Amazon discriminated against pregnant warehouse employees by denying accommodations like bathroom breaks and the option to sit while working, according to a lawsuit filed yesterday by four women who worked for Amazon while pregnant. The lawsuit is a class-action complaint that seeks to represent Amazon workers throughout the US.
“Plaintiffs Willamina Barclay, Kristina Green, Jennifer Hatch, and Dazaria Parks were formerly Amazon warehouse employees,” said the lawsuit filed in US District Court for the Eastern District of New York. “All four became pregnant. All four asked Amazon for basic pregnancy-related accommodations so they could keep doing their jobs. Amazon denied them basic modifications the law recognizes pregnant workers regularly need, even in uncomplicated pregnancies: Bathroom breaks. An extra 15-minute break. Sitting instead of standing.”
The lawsuit said the four plaintiffs were unlawfully terminated from jobs at Amazon facilities in New York between April 2025 and July 2026. After the plaintiffs “took medically necessary breaks or absences to get off their feet, visit the doctor, or go to the emergency room, they were punished,” the lawsuit said. “Amazon deducted their limited bank of unpaid time off. Soon enough, they had depleted that limited bank of ‘unpaid time off,’ and Amazon threatened to terminate them.”
In a statement, Amazon said the lawsuit contains inaccuracies and denied that it violates federal law on pregnancy accommodations. “We’re limited in discussing ongoing legal matters, however we look forward to a timely resolution of these matters, as extended investigation timelines benefit neither employees nor employers,” Amazon said.
Amazon has faced similar lawsuits in previous years, but this one has the added backing of a 2022 US law called the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act (PWFA). The relatively new federal law requires “reasonable accommodations for qualified employees affected by pregnancy, childbirth, lactation, or related medical conditions and limitations so long as doing so does not create an undue hardship on the entity’s operations,” the lawsuit said.
US agency finding may bolster case against Amazon
Amazon demanded medical documentation even for simple requests, the lawsuit said. “When Plaintiffs sought accommodations, Amazon applied its unlawful policy of demanding medical paperwork for every pregnancy-related accommodation request, no matter how basic,” despite such paperwork often taking weeks to obtain early in pregnancy, the lawsuit said.
The US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the federal agency that enforces the PWFA, instructed employers in 2024 that it is not reasonable to demand supporting documentation for certain kinds of pregnancy-related requests. This includes having water nearby for drinking, taking additional bathroom breaks, taking breaks to eat and drink, and sitting while working, “because these are a small set of commonly sought modifications that are widely known to be needed during an uncomplicated pregnancy,” the EEOC said.
Hatch’s claims have reportedly been evaluated and deemed credible by the EEOC. She filed a charge of discrimination with the EEOC, and in February 2026 the agency found reasonable cause that Amazon “has discriminated against a nationwide class of female warehouse associates, based on their pregnancy, by failing to accommodate their limitations related to pregnancy, childbirth, and or related medical conditions, and in some instances forcing them to take leave, in violation of the PWFA,” according to the lawsuit.
The EEOC finding was previously described in a New York Times report published in April. The NYT report said that because of the finding, “The EEOC will now try to reach an agreement with Amazon. If it can’t, Ms. Hatch will have the option of suing.” According to the lawsuit filed yesterday, “the EEOC issued Ms. Hatch a Notice of Right to Sue” on August 26. Barclay also received a Notice of Right to Sue.
The lawsuit accuses Amazon of violating the PWFA by failing to accommodate pregnant workers and by retaliating against those who sought reasonable accommodations. “Plaintiffs and Class Members’ requests for reasonable accommodation caused Amazon to take adverse employment actions against them by applying its Punitive Attendance Policy, leading to disciplinary action and/or termination,” the lawsuit said.
The state of New Jersey previously sued Amazon in October 2025, alleging widespread discrimination against pregnant workers and employees with disabilities. Amazon reported $200.6 billion in net sales in Q2 2026 and a net income of $62.6 billion.
Amazon says it approved 99.9% of pregnancy requests
Amazon said in a statement provided to Ars that the claims in the New York-based workers’ lawsuit “contain inaccuracies and omit important details” and “do not reflect the full facts of these cases or the reality of our extensive accommodations process…. While we’re not able to discuss individual employee details, we have conducted thorough internal reviews of each case referenced.”
Amazon said it “strive[s] to provide a safe and supportive environment for everyone, which includes supporting tens of thousands of employees with pregnancy accommodations each year. In the past year, more than 99.9 percent of pregnancy related accommodations requests have been approved,” including “additional breaks, modified duty, or seated roles.”
Amazon also said it provides “up to 20 weeks of fully paid leave for eligible birthing parents, including four weeks of pre-partum leave and a ramp-back program.”
Barclay and Green worked at an Amazon warehouse in Rochester, New York. Hatch had a job processing customer returns in a Lancaster fulfillment center, while Parks was a delivery associate at an Amazon delivery station in Rochester.
The former Amazon workers are represented by A Better Balance, a nonprofit advocacy group. The lawsuit seeks to represent a nationwide class of Amazon workers and a subclass of New York-based Amazon workers. The four named plaintiffs want reinstatement, back pay, compensation for lost benefits, and punitive damages.
Amazon “did not permit her to have a chair”
Amazon allowed Barclay to switch from a “picker” to a “packer” role, but she “was still forced to stand for long periods, squat repetitively, and lift heavy boxes,” the lawsuit said. The lawsuit alleged that even when “Barclay dutifully submitted medical documentation from her provider to support her original requests,” Amazon denied some of the requests.
Amazon “permitt[ed] her to take four extra 15-minute breaks per day, but did not permit Ms. Barclay to take breaks to sit ‘as needed,’ and did not permit her to have a chair, which caused further strain to her back,” the lawsuit said.
Barclay was allegedly fired four days after an episode of severe vomiting caused her to call out of work. She “provid[ed] a same-day doctor’s note to explain her absence and prevent disciplinary consequences,” but Amazon deducted the hours from her bank of unpaid time off and “fired Ms. Barclay due to her negative” balance of unpaid time, the lawsuit said.
Hatch’s pregnancy was classified as high-risk by her physician “due to advanced maternal age,” the lawsuit said. She has asthma, and her breathing problems were exacerbated by having to stand for extended periods and perform strenuous activity, the lawsuit said. Barclay and Hatch are both said to have suffered severe abdominal pain and lightheadedness at work.
“Although Ms. Hatch’s requests were unambiguous—a 30-pound lifting restriction, request for a sitting break for 15 minutes every four hours, and a maximum of eight hours per shift—Amazon refused to approve any of them, instead requesting additional followup information about her restrictions,” the lawsuit said, adding that “site-level managers ordered her to lift heavy boxes and refused her short breaks when she felt lightheaded.”
Hatch could have performed her typical duties while sitting, the lawsuit said. “Ms. Hatch was well qualified to work in customer returns and could easily have performed her usual tasks while seated in a chair during her requested breaks from standing, and was further willing to be transferred to other work paths within the customer returns department to process lighter items or to perform other tasks that would not involve standing for long periods of time,” the lawsuit said.
