Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, DISCRIMINATION—D. Mass.: Package handler, fired during pregnancy-related leave, stated failure-to-accommodate, retaliation claims, (Mar 23, 2026)

By Jason Albright, J.D.

In October 2023, she received a call from HR asking why she had not submitted a resignation letter.

A package handler for Sam’s West, Inc., fired after she took pregnancy-related medical leave, extended her leave, and then applied for bonding leave with the Massachusetts Department of Family and Medical Leave (DFML), stated Massachusetts disability discrimination and retaliation claims, a federal district court found. Although she could not prevail on a failure-to-accommodate claim based on an interaction in which she informed her manager that her feet were swollen and that she was tired, she explicitly requested a leave extension from the company’s leave administrator and the DFML, which was approved by both parties, and Sam’s West fired her without engaging in any interactive process for an accommodation that would allow her to return to work (Germoso v. Sam’s West, Inc., No. 4:25-cv-10705-MRG (D. Mass. Mar. 20, 2026)).

Sam’s West, Inc. fulfillment center. The plaintiff, according to the court, began working at a Sam’s West, Inc. (SWI) fulfillment center in Worcester, Massachusetts as a package handler on or about August 12, 2021.

Pregnancy. About a year later, in August 2022, she learned that she was pregnant, with an expected due date of May 1, 2023. In September 2022, she informed her supervisor of her pregnancy with a letter from her physician, and she requested an accommodation whereby she would not have to do any heavy lifting. According to the plaintiff, SWI did not respond to this request for an accommodation.

Tired and feet swollen. On April 7, 2023, approximately three weeks before her expected due date and her intended leave, she informed her supervisor that she felt tired and that her feet were swollen. The supervisor told her to go home and to contact the company’s third-party benefits and leave administrator, Sedgwick, to ask to start her maternity leave early.

Leave and STD request. The same day, she contacted Sedgwick to request a leave of absence and short-term disability (STD) benefits with a start date of April 8, 2023.

DFML application. Two weeks later, she applied for paid medical leave through the Massachusetts DFML, noting her due date of May 1, 2023.

In the following weeks, she received several emails from Sedgwick regarding her leave, with various denials and acceptances, but she ultimately received STD benefits from April 8 to August 1, 2023, and she received DFML benefits from May 1, 2023, to September 1, 2023.

Extension requests. In early August, she received an email from Sedgwick indicating that she was expected to return to work by August 8, 2023. She called DFML to confirm her leave until September 1 and then informed Sedgwick of her protected medical leave. Later that month, she contacted both Sedgwick and DFML to request an extension of her leave. After several communications regarding the correct documentation, on September 12, 2023, her DFML approval was adjusted for May 12, 2023, to September 10, 2023. After receiving the approval, she contacted Sedgwick once more to request an extension. The Sedgwick employee with whom she spoke asked her whether two more months of leave would be enough time, and she said it would be.

Bonding leave application and approval. The package handler subsequently applied for bonding leave with DFML. On September 26, in turn, DFML approved that application and emailed SWI her bonding leave application, beginning on September 15 and ending on November 5, 2023. She faxed a copy of the approval to Sedgwick, and SWI did not appeal or respond to the approval decision.

Termination. On October 6, 2023, however, she received a call from a SWI HR assistant asking why she had not submitted a resignation letter. She informed the assistant that she was on approved leave until November, but she was then told that her leave was not in SWI’s system.

In response, she re-sent the DFML approval letter to Sedgwick. Subsequently, on October 13, 2023, she received a communication from SWI containing a “Leave Denial” letter indicating that the extension of leave request was denied. She contacted SWI’s HR department and was told that a manager would contact her.

She did not receive a call from the manager, and instead, three days later, she received a notice from Sedgwick that her employment was terminated on October 12, 2023. She attempted to speak with an HR manager, but her call was never returned.

Exhaustion of remedies and lawsuit. She timely filed a complaint with the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination on August 2, 2024, and she sued SWI in state court on February 26, 2025, alleging disability discrimination and retaliation in violation of Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 151B, § 4, and retaliation in violation of Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 175M, § 9. The action was removed to federal district court based on diversity jurisdiction, and SWI moved to dismiss.

Failure-to-accommodate based on initial departure. The court dismissed the former package handler’s failure-to-accommodate claim based on her initial departure from SWI. She argued that the unilateral decision to send her home for early maternity leave, after her mere complaint that she was tired and that her feet were swollen late in her pregnancy, was not a proper accommodation but a failure to engage in the required interactive process. The court, however, did not view her complaint as a request for specific accommodation. Moreover, under Chapter 151B, a temporary leave of absence is frequently recognized as a reasonable accommodation, and at no point did she inform SWI that being sent home was an accommodation that she found insufficient.

Denial of leave extension and termination. Her failure-to-accommodate claim based on her termination survived the motion to dismiss. Here, the court noted, she explicitly requested a leave extension from Sedgwick and the DFML, which was approved by both parties. SWI, however, terminated her without engaging in any interactive process toward an accommodation that could have allowed her to return to work. “The interactive process could have resulted in alternative options such as unpaid leave of absence rather than termination,” observed the court, and the employer’s failure “to even broach potential accommodation” could constitute a failure to accommodate.

Retaliation. Her retaliation claim under Chapter 151B also survived. SWI conceded “that Plaintiff engaged in a protected activity by seeking an accommodation for her disability and that she suffered an adverse employment action when Sam’s terminated her.” What remained was to adequately allege causation.

Here, noted the court, her last extension of leave request occurred in September 2023, and her termination occurred two weeks later. The temporal proximity between her request for accommodation and her termination was thus sufficient for a presumption of retaliation.

Massachusetts PFMLA retaliation. Finally, she also stated a retaliation claim under the Massachusetts Paid Family and Medical Leave Act (PFMLA), Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 175M. Unlike Chapter 151B, noted the court, the PFMLA imposes a presumption of retaliation whenever an employee is terminated during a protected leave, or within six months of taking protected leave under the statute. Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 175M § 9(c). The presumption can only be rebutted by the employer with “clear and convincing evidence.” Here, the former employee was terminated within two weeks of receiving approval for, and while still on, protected bonding leave. The employer’s arguments that she had exhausted her legally protected leave, and that her failure to return to work constituted a resignation of her role, completely disregarded that she had received notice from DFML that she continued to benefit from protected leave.

The case is No. 4:25-cv-10705-MRG.

Judge: Guzman, M.

Attorneys: Benjamin C. Rudolf (Rudolf, Smith, Griffis & Ruggieri) for Jeniffer Germoso. Liam J. Vesely (Pierce Atwood) for Sam's West, Inc.

Companies: Sam's West, Inc.

Cases: DisabilityDiscrimination Discrimination Retaliation EmployeeLeave Discharge StateLawClaims MassachusettsNews