// ARS TECHNICA — LINUX & OPEN SOURCE
Lawsuit: Amazon refused to give pregnant workers bathroom breaks and chairs
Four women sue Amazon, say company denied basic accommodations and fired them.
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.
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 Not