I suppose that is sort of what I'm saying Ilove, yes. A non-adversarial discussion is sometimes best, depending on what you stand to gain or lose.
The basic point is that knowing your technical rights about one aspect of your situation is important. But deciding what to do involves taking much more than that into consideration.
Obviously only Oblomov (the famous! ) herself knows all the circumstances and background (and has now added some more to it!), so only she is in a position to weigh everything up and decide what course of action is likely to result in the best outcome for her.
There are pros and cons of considering absence pregnancy-related, as have been pointed out during this thread. Her employer currently seems to view this absence as pregnancy-related. Contesting that viewpoint might prevent Oblomov's employer starting her maternity leave at 36 weeks (and I don't know when Oblomov indicated initially that she was going to start it anyway), but it might also have other implications which need to be considered. There is the possibility that her whole 'sickness' could be reviewed, and some goodwill lost at the very least. Only Oblomov will have a sense of how likely that is, and if she doesn't intend to go back, then obviously that's less important.
In terms of whether diabetes is a disability, I don't think it's as simple as that to decide, and I don't think that's the point here.
My point is that Oblomov stated herself that she was perfectly capable of working, she had an offer of a lift to work and also felt at least some of her job could be done at home. During pregnancy the employer must make adjustments to work if there is a health and safety issue preventing the employee doing her normal job under normal conditions. I don't think this is strictly the case here, but it gives a context. If I had been advising the employer, I would have advised them to seek further medical opinion, and occupational health opinion on Oblomov's ability to work, and if the view was that it was only transportation that was the issue, I would have advised possibly a combination of homeworking and alternative transportation.
So it's not about a duty of care as such, more about it being in the employer's interest for someone to be working rather than forking out sick pay.
They took the view that they wouldn't do that, and Oblomov has benefited as a result. So that is something to bear in mind when deciding what to do.
But the context of how nice the company really is and whether Oblomov has any intention of going back afterwards is also pertinent.
I think this is a wonderful illustration of the reality of people management and being an employee. Knowing your rights is a good thing, and everyone should, and should know how to exercise them. But knowing how to make good effective decisions about managing people and about what action to take as an employee is equally important in my view.
I have said on here many times and will again I am sure. It is important given any situation you find yourself in at work, to decide what realistic and achieveable outcome you want from the situation given all the circumstances, and to decide what the best/easiest/least risky/cheapest (delete as appropriate) way of achieving that result is.
Frequently that involves walking away and not exercising your rights. Sometimes it involves fighting tooth and nail for them. Often it's something inbetween. But the individual is the only person able to make that decision, particularly in a scenario like this on an internet forum where people are posting opinions for Oblomov with very little knowledge about her and even less about her employer.
All we can do is offer our own experiences, our own reading of the situation as we see it, and our own knowledge, which hopefully sometimes equips the person to make that decision.