Los Angeles Sparks ahead Dearica Hamby’s federal complaint against the WNBA and her former team, the Las Vegas Aces, had set a high bar for the work relationship between female professional athletes and their teams and category, as well as whether a participant business can result in an injury that the law had to defend.
In a federal court in Nevada on Monday, Hamby filed a complaint alleging that the Aces had engaged in unlawful reprisal against her because of her pregnancy. The most important information started in 2022. The Aces provided certain assurances outside of the contract, according to Hamby, to soften its offer of a two-year expansion. According to allegations, they made promises to give Hamby’s daughter’s private school tuition through a “donation” and to provide both financial aid for accommodation and care.

Those kinds of assurances violate the WNBA normal person agreement, which under Paragraph 16 states the deal” sets back 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 … communicate or implied, oral or written, or promises, undertakings, representations, commitments, inducements, assurances of intent, or understandings of any kind”.
In June 2022, Hamby approved the extension. She shared the news with her team a few weeks later when she learned she was pregnant with her second child the following month. Hamby claims that she experienced “notable” and negative changes in her employment after making public her pregnancy on September 20, 2022, two days after the Aces defeated the Connecticut Sun in the WNBA Finals to become champions. The Aces were promised a donation to the school and tuition, but Hamby claims the team told her she had to leave her team-provided housing and that the school had put it on hold.
Hamby, 30, alleges that Becky Hammon, the head coach of the Aces, made disparaging and hostile remarks to her during a phone call on January 15, 2023. According to Hamby, Hammon inquired about whether Hamby had planned the pregnancy, accused her of signing the extension while she knew she was pregnant, questioned her commitment to the team and the sport, expressed doubts about Hamby was n’t taking proper birth control precautions, and expressed team concerns that Hamby might become pregnant again. ( Hammon has denied Hamby’s accusations. ) Hammon allegedly told Hamby the following day that she was going to be dealt away and that her time with the Aces was up. The Aces traded Hamby to the Sparks, who had struggled in recent seasons, five days later.
On the day she was traded, Hamby used social media to publicly accuse the Aces of misconduct. She claimed that because she was pregnant, she was bullied and manipulated. In February 2023, the WNBA publicly revealed it was investigating Hamby’s allegations. The WNBA announced a few months later that it had terminated the Aces ‘ first-round draft pick as a result of “impermissible player benefits.” Hammon was also given a two-game suspension for “violating league and team Respect in the Workplace policies.”

Hamby, meanwhile, gave birth to her son, Legend, in March 2023. She arrived at Sparks training camp on time the following month, and she did n’t miss any games because of her pregnancy ( Haby played for the Sparks ‘ entire regular season ). 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.
Additionally, Hamby complied with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s requirement to file a complaint of discrimination before filing a federal discrimination lawsuit. In May, the EEOC gave her a right to file a lawsuit, allowing her to do so.
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 that Hamby was punished for being pregnant, which the Pregnancy Discrimination Act of 1978 aims to stop. Employers are prohibited from punishing pregnant employees because of their pregnancy.
It’s still to be seen whether Hamby can demonstrate that she was “punished” in a legal way. Unlike many other employees who bring discrimination cases, Hamby was n’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 later traded from one team to another and was prohibited from offering under WNBA rules.
To that point, Hamby contends that the switch from a championship franchise to a less successful one damaged her and her potential endorsements. She claims that the much larger Los Angeles sports market is “more saturated” with endorsement deals than Las Vegas, even though it’s not clear if she lost any particular deals.
Hamby claims that the Aces retaliated against her after the trade, including ordering players to “cease communication” with her, attempting to wrongfully access her medical records, refusing to invite her to a White House ceremony to honor the Aces ‘ championship, and instructing video personnel to not show Hamby’s daughter on an arena video screen. Additionally, Hamby claims that the WNBA forbids the extension of a marketing contract that included her player salary.
In a statement to media, the WNBA said it is reviewing Hamby’s complaint. The WNBA and Aces will respond to the complaint in the upcoming weeks. 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. Hamby’s recollections of meetings and phone conversations are used to support the majority of the complaint, with Hamby putting problematic statements on other people. Those witnesses might contest Hamby’s account or assert that she made a number of contradictory 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, the collective bargaining agreements between the WNBA and the WNBPA contain in-depth grievance and arbitration procedures designed to prevent disputes from being resolved in court. It’s unclear if Hamby utilized those procedures. The defendants may contend that Hamby violated her contractual rights, which requires the case to be arbitrated ( a defense that has limited or stopped pro leagues from suing the NFL, including those brought by Tom Brady, Brian Flores, and Jon Gruden, even when the league’s commissioner is directly accused ), In response, Hamby could contend the nature of her claims should n’t fall within collectively bargained and contracted procedures.
Fourth, the defendants may challenge Hamby’s claims that some of the facts or injuries are unconstitutional.
Take Hamby as an example, claiming that the Sparks made a “less competitive team” and that she had endured a “loss of reputational prestige and brand value typical associated with being a two-time WNBA champion franchise. Given labor and contract laws and established traditions in professional sports, the defendants will likely argue that this type of argument is a non-starter given that an employee of an ordinary business is moved from the company’s headquarters to a satellite office as a form of punishment.
Players in the WNBA agree to the possibility of being traded as part of their employment agreement and CBA. WNBA teams also have the right to make trades of players. Without a no-trade clause, a legal precedent that allows unionized professional athletes to sue over their trades would raise issues with labor and contract law ( as well as 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 that it immediately investigated Hammon’s assertions, that it has discretion to conduct investigations and impose punishment as it pleases, and that its player interviews must be conducted in accordance with the CBA and 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 came to the conclusion that Hamby did n’t perform as well as he had hoped for the position and therefore did n’t merit 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. The case against Cristiano Ronaldo was handled by Alberta’s attorney, Kathryn Mayorga, and the parties had already agreed to arbitrate. Due to the attorney’s improper conduct in using secret documents obtained through a hacker, Ronaldo was fired and given compensation from Mayoraga’s attorney.
( This story has been updated in the fifth paragraph to add information about Hammon’s response. )