But in order to succeed in her argument, Ames had to overcome the precedent that “several courts have considered and rejected the argument that terminating an employee due to lactation is gender or pregnancy discrimination,” so to dispute the soundness of those previous cases’ legal analyses Ames cited protection under the PDA [Pregnancy Discrimination Act].
A plaintiff could potentially succeed on a claim if she alleged and was able to prove that lactation was a medical condition related to pregnancy, and that this condition, and not a desire to breastfeed, was the reason for the discriminatory action(s) that she suffered.
[Ames] did not give Nationwide a reasonable opportunity to address and ameliorate the conditions that she claims constituted a constructive discharge.
The only way in which Ames attempted to alert Nationwide to the problem was by asking Neel twice about obtaining a lactation room and by approaching Hallberg about the same problem, all on the morning that Ames resigned.
Congress long ago rejected this ridiculous reasoning when it passed the Pregnancy Discrimination Act. element of the case, whether Ames could sufficiently prove lactation alone constituted a medical condition affecting what she alleged was a constructive discharge loss of employment.