A recent legal filing alleges that a printing services company terminated an employee after she requested accommodations for pregnancy-related health complications, raising questions about workplace rights for pregnant workers. The complaint was filed by Mecca Franklin in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on March 25, 2026, naming Source4 as the defendant.
According to the complaint, Franklin was employed as a Project Manager at Source4 from May 8, 2023 until June 9, 2025. She claims that she performed her job duties satisfactorily throughout her employment. The dispute centers on events following her approved bereavement leave in March 2025, after which she learned she was pregnant and began experiencing severe symptoms such as nausea, headaches, and vomiting.
Franklin reports that her physician placed her on leave under the Family and Medical Leave Act due to these pregnancy-related conditions. Her doctor submitted multiple requests to extend this leave, identifying her condition as a “pregnancy disability.” These requests were provided both to Source4 and its third-party administrator for employee leaves. While the administrator approved each extension and continued issuing short-term disability benefits to Franklin, Source4 allegedly failed to respond to some of these requests.
On May 27, 2025, Franklin’s physician submitted another request extending her leave through June 27 due to ongoing health complications. Her FMLA leave was set to expire on June 3; the new request sought an additional three-and-a-half weeks as a reasonable accommodation for her pregnancy. Franklin states she did not receive any response from Source4 regarding this latest request but continued receiving disability benefits.
During this period, communication between Franklin’s physician and Jeff Scribner—Source4’s Chief Financial Officer—served as the primary point of contact in lieu of a formal human resources department. The medical documentation reportedly made clear that Franklin required extended leave due to pregnancy complications.
The complaint asserts that despite being aware of both Franklin’s pregnancy and need for further accommodation, Source4 did not engage in discussions about her leave status or possible accommodations. On June 9, 2025—several days after her FMLA leave expired—Source4 terminated Franklin’s employment. In its termination letter, Source4 stated that Franklin’s FMLA leave had ended on June 3 and cited violation of its Absenteeism and Tardiness policy for failing to report back to work as grounds for dismissal. This letter was allegedly the first communication Franklin received regarding her most recent extension request.
Franklin argues that Source4’s stated reason for termination—job abandonment or voluntary resignation—is false and pretextual. She contends that the company failed to inform her about denial of additional leave or engage in an interactive process required by law before ending her employment.
The lawsuit includes several counts: sex-based discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964; violations of the Illinois Human Rights Act; retaliation under both federal law and state law; failure to accommodate under the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act (PWFA) of 2023; disparate treatment under the Pregnancy Discrimination Act (PDA); and related claims stemming from alleged willful disregard for protected rights.
In support of these claims, Franklin alleges she was treated less favorably than similarly situated employees outside her protected class (non-pregnant employees), suffered adverse employment actions after disclosing her pregnancy and requesting accommodations, and experienced emotional distress alongside financial losses resulting from termination.
Franklin seeks various remedies from the court including back pay with interest; front pay; loss of benefits; compensatory and punitive damages; attorneys’ fees; pre-judgment interest if applicable; and any other relief deemed appropriate by the court. She has demanded a jury trial on all issues raised in the complaint.
The case is identified as Case No. 1:26-cv-03309. Attorneys Chad W. Eisenback, Nathan C. Volheim, and Chasidy K. Clark from Sulaiman Law Group represent Mecca Franklin.
Source: 126cv03309_Mecca_Franklin_v_Source4Complaint_Northern_District_of_Illinois.pdf
