First of all, the part about her losing her employer health insurance doesn't seem right. On an unpaid leave, an employee can continue to pay for their insurance premiums and be covered and if they are terminated they can do so through COBRA (albeit they would pay the full rate without the employer sponsorship). If she was a contract worker and not an employee that would not apply. If her current position already accommodated her light duty restriction, I don't get why they put her on leave. Now according to her corporate job description, she would be unfit for the job so I can see that legal argument. It seems like both sides are following the "rules" and not using common sense. That being said, I think the market has started to solve problems like this. I know one firm for example that emerged from the workers' compensation industry. They hire workers from manual labor jobs that have work restrictions the employer cannot accommodate and place them in temp positions doing things like answering phones. The employee remains productive and earns his or her wage which is then paid out to the employer which minimizes the disability spend. Once the employee is better, they go back to work. They integrate back into the work force better and typically take less time off. It's just a start but it is a way to retain good employees and have a minimal economic impact when accidents or babies happen.

Just found this as one person's advocacy for UPS:

http://www.theblaze.com/contributions/no...

He makes some pretty good arguments. I'd be interested in the other side if there is a similar op-ed.

Too bad she can't prove she got pregnant on the job.
(That would probably violate some rational work rules.)
If I was suspicious, I would suspect that the unpaid leave was done for another reason having nothing to do with pregnancy.