Reading the story, copyright seems like an irrelevant hail mary in the absolute barrage of hail mary accusations. Her lawyers seem to be throwing everything and the kitchen sink at the case to try to make it stick, or more likely get a good settlement by making it hard to defend against so many different accusations.
Overall though, this story is so stereotypical it hurts. High level female manager gets on a promotion track. Does well. Gets into position where she's basically required to pull the work tempo of a high flying career at its critical point. That's the kind of a thing where you have to ration sleep, because you just don't have time for it from all the work.
And gets pregnant during it. Discovers that pregnancy really fucks with one's ability to be a high level manager, who needs to work long hours, be on call and ready to go 24/7 if they want to proceed with the career track. So the choice is between your own progeny or the career, and you can't really give any attention to your progeny if you want to stick with it. There's a reason why high flying men are overwhelmingly absent fathers.
So being a mother she fell off the career track at the end stage of pregnancy which ended in c-section on top of everything else so longer than usual sick leave at the end, and so leadership puts her into a more appropriate spot so her absence doesn't damage the team she manages. She protests that no, she totally can do the whole birth and newborn and career track at the same time, gets a "difficult to work with" label put on by those around her at work as a result. Gets shoved into the "difficult to work with" corner in the hierarchy and put into position where she will be fired as a result. When her termination becomes a foregone conclusion, she sues for discrimination for as big of a termination payout as possible.
Problem here is the very reason why this scenario is utterly stereotypical, and stereotype accuracy is the most repeatable, most proven theory in social sciences by far. Overwhelming majority of women in this position go through the exact same process, for the exact same reasons. Being a mother is not the same as being a father, and mother-newborn baby bond is one of the strongest bonds there are. No matter how much your abstract thinking systems believe that you can totally pull the whole high flying career and a mother of a newborn baby roles at the same time, reality is that unless you have a severe character flaw that makes you utterly indifferent to your newborn, it's utterly impossible. Babies don't haggle over their needs with their mothers. They demand and mothers answer. If mother intentionally doesn't for whatever reason, baby's crying tends to become psychologically devastating to the new mothers who will have that primal reaction to their feeling that they haven't done enough. This is not a bond you can mess with using just your abstract modelling skills. It's a primal thing that doesn't care about abstract mind. It will assert itself regardless of delusions abstract mind has about reality.
And reading between the lines of the claims of woman's lawyers about her co-workers reactions strongly suggest that this is exactly what happened. So she was on the way out regardless as a result, and she just wants her payout for her termination to be as big as possible. Hence the barrage of hail mary claims, designed to attract as much PR attention as possible to get Amazon to settle.
Frankly, the only question I have after reading the story linked in the OP is "what is the relationship between submitter of the story and this woman's lawyers?" Because the whole point of these lawyers doing the whole barrage of claiming everything under the sun is to get the case to become damaging to public image of Amazon so they can pressure for a higher payout in a settlement.
