A plaintiff who is charging her former employer with pregnancy discrimination can pursue her claim even though she did not return her severance pay before filing suit, says a federal appeals court, in reversing a lower court ruling.

Jena McClellan, who was hired by Madelia, Minnesota-based Midwest Machining Inc. in 2008, was terminated in 2015, about three months after she told her employer she was pregnant, according to Thursday’s ruling by the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati in Jena McClellan v. Midwest Machining Inc.

According to Ms. McClellan, after announcing she was pregnant, her supervisor made negative comments for weeks in response, and was annoyed by her absences for pre-natal appointments.

Ms. McLellan testified that on the day she was terminated, the company’s president called her into her office and bullied her, pressuring her into signing a severance agreement that paid her $4,000 in which she agreed not to pursue discrimination complaints.

Ms. McClellan filed a complaint against the company in November 2016 on charges including violation of the Pregnancy Discrimination Act and the Equal Pay Act.

She then sent back her severance pay, stating she was rescinding the severance agreement, but the company returned it, stating there was no legal basis for rescinding it.

The U.S. District Court in Grand Rapids, Michigan, granted Midwest Machining summary judgment dismissing the case on the basis that she did not return the severance pay before filing suit. Ms. McClellan appealed the ruling.

The “tender-back doctrine” provides that before a contract “tainted by mistake, duress, or even fraud” can be voided, the affected party “must first tender back any benefits received under the contract,” said the majority ruling, in citing an earlier case.

“At the heart of this appeal is whether the tender-back doctrine applies to claims brought under Title VII and the (Equal Pay Act),” said the majority opinion.

“We now hold that a plaintiff is not required to tender back consideration received under a severance agreement before bringing claims for violations of Title VII of the (Equal Pay Act),” said the ruling.

It added, “even if Plaintiff were required to tender back the consideration, she was required to do so not before filing suit, but within a ‘reasonable time’ after she discovered that the severance agreement revoked her right to bringing a discrimination claim,” and “she effectively did so.”

The case was remanded for further proceedings.

The dissenting opinion in the case said the case should have been remanded for further fact-finding.