Former Amazon employees filed a class-action lawsuit Tuesday accusing the e-tail leviathan of discriminating against potentially thousands of pregnant workers by firing or retaliating against those who sought extra accommodations.
Filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York on behalf of four former hourly warehouse workers, the complaint alleged that Amazon violated the federal Pregnant Workers Fairness Act and New York state law, both of which require employers to provide reasonable workplace adjustments for pregnancy, childbirth and related medical conditions.
“Plaintiffs Willamina Barclay, Kristina Green, Jennifer Hatch and Dazaria Parks were formerly Amazon warehouse employees,” the lawsuit stated. “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.”
Amazon insisted on medical paperwork for every pregnancy-related accommodation request, no matter how simple, even though such documentation often took weeks to obtain early in pregnancy, the complaint added.
The plaintiffs were explicitly punished, however, when they took what the complaint described as “medically necessary breaks or absences to get off their feet, visit the doctor or go to the emergency room.” Amazon deducted their unpaid time off and, when that was depleted, threatened to terminate them, the lawsuit claimed.
Kelly Nantel, an Amazon spokesperson, rejected the allegations, saying the Everything Store approved more than 99.9 percent of pregnancy-related accommodation requests over the past year, including additional breaks, modified duties, and seated roles.
“Ensuring the health and well-being of our employees is one of our greatest responsibilities, and we strive to provide a safe and supportive environment for everyone, which includes supporting tens of thousands of employees with pregnancy accommodations each year,” Nantel said. “Our accommodations policies follow the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act, and any implication we don’t follow federal law is false and misleading.”
The complaint, however, describes a different experience.
Barclay, who was hired in September 2024 as a “picker” at Amazon’s ROC1 warehouse in Rochester, New York—a role that required carrying heavy boxes, repetitive squatting and climbing ladders—said she was denied a seated position after becoming pregnant the following March, despite a high-risk pregnancy complicated by preeclampsia and severe morning sickness.
In her account, Amazon stalled her request for weeks while waiting for paperwork, with one manager reportedly saying, “If I give you a chair, I have to give everybody else a chair.”
The company deducted Barclay’s approved extra breaks and the time she spent in the emergency room after suffering severe abdominal pain from lifting heavy objects from her unpaid time off, according to the complaint. When her balance fell below zero, it said, Amazon fired her.
Hatch, hired in late September 2024 to process customer returns at Amazon’s BUF9 Fulfillment Center in Lancaster, New York, worked until around March 21, 2025. Like the other plaintiffs, she requested basic pregnancy-related accommodations but faced demands for medical documentation and delays. When she took medical breaks or absences, Amazon deducted the time from her limited unpaid time-off bank. As with Barclay, once that balance hit zero, the company let her go.
Green worked as an associate at Amazon’s ROC1 warehouse in Rochester from November 2023 until July 2024, then was rehired in September 2025 and worked until May 2026. The complaint says Amazon penalized her for pumping in the company lactation room, marking that time as “inactive” and flagging her for excessive “time off task,” before threatening termination. She was fired after her breaks and absences emptied her unpaid time-off bank.
Currently pregnant, Parks was hired in late April 2025 as a delivery associate at Amazon’s DRO2 Delivery Station in Rochester, where she worked 10-12-hour overnight shifts through mid-July 2026, scanning and lifting heavy packages and climbing ladders. She, too, requested basic pregnancy-related accommodations for pregnancy-related sciatica, only to be met with demands for medical documentation, delays and penalties, the lawsuit stated.
While managers encouraged her to “take it easy” and “do the lighter packages,” nearly all of the packages in her department weighed more than 20 pounds and required bending to pick up. Like her fellow plaintiffs, Parks’ unpaid time-off bank was depleted by periods of pregnancy-related absence, including hospitalization for intense cramping. And like them, she was eventually fired.
A Better Balance, a workers’ rights nonprofit, submitted the lawsuit roughly 11 months after New Jersey sued the Seattle-based company over widespread discrimination against warehouse employees with disabilities or who were pregnant. New York filed a similar lawsuit in 2022, accusing Amazon of forcing workers with disabilities and pregnant workers to take unpaid leave rather than provide them with reasonable accommodations.
Amazon is the world’s second-largest private employer after Walmart, with nearly 1.6 million full-time and part-time employees worldwide. More than 1 million of them are based in the United States.
“Amazon is one of this country’s largest employers,” the lawsuit said. “It is no surprise that many of its workers become pregnant. It knows it must comply with the federal Pregnant Workers Fairness Act, which provides critical legal protections so pregnant workers can equally participate in the workforce. Yet Amazon violates the law at every turn.”
