Professional Athletes’ Maternity Rights – The Dearica Hamby Lawsuit

The issue of maternity rights in women’s professional sports is gaining attention, thanks in part to high-profile cases that have exposed the challenges faced by pregnant athletes. In 2023, Icelandic soccer player Sara Björk Gunnarsdóttir won a landmark maternity pay case against her former club, Olympique Lyonnais.¹[1]Sara Björk Gunnarsdóttir’s Maternity Case Shows All Players Need Protection, Even Those at High-Profile Clubs, FIFPRO (Jan. 18, 2023), https://fifpro.org/en/supporting-players/conditions-of-employment/maternity-and-parental-provision/sara-bjork-gunnarsdottir-s-maternity-case-shows-all-players-need-protection-even-those-at-high-profile-clubs. Björk Gunnarsdóttir was represented by FIFPRO, the union supporting professional footballers globally. They claimed that Olympique Lyonnais violated FIFA regulations by not paying the athlete’s full salary during her maternity leave.²[2]FIFA REGULATIONS ON THE STATUS AND TRANSFER OF PLAYERS art. 4, § 18.7, Oct. 2022, available at https://digitalhub.fifa.com/m/620d0240c40944ed/original/Regulations-on-the-Status-and-Transfer-of-Players-October-2022-edition.pdf. FIFA’s Dispute Resolution Chamber ordered Lyon to pay Björk Gunnarsdóttir €82,094.92, plus five percent interest.³[3]FIFA Dispute Resolution Chamber, Sara Björk Gunnarsdóttir v. Olympique Lyonnais, REF FPSD-3626, 2022, available at https://digitalhub.fifa.com/m/7fa81ae621a4ebd0/original/Gunnarsdottir_19052022.pdf.

In the United States, WNBA star Dearica Hamby’s ongoing lawsuit against the Las Vegas Aces and the league entity has exposed how pregnancy discrimination can manifest at the highest levels of sport. Hamby alleges that when she announced her 2022 pregnancy, the team responded by denying her promised benefits and trading her to another franchise.⁴[4]Compl., Hamby v. WNBA, LLC, No. 2:24-cv-01474-APG-DJA, at 6-8 (D. Nev. Aug. 12, 2024). This article describes Hamby’s claims and how they would be assessed under U.S. labor and employment law. It further explains the tension between those laws and the maternity provisions in the WNBA collective bargaining agreement, and suggests a path forward for elite women athletes.

Maternity Rights in U.S. Labor and Employment Law

Maternity rights in the U.S. are primarily governed by three federal statutes: the Pregnancy Discrimination Act of 1978 (PDA), the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 (FMLA), and the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act (PWFA). The PDA, an amendment to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, prohibits employers from discriminating on the basis of pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions.⁵[5]42 U.S.C. § 2000e(k) (1978). This means that pregnant employees must be treated the same as other employees with similar abilities or limitations. The FMLA grants eligible employees up to twelve weeks of unpaid, job-protected leave per year for family and medical reasons, including the birth and care of a newborn.⁶[6]29 U.S.C. §§ 2601-2654 (1993). The PWFA requires employers to provide reasonable accommodations for pregnant workers unless they would cause the employer undue hardship.⁷[7]42 U.S.C. §§ 2000gg–2000gg-6 (2023). These laws aim to ensure that employees can balance family obligations without fear of retaliation or loss of their jobs. In addition to federal protections, many states have enacted similar laws prohibiting pregnancy discrimination and requiring reasonable accommodations. For example, Nevada has state law equivalents for pregnancy discrimination and the PFWA, and even requires paid leave under certain circumstances.⁸[8]Nev. Rev. Stat. §§ 608.0197, 613.330, 613.335 (2023).

While these protections are fairly straightforward in traditional employment settings, they can pose tricky enforcement challenges in professional sports. Athletes are often classified as independent contractors who are not entitled to protection under the PDA, FMLA, and PWFA. Athletes who are classified as employees often work in unionized settings with collective bargaining agreements or that offer varying degrees of maternity support with respect to paid leave, length of leave, or other accommodations. Indeed, unionized athletes often negotiate better maternity benefits in their CBAs than the federal minimums. However, those same CBAs may also require health-related disclosures or permit benching an athlete who is temporarily disabled, provisions in tension with federal pregnancy protections. Ambiguities as to the application of those laws to professional athletes have made it challenging for pregnant athletes to assert their rights, often leaving them to rely on public pressure or individual legal action.

The Dearica Hamby Lawsuit

In August 2024, star WNBA player Dearica Hamby filed a federal lawsuit against the Las Vegas Aces and the WNBA, alleging discrimination and retaliation related to her pregnancy in violation of the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act and Nevada state law.⁹[9]Compl., Hamby, No. 2:24-cv-01474-APG-DJA, at ¶ 1. Hamby, who already had one daughter, alleges that she did not realize she was pregnant again when she signed a two-year contract extension with the Aces in June 2022.¹⁰[10]Id. at ¶¶ 28-31. To persuade her to accept their offer, the Aces promised to provide two additional benefits not included in the contract: (1) a “donation” to her daughter’s school to pay the cost of tuition and (2) team-subsidized housing.¹¹[11]Id. at ¶ 29. Hamby further alleges that after publicly announcing her pregnancy in July 2022, she experienced notable changes in the way team staff treated her.¹²[12]Id. at ¶ 37. Further, the team failed to pay the promised tuition for her daughter and ordered her to vacate team housing.¹³[13]Id. at ¶¶ 38-40. Also at issue is a phone call between Ace’s head coach Becky Hammon and Hamby on January 15, 2023, during which Hammon questioned whether Hamby had planned to get pregnant and Hamby’s commitment to the team, and accused Hamby of signing her contract extension knowing she was pregnant.¹⁴[14]Id. at ¶¶ 41-47. Six days later, the Aces traded Hamby to the Los Angeles Sparks, a team that has struggled on the court in recent years.¹⁵[15]Id. at ¶ 49.

The WNBA conducted an investigation, resulting in a two-game suspension for Hammon for violating league and team “Respect in the Workplace” policies. The league also stripped the Aces of their 2025 first-round draft pick because the tuition and housing provisions in the Hamby contract violated league rules regarding impermissible player benefits.¹⁶[16]Id. at ¶ 57. Hamby alleges that the discipline imposed by the WNBA failed to sufficiently address the wrongful conduct.¹⁷[17]Id. at ¶¶ 57-62.

It’s not immediately apparent how Hamby has been harmed by the defendants’ conduct. She still plays in the WNBA under the contract extension she signed in 2022 and seemingly receives the permissible benefits it guaranteed. However, Hamby alleges that her trade to a less competitive team constituted a change in the “terms and conditions of her employment” for which she suffered professional, reputational, financial, and emotional harm.¹⁸[18]Id. at ¶¶ 71-74. Hamby alleges the trade stripped her of sponsorship and marketing opportunities, relocated her to a state with increased tax burdens, and diminished her reputational value associated with being part of a two-time WNBA champion franchise.¹⁹[19]Id. at ¶ 63.

Hamby further alleges that she faced retaliation for pregnancy from both the Aces and the WNBA.²⁰[20]Id. at ¶¶ 64-65. However, the Ace’s denial of the tuition and housing benefits cannot amount to retaliation because they were impermissible under the CBA. Instead, she cites directives to team staff to stop communicating with her, exclusion from team events, attempts to obtain her confidential medical records, public misstatements about her pregnancy, and the non-renewal of her League Marketing Contract.²¹[21]Id. Hamby seeks compensatory and punitive damages.

The Las Vegas Aces and the WNBA both filed motions to dismiss the lawsuit. The Aces contended that Hamby’s claims of discrimination and retaliation lacked sufficient evidence to state a plausible claim for relief.²²[22]Def. Las Vegas Aces’ Mot. To Dismiss, Hamby v. WNBA, LLC, No. 2:24-cv-01474-APG-DJA, at 2 (D. Nev. Aug. 12, 2024). With respect to her retaliation claim, they argued that Hamby hadn’t established the requisite “but for” causation.²³[23]Id. With respect to her pregnancy discrimination claim, they argued that the purported harm Hamby suffered didn’t pertain to identifiable terms or conditions of employment.²⁴[24]Id. The “involuntary trade” of a professional athlete usually doesn’t constitute an adverse employment action. Teams are generally given broad discretion to trade athletes, as player contracts and CBAs typically allow management significant authority over roster decisions. The Aces argued that even if loss of prestige and brand value were deemed adverse employment actions, Hamby had not demonstrated she actually suffered by playing for the Los Angeles Sparks instead of the Aces.²⁵[25]Id. at 14. They argued that none of Hamby’s other allegations—lost sponsorship or marketing opportunities and tax burdens–were adverse employment actions tied to the terms and conditions of her employment.²⁶[26]Id. at 15.

The WNBA argued that Hamby did not have standing to sue the league, as it was not her employer—only the Aces were.²⁷[27]Def. WNBA, LLC Mot. To Dismiss, Hamby v. WNBA, LLC, No. 2:24-cv-01474-APG-DJA, at 2 (D. Nev. Aug. 12, 2024). Hamby, however, claimed the WNBA and Aces were joint employers, sharing responsibility for her employment.²⁸[28]Pl.’s Opp’n to Def. WNBA, LLC’s Mot. to Dismiss, Hamby, No. 2:24-cv-01474-APG-DJA, at 5. She cited a ruling in a case involving minor league baseball players, where the MLB was found to have joint employer traits like controlling salaries and discipline.²⁹[29]Senne v. Kansas City Royals Baseball Corp., 591 F. Supp. 36, 511 (N.D. Cal. 2022). The league argued it had no role in hiring, firing, or evaluating Hamby, or in setting her salary, and thus isn’t a joint employer. It cited Dawson v. NCAA, a case where the NCAA was found not to be an employer of college athletes, acting more as a regulator.³⁰[30]Dawson v. NCAA, 932 F.3d 905, 908-910 (9th Cir. 2019). The WNBA claimed its role is similar—setting rules rather than directly employing players.³¹[31]Def. WNBA, LLC Mot. To Dismiss, Hamby, No. 2:24-cv-01474-APG-DJA, at 9. It’s important to note that while different presidential administrations have taken contrary positions on the joint employer standard, they will not necessarily affect the outcome of Hamby’s private lawsuit.³²[32]See The Impact of the U.S. Election on Labor and Employment Law (Morgan Lewis, Nov. 19, 2024), https://www.morganlewis.com/pubs/2024/11/the-impact-of-the-us-election-on-labor-and-employment-law (noting shifts in DOL joint-employer regulations between presidential administrations); see also Compl., Hamby, No. 2:24-cv-01474-APG-DJA, at 10-12 (concluding that Hamby’s Title VII claims are not dependent on the joint-employer standard). Instead, executive branch labor policy determines only whether the Department of Labor pursues enforcement actions.

Regarding Hamby’s claims of insufficient investigation, the league argued an employer’s alleged failure to investigate or take remedial action in response to a complaint of discrimination isn’t considered an adverse employment action.³³[33]Def. WNBA, LLC Mot. to Dismiss, Hamby, No. 2:24-cv-01474-APG-DJA, at 10-11. The WNBA further denied retaliating against Hamby by not renewing her marketing agreement, noting that the agreement treated Hamby as an independent contractor, and Title VII and Nevada state law don’t apply to independent contractors. The league also cited the ten-month gap between her complaint and the marketing agreement’s expiration as evidence against causation.³⁴[34]Id. at 11-12.

In May 2025, U.S. District Court Judge Andrew P. Gordon issued a ruling on the motions to dismiss filed by the Aces and WNBA allowing most of Hamby’s discrimination and retaliation claims against the Aces to proceed while dismissing all claims against the WNBA.³⁵[35]Order on Mot. to Dismiss, Hamby, No. 2:24-cv-01474-APG-DJA, at 2. The court found Hamby had plausibly alleged pregnancy discrimination against the Aces, citing “harm separate from the trade itself respecting the terms and conditions of her employment,” and “a reasonable inference that Aces decisionmakers were unlawfully motivated by Hamby’s pregnancy in trading her.”³⁶[36]Id. at 11, 13. The court also allowed two of Hamby’s five retaliation claims against the Aces to proceed, dismissing three—directives to team staff to stop communicating with her, attempts to obtain her confidential medical records, and public misstatements about her pregnancy—for lacking a plausible causal link to her protected activity.³⁷[37]Id. at 2. Hamby was granted leave to amend these allegations.³⁸[38]Id. at 20. As to the WNBA’s motion to dismiss, the court interestingly did not reach the question of whether the WNBA qualifies as a joint employer of its athletes, seemingly leaving that issue for resolution in future litigation. Instead, the court granted the WNBA’s motion to dismiss with prejudice on its finding that Hamby had not plausibly alleged any adverse employment action regarding the league’s handling of her discrimination complaint, and that Hamby did not exhaust administrative remedies related to the non-renewal of her marketing contract.³⁹[39]Id. at 23, 26. The case will now proceed to discovery on the remaining claims for discrimination and retaliation against the Aces.

Pregnancy, Disclosure, and the Limits of Collective Bargaining in Employment Law

Despite the dismissal of claims against the league, Hamby’s lawsuit raises important and unsettled questions about how the WNBA’s CBA addresses pregnancy. Article V, Section 14(j) of the CBA prohibits a player from entering into a contract while knowingly pregnant without prior written disclosure to the team.⁴⁰[40]WOMEN’S NAT’L BASKETBALL ASS’N COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT art. V, § 14(j) (executed January 17, 2020), available at https://www.wnbpa.com/_files/ugd/575289_1904d7b630624d93a59a904e0d5abffb.pdf. This provision treats pregnancy similarly to an injury, illness, or other physical condition that might impair a player’s performance, requiring disclosure if the condition could interfere with fulfilling contractual obligations. On one hand, the provision reflects a legitimate business interest: teams have a strong stake in knowing whether a player may be unavailable due to medical or physical reasons that affect team planning, roster decisions, and salary cap management. On the other hand, it also raises serious concerns about players’ rights under federal and state employment protections, particularly the PDA and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, which not only prohibit adverse employment actions based on pregnancy but also prohibit employers from requiring pregnancy disclosure or making inquiries about pregnancy status. EEOC guidance specifically cautions that such actions may violate Title VII unless narrowly tailored and justified by business necessity.⁴¹[41]See 42 U.S.C. § 2000e(k); EEOC, Enforcement Guidance on Pregnancy Discrimination and Related Issues § I(B) (June 25, 2015), https://www.eeoc.gov/laws/guidance/enforcement-guidance-pregnancy-discrimination-and-related-issues.

Whether Hamby violated the CBA pregnancy disclosure requirement remains disputed. Yet even if she did so, that would not automatically justify any alleged discriminatory conduct by the Aces. Rather, the team’s remedy would have been to seek recourse through the grievance and arbitration mechanisms outlined in the CBA—typically pursuing damages or other contractual remedies, not engaging in retaliation or discrimination.⁴²[42]WOMEN’S NAT’L BASKETBALL ASS’N COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT art. XXII, §§ 1, 3, 4, grievance and arbitration provisions. Moreover, the enforceability of the disclosure provision itself could be challenged if it is found to conflict with overriding statutory protections. Under the PDA, a provision that mandates disclosure of pregnancy could be viewed as inherently discriminatory if it imposes a burden on pregnant players that is not equally applied to others or if it serves as a basis for adverse employment action. Courts may scrutinize such provisions to ensure they do not infringe upon a player’s right to privacy or facilitate disparate treatment based on sex or pregnancy status.

This highlights a deeper, unresolved legal tension: to what extent can private parties, through collective bargaining, agree to waive or modify rights that are otherwise protected by antidiscrimination laws? Can a union-negotiated CBA validly impose obligations—such as mandatory pre-contract pregnancy disclosures—that would otherwise be prohibited in standard employment relationships? There is little case law directly addressing this question in the sports context or beyond. Courts traditionally defer to the collective bargaining process, recognizing that unions negotiate on behalf of employees to secure the best possible terms under the circumstances. However, such deference is not absolute. CBAs cannot override non-waivable statutory rights; agreements that conflict with public policy or anti-discrimination laws are generally unenforceable to the extent of the conflict.

Future Collective Bargaining Over Maternity Rights

The WNBA’s 2020 CBA marked progress by guaranteeing paid maternity leave, childcare support, housing, nursing facilities, and family planning benefits. The National Women’s Soccer League (NWSL) has also negotiated similar parental leave and childcare benefits.⁴³[43]COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE NAT’L WOMEN’S SOCCER LEAGUE PLAYERS ASS’N AND NAT’L WOMEN’S SOCCER LEAGUE art. 9, § 9.8–9.11 (executed July 30, 2024) available at https://www.nwslplayers.com/_files/ugd/84dade_cdf25e593796416ca96f34e0e5fa0b88.pdf. The NWSL’s 2024 CBA goes even further by requiring teams to invite players whose contracts expire during parental leave to training camp for at least 30 days, giving them a fair opportunity to earn a new contract.⁴⁴[44]Id. at art 9, § 9.11. These CBAs show how collective bargaining can transform parental responsibilities from career obstacles into supported and celebrated rights. While these CBAs include important protections, Hamby’s experience reveals how these rights can be undermined by culture, lack of enforcement, or ambiguous policies. If Hamby’s allegations are proven, the league and teams may be forced to reevaluate and strengthen pregnancy protection policies.

Although the WNBA’s CBA was originally set to expire after the 2027 season, the players exercised their option to terminate the agreement early, meaning the current CBA will now expire on October 31, 2025.⁴⁵[45]Michael Voepel, WNBA Players Opt Out of CBA, Face Potential Work Stoppage, ESPN (Oct. 21, 2024), https://www.espn.com/wnba/story/_/id/41927950/wnba-players-opt-cba-face-potential-work-stoppage. This decision was largely motivated by the significant increase in viewership and profitability of the WNBA over the past couple years, including a historic 11-year media rights deal for $200 million a year.⁴⁶[46]Id. While higher player salaries and less restrictive caps seem to be the focus of negotiating a new agreement, the WNBPA has also indicated that it would like to see improved childcare and family planning benefits.⁴⁷[47]Id. Hamby’s case has also exposed weaknesses in the current CBA, presenting an opportunity for players to negotiate stronger pregnancy and maternity protections in the future agreement. For example, the players’ union could seek to strengthen job security provisions for pregnant players, ensuring players have the chance to return to their previous positions or equivalent ones after maternity leave, like the NWSL. Further, the CBA could also improve trade approval processes by requiring teams to document legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons for trades, especially involving pregnant players. This would introduce more scrutiny and transparency, possibly slowing or limiting trades in protected categories. To induce transparency and reporting on the part of pregnant athletes, the CBA could mandate that teams consult with the pregnant player or their representative before any trade occurs.

The next chapter of the WNBA will be defined not only by record viewership, higher salaries, and groundbreaking media deals, but also by the league’s willingness to confront and resolve the deeper workplace challenges faced by its athletes. True growth isn’t just measured by profits and ratings, it’s reflected in how organizations protect their players’ rights, support their personal journeys, and foster a culture where athletes can thrive both professionally and personally. By addressing the tensions exposed by Hamby’s case, the WNBA has an opportunity to define a new standard for how professional athletes are supported during major life transitions like pregnancy and parenthood.

Written by: Abbey Bono
Abbey is a 2026 J.D. Candidate at Brooklyn Law School.