GoKawiilAmazon 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.