite having no involvement, Martin reports she was suspended with pay on October 23, 2025, pending what the defendant described as an investigation.
The complaint contends that while Martin remained on paid suspension—”not permitted to enter Defendant’s premises”—the hospital issued a termination letter accusing her of workplace violence on October 27, 2025. Martin denies these allegations outright: “These allegations are factually impossible. Plaintiff was not at work on October 27, 2025. She was suspended.” She further claims there was no investigation or evidence provided before her employment ended via telephone call and email around October 30, 2025.
Martin points out discrepancies in the termination letter itself, noting it references an incident on a day she could not have been present due to suspension and contains what she describes as “an impossible date; ’10/30/31′ (October 30, 2031).” She argues this error demonstrates “Defendant’s reckless disregard for the truth.” According to the filing, surveillance footage that could verify her absence on October 27 was neither preserved nor reviewed by the employer.
The lawsuit asserts two primary legal claims: associational retaliation under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and pregnancy discrimination under the Pregnancy Discrimination Act. In support of her retaliation claim, Martin cites Supreme Court precedent recognizing protection for employees closely associated with individuals who engage in protected activities such as reporting workplace threats. She alleges that both she and Cody were terminated following his report of safety concerns: “That is no coincidence,” states the complaint.
On the issue of pregnancy discrimination, Martin explains that she gave birth in August 2025 and returned from maternity leave in early October. Her termination occurred less than one month after resuming work duties—a sequence which she says “raises an inference of pregnancy discrimination.” The complaint further argues that “Defendant violated the Pregnancy Discrimination Act…by discriminating against Plaintiff based on pregnancy, childbirth, and related medical conditions,” claiming willful conduct by Atrium Health Cabarrus.
Martin describes significant personal consequences stemming from her job loss: “Plaintiff lost her wages, health insurance, and maternity benefits…She has fallen behind on rent, utilities, and basic necessities.” She also details emotional distress including anxiety and depression resulting from what she calls “the financial and emotional devastation caused by Defendant’s illegal conduct.”
As relief from the court, Martin seeks back pay from October 30, 2025 onward; front pay for future lost earnings; compensatory damages for emotional distress; punitive damages intended to deter future misconduct; liquidated damages under federal law; reasonable attorney’s fees if counsel is obtained or appointed; as well as any other relief deemed appropriate by the court. She requests a jury trial on all issues so triable.
Grace Martin is representing herself without an attorney in this case. The case identification number is Case No. 1:26-cv-00341.
