They should fire someone for well-documented causes, in which case there is no issue. I happen to think that it should be non-trivial to fire someone. If they are a poor performer then it shouldn't be hard to actually document that. If you're going to outsource a division, then lay off your pregnant women along with the rest of the workers that are going to be part of that lay off. Singling out a single pregnant woman for a pre-emptive firing, separate from the rest of her coworkers, reeks of discrimination and should rightly be cause for lawsuit.

> You would be surprised how many employers are afraid to boost female/minority hiring because they are afraid of opening themselves up to lawsuits if the need to let that person go in the future.

I wouldn't be, actually, because people in general tend to hold onto unfounded ideas. I find that its pretty simple to fire someone in a protected class in practice if you are actually professional about it and document the reasons. Its just not trivial, which is what bad employers tend to want.

> Edit: Downvote away. The truth is, rushing to judgement and vilifying an employer without having facts is only going to make this problem worse.

Lawsuits are how facts in disputes are established. The question is whether there is enough doubt here to warrant a lawsuit, and it really seems like there is.