Court: Asking for ‘maternity’ leave was not enough

Raquel took time off for pregnancy-related issues before the federal Pregnant Workers Fairness Act (PWFA) became effective in June 2023. In August, Raquel asked for two months of unpaid maternity leave to begin after her baby was born in December. The employer fired her two weeks after her request.

Teffari, Raquel's supervisor, told Raquel that her termination was because of budgetary concerns. When Raquel applied for unemployment, however, the employer tried to prevent her from receiving unemployment benefits by claiming it fired her because of her job performance.

Raquel sued, claiming the employer did not accommodate her under the PWFA. The employer asked that the PWFA claims be thrown out.

In court, Raquel had to show that:

• She was a qualified individual;
• The employer was aware of her pregnancy-related limitations; and
• The employer failed to reasonably accommodate the limitations.

The employer said that Raquel never communicated to her manager that her request for unpaid maternity leave after the birth was connected to a known limitation or related medical condition.

The court ruling

According to the court, there was nothing to put the employer on notice that the request for two months of maternity leave was anything other than a standard request for time to bond with and care for the child. The PWFA, however, does not cover time off for bonding or childcare.

The court found that, because the employee did not connect a limitation with the leave request, the employer's duty to engage in the interactive process was never triggered, and its termination of Raquel did not violate the PWFA.

Keiper v. CNN America, Inc., Eastern District of Wisconsin, No. 24-CV-875, December 16, 2024.