Amazon Sued Over Denied Pregnancy Accommodations in Warehouses

Amazon pregnancy accommodations lawsuit landed in federal court yesterday, and the four women behind it are asking a judge to turn their individual grievances into a nationwide class action against the country's second-largest private employer.

Four Workers, Four Firings, One Pattern

Willamina Barclay, Kristina Green, Jennifer Hatch, and Dazaria Parks were all Amazon warehouse employees. All four became pregnant. All four asked for adjustments that would let them keep working through their pregnancies, and all four say they were shown the door instead.

Their complaint, filed in the US District Court for the Eastern District of New York, alleges the company unlawfully terminated them from facilities across New York between April 2025 and July 2026. The requests they made were not exotic. Bathroom breaks. An extra 15-minute break. Sitting instead of standing. The kind of modifications, the lawsuit argues, that the law already recognizes pregnant workers regularly need, even in uncomplicated pregnancies.

What happened after they asked, according to the filing, is where the case gets its teeth. When the plaintiffs took medically necessary breaks or absences to get off their feet, visit the doctor, or go to the emergency room, the company punished them, the lawsuit claims. Amazon allegedly deducted those hours from their limited bank of unpaid time off. Once that bank hit zero, termination threats followed.

The 2022 Law That Changed the Math

Amazon has weathered pregnancy discrimination claims before. This one carries a different weapon.

The Pregnant Workers Fairness Act, signed into law in 2022, requires reasonable accommodations for qualified employees affected by pregnancy, childbirth, lactation, or related medical conditions, so long as doing so does not create an undue hardship on operations. That statutory hook is what gives the current case its weight, and the plaintiffs lean on it hard.

They also point to a specific enforcement position from the US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. In 2024, the agency told employers it is not reasonable to demand supporting documentation for certain pregnancy-related requests. Having water nearby. Taking additional bathroom breaks. Taking breaks to eat and drink. Sitting while working. The EEOC described these as a small set of commonly sought modifications widely known to be needed during an uncomplicated pregnancy.

Amazon did not follow that guidance, the lawsuit alleges. Instead, the company applied what the plaintiffs call an unlawful policy of demanding medical paperwork for every pregnancy-related accommodation request, no matter how basic. That paperwork can take weeks to obtain early in pregnancy, the filing notes, which means the accommodation arrives long after the need does.

One Claim the Government Already Backed

Hatch's case stands apart from the others because a federal agency has already weighed in. She filed a discrimination charge with the EEOC, and in February 2026 the agency found reasonable cause that Amazon discriminated against a nationwide class of female warehouse associates based on pregnancy by failing to accommodate their limitations, and in some instances forcing them to take leave, in violation of the PWFA.

The EEOC then issued Hatch a Notice of Right to Sue on August 26. Barclay received one as well. Those notices are the procedural keys that let both women walk into court.

"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."

What Each Woman Says Happened

Barclay and Green both worked at a warehouse in Rochester, New York. Hatch processed customer returns at a Lancaster fulfillment center. Parks was a delivery associate at a delivery station in Rochester.

Barclay's account is the most detailed. Amazon moved her from a picker role to a packer role, but she says she was still forced to stand for long periods, squat repetitively, and lift heavy boxes. Even after she submitted medical documentation from her provider, the company denied some of her requests. She got four extra 15-minute breaks per day but was not permitted to sit as needed and was not given a chair, which she says caused further strain to her back. Four days after severe vomiting forced her to call out, she was fired. She had provided a same-day doctor's note to explain the absence. Amazon deducted the hours anyway and terminated her over a negative unpaid time balance.

Hatch's physician classified her pregnancy as high-risk due to advanced maternal age. She has asthma, and her breathing problems worsened with prolonged standing and strenuous activity. She requested a 30-pound lifting restriction, a 15-minute sitting break every four hours, and a maximum of eight hours per shift. Amazon refused to approve any of them and asked for additional follow-up information instead, according to the filing. Site-level managers ordered her to lift heavy boxes and denied her short breaks when she felt lightheaded, the lawsuit says. Hatch could have done her usual customer returns work while seated, and she was willing to transfer to lighter tasks within her department.

Amazon Pushes Back

The company disputes the framing and says the numbers tell a different story.

In a statement, Amazon said the lawsuit contains inaccuracies and omits important details that do not reflect the full facts of these cases or the reality of its accommodations process. The company said it conducted thorough internal reviews of each case referenced. It also said that in the past year, more than 99.9 percent of pregnancy-related accommodation requests were approved, including additional breaks, modified duty, or seated roles. Amazon pointed to up to 20 weeks of fully paid leave for eligible birthing parents, including four weeks of pre-partum leave and a ramp-back program.

On the legal front, the company said it looks forward to a timely resolution, noting that extended investigation timelines benefit neither employees nor employers.

A 99.9 percent approval rate says nothing about how long approvals take, what documentation gets demanded along the way, or what happens to a worker whose unpaid time balance runs dry while the paperwork works its way through the system. Those are the mechanics the Amazon pregnancy accommodations lawsuit is built to test.

Broader Pressure, Bigger Stakes

This is not an isolated fight. New Jersey sued Amazon in October 2025, alleging widespread discrimination against pregnant workers and employees with disabilities.

The company reported $200.6 billion in net sales in Q2 2026 and a net income of $62.6 billion.

The four former workers are represented by A Better Balance, a nonprofit advocacy group. Their complaint seeks to represent a nationwide class of Amazon workers plus a subclass of New York-based workers. If certified, the case would cover pregnant employees far beyond the four named plaintiffs.

What the Plaintiffs Want

• Reinstatement to their former positions
• Back pay for time lost
• Compensation for lost benefits
• Punitive damages

What Hangs on the Outcome

• Whether Amazon must abandon blanket medical documentation demands for basic pregnancy requests
• How the PWFA applies to one of the largest warehouse workforces in the country
• Whether attendance policies that punish pregnancy-related absences survive scrutiny

The case now moves through the Eastern District of New York, where a judge will decide first whether it can proceed as a class action. That procedural question may matter more than any single plaintiff's story. A nationwide class would force Amazon to answer for its pregnancy accommodation process at scale, across every warehouse, fulfillment center, and delivery station the company operates. For now, four women and a 2022 law are asking the courts to settle what basic decency at work is supposed to look like.