$10M Michigan Verdict in OB-GYN Residency Leave Dispute

A Michigan state jury awarded more than $10 million to a former OB-GYN resident who alleged she was terminated from Ascension Genesys Hospital’s residency program after the hospital required her to sit for a licensing exam while she was on maternity leave. After a 2.5-week trial in Genesee County Circuit Court, jurors returned a $10.03 million verdict in favor of Nicole Walker, who argued the program’s actions reflected pregnancy-based discrimination and retaliation. The dispute centered on timing and accommodations around the COMLEX Level 3 exam during the COVID-19 pandemic, the hospital’s response to her requests for additional time, and whether she was treated differently than other residents who previously struggled with the same testing requirement.

Exam Deadlines, Leave Status, and the Termination Decision

Walker participated in Ascension Genesys Hospital’s OB-GYN postgraduate residency program from July 2019 until April 2021. According to court filings, the program required residents to pass the COMLEX Level 3 exam by December 2020. Walker alleged that pandemic-related test disruptions and reduced clinical training limited the opportunities to schedule the exam and left less time for retakes before the deadline. After she failed her first attempt in September 2020, she requested additional time and received a one-month extension.

The case turned on what occurred next as Walker prepared to give birth and take protected leave. Walker alleged hospital officials knew she would be on medical and maternity leave yet required her to retake COMLEX Level 3 in January 2021 while she was still on leave and caring for a newborn. She failed that attempt and was later terminated. Walker maintained the decision was not tied to her clinical performance, and she emphasized that she later achieved a score of 536—well above the passing mark of 350—on a third attempt in June 2021, but was not reinstated.

Disparate Treatment Allegations Under Michigan Civil Rights Statutes

Walker’s claims proceeded under Michigan’s Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act and the Michigan Persons With Disabilities Civil Rights Act. She alleged the hospital treated her differently than other residents who failed the exam, asserting she was not offered probation, remediation, or other assistance that had been made available to nonpregnant residents in the past. The complaint also described alleged remarks by a physician affiliated with the program suggesting that motherhood made it harder for her to devote time to residency and that she should consider a different career path.

Walker sought a range of remedies, including lost wages, reinstatement or front pay, emotional distress damages, exemplary damages, attorney fees, and injunctive relief. The plaintiff is represented by Morgan & Morgan PA, according to court filings. The hospital is represented by Jackson Lewis PC. While the precise allocation of damages was not detailed in the publicly reported verdict summary, the total award reflected the jury’s acceptance of Walker’s theory that the program’s handling of the exam requirement during leave constituted unlawful discrimination and retaliation under state law.

Trial Outcome, Ongoing Federal Claims, and Practical Implications

The Genesee County Circuit Court trial lasted approximately 2.5 weeks and culminated in a $10.03 million verdict for Walker. One of Walker’s attorneys said in a statement, “There were a lot of tears, but she feels vindicated.” The verdict addressed the state-law claims tied to the residency program’s exam-related decisions and the alleged failure to accommodate her leave status during the retake scheduling window.

Separately, Walker has another case pending in Michigan federal court alleging the hospital interfered with her maternity leave and retaliated against her in violation of the Family and Medical Leave Act. That parallel litigation indicates the dispute is not limited to the exam policy itself, but also to how leave protections were administered in practice. More broadly, the verdict underscores the litigation risk for training programs and hospitals when professional testing requirements intersect with protected leave, particularly where comparators and program remediation practices become central to the factual record and wrongful termination theories are advanced.