Lawsuit: Amazon refused to give pregnant workers bathroom breaks and chairs

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 Notice of Right to Sue. The lawsuit accuses Amazon of violating the PWFA by failing to accommodate pregnant workers and by retaliating against those who sought reasonable accommodations. “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,” the lawsuit said. The state of New Jersey previously sued Amazon in October 2025, alleging widespread discrimination against pregnant workers and employees with disabilities. Amazon reported $200.6 billion in net sales in Q2 2026 and a net income of $62.6 billion. Amazon “permitt[ed] her to take four extra 15-minute breaks per day, but did not permit Ms. Barclay to take breaks to sit ‘as needed,’ and did not permit her to have a chair, which caused further strain to her back,” the lawsuit said. Barclay was allegedly fired four days after an episode of severe vomiting caused her to call out of work. She “provid[ed] a same-day doctor’s note to explain her absence and prevent disciplinary consequences,” but Amazon deducted the hours from her bank of unpaid time off and “fired Ms. Barclay due to her negative” balance of unpaid time, the lawsuit said. Hatch’s pregnancy was classified as high-risk by her physician “due to advanced maternal age,” the lawsuit said. She has asthma, and her breathing problems were exacerbated by having to stand for extended periods and perform strenuous activity, the lawsuit said. Barclay and Hatch are both said to have suffered severe abdominal pain and lightheadedness at work. “Although Ms. Hatch’s requests were unambiguous—a 30-pound lifting restriction, request for a sitting break for 15 minutes every four hours, and a maximum of eight hours per shift—Amazon refused to approve any of them, instead requesting additional followup information about her restrictions,” the lawsuit said, adding that “site-level managers ordered her to lift heavy boxes and refused her short breaks when she felt lightheaded.” Hatch could have performed her typical duties while sitting, the lawsuit said. “Ms. Hatch was well qualified to work in customer returns and could easily have performed her usual tasks while seated in a chair during her requested breaks from standing, and was further willing to be transferred to other work paths within the customer returns department to process lighter items or to perform other tasks that would not involve standing for long periods of time,” the lawsuit said.