Amazon is facing a proposed nationwide class-action lawsuit alleging that pregnant warehouse workers were denied workplace accommodations and, in some cases, disciplined or dismissed after taking pregnancy-related breaks or time away from work, according to the complaint.
The complaint was filed in federal court in New York on September 8 by four former Amazon warehouse employees, represented by civil rights law firm Emery Celli Brinckerhoff Abady Ward & Maazel and workers' rights organisation A Better Balance.
The plaintiffs accuse Amazon of maintaining policies that made it difficult for workers to obtain adjustments such as sitting, taking additional bathroom breaks or avoiding physically demanding duties. They also allege that unpaid time-off rules could result in workers being threatened with termination or losing their jobs after pregnancy-related medical absences.
Amazon disputes the allegations, saying it approved more than 99.9% of pregnancy-related accommodation requests during the previous year. The company said the accounts cited by A Better Balance contained inaccuracies and omitted important details.
Amazon Pregnancy Discrimination Lawsuit Explained
The lawsuit centres on four former warehouse employees: Willamina Barclay, Jennifer Hatch, Kristina Green and Dazaria Parks. The complaint alleges that their experiences were part of a wider problem affecting pregnant workers at Amazon facilities across the US.
A Better Balance said the case seeks compensation for affected employees as well as changes to Amazon's workplace policies.
Barclay, who worked at an Amazon facility in Rochester, New York, said she requested several changes during a high-risk pregnancy. Her requests included being able to sit, taking additional breaks, avoiding repetitive squatting and ladder use, and limiting the weight she had to lift.
According to the complaint, some of those changes were eventually approved, but the process took too long. The lawsuit says Barclay later experienced severe abdominal pain while lifting objects at work and was taken to hospital.
It alleges that Amazon subsequently issued her a termination warning after treating the absence as exceeding her unpaid time-off allowance, before dismissing her five days later.
Hatch's case involved a request to sit while working. The lawsuit alleges that Amazon repeatedly denied or delayed her accommodation requests and that she was later unable to enter the warehouse because her employment had been terminated. She told USA TODAY that her unpaid time-off balance had been reduced by breaks she took during pregnancy.
Green's allegations relate partly to breastfeeding after she returned from maternity leave. She said she was repeatedly warned about the length of breaks needed to pump breast milk before being dismissed in May 2026.
The complaint alleges that time spent away from her workstation was recorded as inactive time and contributed to disciplinary action under Amazon's attendance system.
Pregnant Workers Fairness Act and Amazon Policies
The legal dispute comes under the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act, a federal law that requires covered employers to provide reasonable accommodations for known limitations related to pregnancy, childbirth or related medical conditions, unless doing so would create an undue hardship.
Examples include additional restroom breaks, access to water, the ability to sit, changes to work duties and time away for healthcare appointments.
The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) says employers should respond promptly to accommodation requests and generally should not demand supporting documentation in situations where the need is obvious or where the employee is seeking common adjustments such as bathroom, food, water or sitting breaks.
The agency also says employers cannot retaliate against workers for requesting or using a reasonable accommodation protected by the law.
The complaint alleges Amazon's attendance system conflicted with those protections by counting certain pregnancy-related breaks and absences against workers' unpaid time-off allowances. It also challenges what the plaintiffs describe as repeated demands for medical paperwork when employees requested basic adjustments.
The case follows earlier scrutiny of Amazon's treatment of workers seeking accommodations. A Better Balance said the EEOC determined in February 2026 that there was reasonable cause to believe Amazon had systematically violated the PWFA in connection with Hatch's discrimination charge.
That finding concerns an agency proceeding and is not a final court judgment on the allegations raised in the new class action.
The lawsuit is seeking compensation and changes to Amazon's workplace practices. Its allegations will have to be tested through the legal process.
