A Mother’s Struggle and the Backlash Against a Controversial Policy
A Minneapolis Park and Recreation employee who left her job to care for her newborn found herself in an unexpected and financially daunting situation. Indica Medeiros, who had been working in park maintenance since 2020, gave birth to a premature baby last fall. The infant required intensive medical care, making it impossible for Medeiros and her husband—also a park board employee—to return to work immediately.
The couple quickly realized that they could not afford child care, and their baby’s condition demanded full-time attention at home. Ten days before her scheduled return, Medeiros informed the Park Board that she would not be coming back and instead would stay home full-time to care for her two children under age 2.
Months later, the Park Board sent Medeiros a $13,400 invoice demanding repayment of her parental leave benefits. The request was based on a clause in the Park Board’s parental leave policy, which required employees to return to work for at least four weeks after taking maternity leave or risk repaying the entire amount.
This clause sparked immediate backlash from labor leaders and the public. Medeiros was told she had to repay all 12 weeks of paid parental leave or face legal action. When she asked to use her accrued sick and vacation days to buy time to arrange childcare, her requests were denied, and she was terminated from her position. She was then sent the bill.
Medeiros’ husband and father-in-law still work in the Minneapolis park system, but no grandparent could help with early-morning childcare, and no daycare facility within budget opened before 6am—the time parkkeepers are expected to report for work.
“It was difficult trying to find something that checked all the boxes,” Medeiros said. “And pricing, obviously, of day care is pretty outrageous.”
Laborers Union Local 363, which represents park keepers, filed an unfair labor practice charge against the agency, accusing it of unilaterally enforcing a policy it never properly bargained over. AJ Lange, business manager of Local 363, said, “They certainly never sent [the policy] to us.” He added that the policy had never been enforced before, and the union was surprised by the sudden push to collect the debt.
Facing pressure from the union, negative media coverage, and a looming legal deadline, the Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board (MPRB) eventually backed down. It canceled its demand for repayment and pledged to change its parental leave policy before the state’s new paid family leave law takes effect in 2026.
“I was very shocked because had I known that, I probably would have made different decisions,” Medeiros said. “It was very stressful on our family the first few months.”
The Minnesota Department of Employment and Economic Development confirmed that under the upcoming state law, employers will not be allowed to make parental leave benefits contingent on return-to-work requirements. Such conditions, the department stated, would be illegal.
In response, MPRB Superintendent Al Bangoura sent a letter to Medeiros announcing a sweeping reversal of the policy. He wrote, “With the new state law, MN Paid Family Leave, going into effect in January 2026, the MPRB has decided that it, in advance of the law becoming effective, will no longer make its PPL conditional upon returning to work.”
He added that the policy was originally instituted to support parent-child bonding and would now be reformed to better reflect the agency’s values of supporting employees and families.
The decision marked a dramatic about-face and a major win for Medeiros and her supporters. The Park Board had modeled its policy on the city of Minneapolis’ policy, but a city spokesperson confirmed that it is also adapting its policies to mirror the incoming state law.
“The city is working on implementing the new state law and will share more with city employees as the work continues,” said spokesperson Jess Olstad.
Daily Mail has reached out to MPRB for further comment.
