Search
The Employer Handbook Blog
HR Said She Was Just There for the Maternity Benefits. See You in Court.
A warehouse worker started her job seven months pregnant. Thirteen weeks after delivering, she was fired. One sentence from the HR rep is why this case is going to trial.
TL;DR: A federal court in Illinois granted summary judgment to the employer on a warehouse worker’s Title VII claims and PWFA failure-to-accommodate claim after she failed to provide medical documentation for a leave extension. But the PWFA retaliation claim survives. An HR rep allegedly told a third party that she terminated the employee “because she thought [the employee] was just there for the maternity benefits and was going to leave afterward.” Under Title VII, that statement wasn’t enough. Under the PWFA, it’s enough to send the case to trial.
She Started Work Seven Months Pregnant
The employee began as a warehouse associate in October 2023, seven months pregnant. After her son was born December 1, she took ten weeks of postpartum leave, expiring February 8, 2024. When that date approached, she requested a two-week extension citing “Pregnancy/Childbirth.” The employer processed it as a short-term disability leave extension and asked for documentation confirming a continuing health condition, including a treatment plan.
The employee uploaded her ultrasound and proof of delivery. Neither suggested a continuing medical need ten weeks after delivery. Despite multiple follow-up requests, she never provided anything more. Her unpaid time balance went negative, and the HR rep terminated her on March 2.
Later, the HR rep allegedly told the employee’s boyfriend, who also worked at the company, that she had terminated the employee “because she thought [the employee] was just there for the maternity benefits and was going to leave afterward.”
The employer moved for summary judgment. The court granted it in part and denied it in part.
The Title VII/PWFA Split Every Employer Needs to Understand
Under Title VII, a manager saying she didn’t expect an employee to come back after maternity leave isn’t sex discrimination, at least not on its own, without more evidence pointing that way.
Under the PWFA, the same statement works differently. The statute makes it unlawful to take adverse action against an employee for requesting or using a pregnancy-related accommodation. Taking maternity leave is that accommodation. Assuming an employee used the benefit to exit before firing her is exactly the retaliatory motive the PWFA was written to reach. The retaliation claim goes to trial.
The court also addressed the failure-to-accommodate claim. The PWFA requires both sides to engage in an interactive process to work out a reasonable accommodation. The employer asked for documentation; the employee provided nothing relevant. Because she dropped her end of the process, that claim failed.
The gap is real: a statement that clears Title VII can still send a PWFA retaliation claim to a jury.
Three PWFA Risks Worth Fixing Now
Training on PWFA retaliation needs to cover post-termination statements. The HR rep’s comment wasn’t made during the termination decision. It came weeks later, informally, to a third party. Training that stops at “do not retaliate” misses where these statements actually happen.
PWFA documentation requests have a ceiling. The court noted a reasonable jury could find that requesting a full treatment plan exceeded what the PWFA allows. The statute limits documentation to the minimum needed to establish the condition, its relation to pregnancy or childbirth, and the accommodation required. The employer won the failure-to-accommodate claim here, but that overreach is a live issue in the next case.
The interactive process requires documented good faith. The employer prevailed because the employee provided nothing at all. Had she submitted anything plausibly connected to a continuing medical need, the failure-to-accommodate claim likely survives too. Document every step your process takes so the record reflects good-faith engagement even when the employee stops responding.
Most employers haven’t had to think hard about the PWFA yet. Cases like this one are about to change that.