Caudle

In this pregnancy discrimination case, we must consider various issues raised under federal employment anti-discrimination law and state contract and tort law.

I

Rebecca Ann Caudle sued her erstwhile employer, Bristow Optical Company, Inc. (“Bristow”), and her supervisor, Janice Miletich, after Bristow terminated Cau-dle’s employment in the eighth month of her pregnancy. Caudle had joined Bris-tow as a salesperson on April 22,1993; she was unmarried at the time. In August 1994, she realized that she was pregnant. On August 25, Caudle informed 'Miletich about her pregnancy and indicated that she intended to stay on the job.

Caudle and Miletich had experienced some tension before Caudle reported her pregnancy. According to Caudle, quality-control problems in one of Bristow’s laboratories had rendered her job extraordinarily difficult from the outset, and she discussed the difficulties with Miletich “very frequently.” By November of 1994, the relationship between Caudle and Mile-tich had worsened. Miletich accused Cau-dle of lying about the situation underlying Bristow’s quality-control problems. In December of 1994, citing Caudle’s under- *1019 performance in increasing sales,…