Los Angeles Sparks forward Dearica Hamby’s federal lawsuit against the WNBA and her former team, the Las Vegas Aces, could set important precedent for the employment relationship between pregnant pro athletes and their teams and league, and whether a player trade can cause an injury the law ought to protect.
Last Monday, Hamby filed a complaint in a Nevada federal district claiming the Aces discriminated against her on the basis of pregnancy and accusing both the Aces and WNBA of unlawful retaliation. The key facts began in 2022. Hamby says that to sweeten its offer of a two-year extension, the Aces made specific assurances outside of the contract. They allegedly promised to pay the private school tuition of Hamby’s daughter through a school “donation” and supply both assistance with childcare and housing accommodations.
Those kinds of assurances violate the WNBA standard player contract, which under Paragraph 16 states the contract “sets forth all components of the Player’s compensation from the Team or any Team Affiliate, and there are no other agreements or transactions of any kind … express or implied, oral or written, or promises, undertakings, representations, commitments, inducements, assurances of intent, or understandings of any kind.”
Hamby signed the extension in June 2022. The following month she learned she was pregnant with her second child and, a few weeks later, shared the news with her team. Hamby says after she publicly announced her pregnancy on Sept. 20, 2022—two days after the Aces became champions by defeating the Connecticut Sun in the WNBA Finals—she experienced “notable” and adverse changes in her employment. The Aces’ promised school donation and tuition payments were put on hold and, according to Hamby, the team told her she had to vacate her team-provided housing.
Hamby, 30, also contends Aces head coach Becky Hammon made hostile and discriminatory remarks to her in a phone call on Jan. 15, 2023. As Hamby tells it, Hammon asked if Hamby planned the pregnancy, accused her of signing the extension while knowing she was pregnant, questioned her commitment to the team and the sport, opined Hamby wasn’t taking proper birth control precautions and shared team concerns Hamby might get pregnant again. (Hammon has denied Hamby’s accusations.) The next day Hammon allegedly told Hamby “Your Time with the Aces is up” and that she was going to be dealt away. Five days later the Aces traded Hamby to the Sparks, who have struggled in recent seasons.
On the day she was traded, Hamby used social media to publicly accuse the Aces of misconduct. She said she was bullied and manipulated because she was pregnant. In February 2023, the WNBA publicly revealed it was investigating Hamby’s allegations. A few months later, the WNBA announced it had stripped the Aces of a first-round draft pick as a punishment for “impermissible player benefits.” It also suspended Hammon for two games for “violating league and team Respect in the Workplace policies.”
Hamby, meanwhile, gave birth to her son, Legend, in March 2023. The following month she reported to Sparks training camp on time and didn’t miss any games on account of her pregnancy (in fact, Hamby played all 40 regular season games for the Sparks). Hamby is a three-time WNBA all-star, two-time WNBA sixth woman of the year and recent recipient of a bronze medal at the 2024 Paris Olympic Games in 3×3 basketball.
Hamby also complied with the procedural requirement that she file a charge of discrimination with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission before filing a federal discrimination lawsuit. The EEOC granted her a right to sue letter in May, thus allowing her to sue.
Hamby’s complaint, which was drafted by Dana Sniegocki and other attorneys from HKM Employment Attorneys, paints a bleak picture of employment for a pregnant pro athlete. It suggests Hamby was punished for being pregnant, which is exactly what the Pregnancy Discrimination Act of 1978 is intended to prevent. It is illegal for employers to punish pregnant employees because they are pregnant.
Whether Hamby can prove she was “punished” in a way the law will remedy remains to be seen. Unlike many other employees who bring discrimination cases, Hamby wasn’t fired, denied a raise, passed over for a promotion, downgraded in influence or exiled to another company office.
She was denied benefits (daughter’s tuition etc.) that her team was prohibited under WNBA rules from offering and was later traded from one team to another.
To that point, Hamby contends the trade from a championship franchise to a less successful one harmed her and her endorsement opportunities. She says the much larger Los Angeles sports market is “more saturated” for endorsement deals than she experienced in Las Vegas, though it’s not clear from the complaint if she lost any specific deals.
Hamby also says the Aces retaliated against her after the trade by, among other things, directing players to “cease communication” with her, attempting to wrongfully access her medical records, refusing to invite her to a White House ceremony with Vice President Kamala Harris to celebrate the Aces’ championship and telling video personnel to not show Hamby’s daughter on an arena video screen. Hamby also says the WNBA refused to extend a marketing contract that paid her in addition to her player salary.
In a statement to media, the WNBA said it is reviewing Hamby’s complaint. In the coming weeks the WNBA and Aces will answer the complaint. They will deny wrongdoing and seek the complaint’s dismissal.
There are several likely defenses.
First, the defendants could contend that Hamby’s asserted facts are wrong or exaggerative. Much of the complaint relies on Hamby’s recollections of meetings and phone conversations, with her attributing problematic statements to other people. Those witnesses might dispute Hamby’s retelling and/or claim Hamby made her own set of problematic statements. Absent admissible recordings or other corroborating evidence, such as texts, emails or admissions made during testimony, those quotes would be vulnerable to challenge.
Second, and relatedly, the defendants might try to rebut Hamby’s alleged facts as lacking evidence. Her claim, for example, that the Aces tried to illegally access her medical records is damming. But it’s not clear from the complaint how it is supported.
Third, WNBA player contracts and the collective bargaining agreement between the WNBA and WNBPA contain detailed grievance and arbitration procedures designed to keep controversies out of court. It’s unclear if Hamby utilized those procedures. If she didn’t, the defendants might argue Hamby failed to exhaust her contractual remedies and thus the case must be dismissed to arbitration (a line of argument that has stopped or limited lawsuits against pro leagues, including those brought by Tom Brady, Brian Flores and Jon Gruden against the NFL–even in workplace discrimination cases and even when the commissioner of the league is personally accused). In response, Hamby could contend the nature of her claims shouldn’t fall within collectively bargained and contracted procedures.
Fourth, the defendants could assert that some of Hamby’s assertions fail to describe unlawful facts or injuries the law ought to protect.
Take Hamby saying the trade to the Sparks harmed her since the Sparks are a “less competitive team” and she has allegedly endured a “loss of reputational prestige and brand value typically associated with being part of a two-time WNBA champion franchise.” This might be seen as analogous to an employee of an ordinary business being relocated from the company’s headquarters to a satellite office as a form of punishment, but the defendants will likely contend that type of argument is a non-starter given labor and contract laws and established traditions in pro sports.
WNBA players contractually accept the possibility of being traded as part of their employment contract and CBA. WNBA teams also have business discretion to make trades of players. A legalized precedent where unionized pro athletes can successfully sue over being traded, in the absence of a no-trade clause, would raise labor and contract law concerns (not to mention make teams unwilling to deal players).
Hamby also criticizes the WNBA for, allegedly, not interviewing any Aces players in its investigation, not imposing “adequate” punishments and not providing Hamby a “remedy that would inure to her benefit for the violations it found.” The WNBA could argue it promptly investigated Hammon’s assertions, it has discretion to both conduct investigations and impose punishments as it sees fit, and its interviewing of players must be done in compliance with the CBA and with other WNBA-WNBA Players’ Association agreements.
Fifth, the defendants might offer lawful reasons to blunt Hamby’s accusations. Take the WNBA allegedly declining to extend Hamby’s marketing contract. The WNBA might argue it was a business decision, not retaliation. Perhaps the league concluded Hamby didn’t perform as well as expected in the role and thus didn’t deserve a new deal. To the extent the WNBA has performance reviews or other merit-based evidence, it could rebut an assertion of retaliation.
The case is before U.S. District Judge Andrew P. Gordon and U.S. Magistrate Judge Daniel J. Albregts. Albregts presided over Kathryn Mayorga’s battery lawsuit against Cristiano Ronaldo and recommended the case be moved to arbitration since the parties had contractually agreed to arbitrate. That case was dismissed and Ronaldo was awarded compensation from Mayoraga’s counsel due to the attorney’s improper conduct in using confidential documents obtained through a hacker.
(This story has been updated in the fifth paragraph to add information about Hammon’s response.)
