HOUSTON — A federal judge's ruling against a Houston mother who says she was fired after asking for a place to pump breast milk has highlighted a question left unanswered by higher courts: Is firing a woman because she wants to pump at work sexual discrimination?

In his ruling, U.S. District Judge Lynn Hughes said it wouldn't be illegal, even if Donnicia Venters and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) were correct in assuming that Houston Funding, a debt-collection agency, fired her because she had asked to pump breast milk at work.

The judge reasoned that lactation was not pregnancy-related and, as a result, "firing someone because of lactation or breast-pumping is not sex discrimination."

Several other district courts have issued similar statements, but no higher-level appeals court has ruled, leaving many mothers in legal limbo, said Dallas labor lawyer Carrie Hoffman.

She said the new health-care law addresses breast-feeding and requires employers to give new mothers a break to nurse, but it doesn't specifically protect women from being fired if they ask to do so.

That rule, which went into effect in the past year, would not apply to Venters.

She took maternity leave in 2008 and gave birth to her now 3-year-old daughter, Shiloh. She kept in close contact with Houston Funding during her 10-week leave, according to cellphone records obtained by the EEOC and written statements by ex-supervisors, said Tim Bowne, an EEOC lawyer.

At least twice during her leave, Venters told her supervisor, Robert Fleming, she wanted to pump milk while on her break at work and asked him to get permission from their boss, Vice President Harry Cagle.

"He was completely fine about it," she said of Fleming. "I never got an answer back and I didn't think anything of it."

Venters, 30, had worked at the company almost three years, earned a promotion and figured that at worst Cagle might feel uncomfortable and deny her request.

"I didn't think I would get the boot for it," Venters said.

In a signed affidavit given the judge, Fleming said that when he told Cagle that Venters wanted to bring a breast pump to work, Cagle responded with "No. Maybe she needs to stay home longer."

According to Bowne, Venters informed the EEOC that when she told Cagle she wanted to use a breast pump in a backroom during breaks, his "demeanor changed. He paused for a few seconds and said, 'I'm sorry. We've laid you off.' "

The company issued a statement late Thursday saying it welcomed the judge's ruling, denied discriminating against Venters and would comply with new laws protecting women's rights to breast-feed in the workplace.

In response to the lawsuit, Houston Funding had argued that Venters was fired because she failed to keep in good contact with the company and didn't return to work as scheduled.

But Fleming said he had spoken to Venters at least weekly during her medical leave, which the EEOC argued was evidence that Houston Funding's excuse for firing Venters — "job abandonment" — was simply a "pretext for unlawful discrimination."

Hughes sided with the company in his ruling, but also wrote: "Even if the company's claim that she was fired for abandonment is meant to hide the real reason — she wanted to pump breast milk — lactation is not pregnancy, childbirth or a related medical condition."