Amazon was sued Tuesday by four former warehouse employees who allege the company systematically denied pregnant workers accommodations including bathroom and water breaks, permission to sit and time away for prenatal care, then penalized or fired some employees for pregnancy-related absences.
The proposed nationwide class action, filed in federal court in Brooklyn, N.Y., alleges Amazon's practices violated the federal Pregnant Workers Fairness Act and New York law. The plaintiffs-Jennifer Hatch, Willamina Barclay, Kristina Green and Dazaria Parks-are seeking lost wages and benefits, punitive damages and changes to Amazon's employment practices.
Amazon disputes the allegations. Company spokeswoman Kelly Nantel said Amazon provides pregnancy accommodations to tens of thousands of workers each year and that more than 99.9% of pregnancy-related accommodation requests were approved during the past year. She said the accounts presented by the four plaintiffs "contain inaccuracies and omit important details."
"Ensuring the health and well-being of our employees is one of our greatest responsibilities," Nantel said.
The lawsuit was brought with A Better Balance, a nonprofit workers' rights organization, and civil-rights law firm Emery Celli Brinckerhoff Abady Ward & Maazel. It seeks to represent pregnant Amazon warehouse workers nationwide and alleges that problems with the company's accommodation and attendance systems extend beyond isolated disputes involving individual managers.
"Amazon is one of this country's largest employers, [and] it is no surprise that many of its workers become pregnant," the complaint said, according to the source article. "Yet Amazon violates the law at every turn."
At the center of the dispute is the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act, which generally requires covered employers to provide reasonable accommodations for known limitations related to pregnancy, childbirth and related medical conditions unless doing so would impose an undue hardship. A Better Balance says accommodations covered by the law can include additional breaks, light duty or a stool or chair.
The plaintiffs allege Amazon's systems instead made obtaining relatively basic adjustments difficult and, in some instances, exposed workers to discipline under attendance policies. Hatch says she was denied short breaks and permission to sit and was later fired after a pregnancy-related hospitalization, while Parks alleges Amazon denied requests for additional restroom breaks and permission to sit before firing her for missing work after she was placed on leave.
Barclay's allegations illustrate how Amazon's time-off system could collide with a medical emergency, according to the complaint. She says she experienced severe abdominal pain after lifting heavy objects at a Rochester, N.Y., warehouse on June 16, 2025, was taken out in a wheelchair and hospitalized.
The following day, according to the lawsuit, Barclay received a termination warning. She alleges Amazon deducted from her unpaid-time-off balance because she had "worked partially that day," pushing the balance below the company's permitted threshold, and fired her five days after the hospital visit.
Green alleges Amazon repeatedly penalized her for taking pregnancy-related breaks and seeking accommodations. A Better Balance said she was ultimately fired over time she spent pumping breast milk, an activity the lawsuit contends was legally protected.
The complaint also challenges Amazon's alleged documentation requirements. The workers say the company demanded medical paperwork for certain pregnancy accommodations and subjected workers to delays while requests were being processed, potentially leaving employees to choose between continuing physically demanding warehouse duties and risking discipline for taking unauthorized breaks or leave.
Amazon's response presents a sharply different picture of its system. The company says its accommodation program serves tens of thousands of pregnant employees annually, and its reported approval rate of more than 99.9% stands in contrast with the plaintiffs' contention that the problems are systematic. The claims now must be tested through litigation, and the filing of a complaint doesn't establish that Amazon violated the law.
The case adds to legal scrutiny of Amazon's accommodation practices. A Better Balance filed a separate nationwide class action in November 2025 challenging the company's treatment of warehouse employees with disabilities who sought workplace accommodations.
A Better Balance also said the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission made a reasonable-cause finding in February in connection with Hatch's discrimination charge, concluding there was reason to believe Amazon had systematically failed to accommodate pregnancy-related limitations nationwide. Such an agency finding isn't a judicial determination of liability in the newly filed class action.
The new litigation comes as the federal framework governing pregnancy accommodations remains under regulatory review. The EEOC is expected to revisit regulations implementing the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act, potentially sharpening the debate over how employers handle requests for breaks, leave and modifications to physically demanding jobs.
