BROOKLYN, United States – Amazon is facing a proposed nationwide class-action lawsuit accusing the company of systematically discriminating against pregnant employees by denying workplace accommodations and penalizing workers for pregnancy-related absences and breaks.
The lawsuit was filed in federal court in Brooklyn by four former Amazon warehouse employees and supported by worker-rights nonprofit A Better Balance. The complaint alleges that Amazon’s workplace policies caused pregnant employees to lose unpaid leave, accumulate attendance penalties and, in some cases, lose their jobs after seeking accommodations.
The plaintiffs allege that the practices violate the federal Pregnant Workers Fairness Act and New York labor law. The lawsuit seeks compensation for affected workers and an injunction requiring Amazon to change the practices challenged in the complaint.
Amazon disputes the allegations. Spokesperson Kelly Nantel said the accounts in the lawsuit contain inaccuracies and omit important details. She said Amazon approved more than 99.9% of pregnancy-related accommodation requests during the previous year and provides accommodations to tens of thousands of employees annually.
Lawsuit challenges Amazon’s workplace policies
The complaint alleges that Amazon routinely denied or restricted basic accommodations requested by pregnant employees, including permission to sit, additional bathroom or water breaks and time away from work for prenatal medical appointments.
The plaintiffs also allege that Amazon required medical documentation for accommodation requests and applied attendance policies in ways that penalized workers for medically necessary pregnancy-related breaks and absences.
One allegation concerns an employee who was flagged for excessive time away from work while using a lactation room. The complaint says workers could deplete their unpaid time banks and accumulate additional attendance penalties, leaving them at risk of termination.
The allegations have not been established by a court.
Former employee describes pregnancy-related hospitalization
One of the plaintiffs, Willamina Barclay, alleges that Amazon moved toward terminating her shortly after she was hospitalized following a pregnancy-related emergency.
According to the complaint, Barclay was taken from an Amazon warehouse in Rochester, New York, in a wheelchair on June 16, 2025, after experiencing severe abdominal pain that she attributed to lifting heavy objects.
The lawsuit says Amazon issued her a termination warning the following day because the hospitalization caused her to exceed her unpaid time-off limit. It alleges that she was fired five days later.
Amazon said the plaintiffs’ accounts contain inaccuracies and omitted important details. The company said it had reviewed the individual cases cited in the lawsuit and expected the legal matters to be resolved.
Federal law requires pregnancy accommodations
The lawsuit invokes the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act, a federal law requiring 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.
The legal challenge comes amid continued scrutiny of Amazon’s treatment of pregnant and disabled workers.
A Better Balance, which is supporting the new lawsuit, has also documented separate legal actions involving Amazon and pregnancy accommodations. The organization’s records show an EEOC determination concerning alleged systemic violations of the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act in February 2026.
New Jersey separately sued Amazon in 2025, alleging widespread discrimination against pregnant and disabled warehouse employees. The state’s complaint alleged that Amazon automatically placed some workers on unpaid leave after accommodation requests. A New Jersey court rejected Amazon’s request to dismiss that case in July 2026, according to the state’s attorney general’s office.
Amazon says most accommodation requests are approved
Amazon has rejected the broader characterization of its workplace practices.
The company says it takes an individualized approach to pregnancy accommodations and does not tolerate discrimination or retaliation. Nantel said more than 99.9% of pregnancy-related accommodation requests were approved over the previous year.
That response sets up a central dispute in the lawsuit: whether Amazon’s stated accommodation policies are consistently applied in its warehouses and whether its attendance and productivity systems can effectively penalize workers even when they seek pregnancy-related protections.
The new case does not establish that Amazon violated federal or state law. Those allegations will have to be tested through the legal process.
Reporting Credit: U.S. federal court complaint filed by four former Amazon warehouse employees — allegations concerning pregnancy accommodations, attendance policies, medical documentation and alleged terminations; A Better Balance — legal support for the proposed nationwide class action and related documentation concerning pregnancy-worker claims against Amazon; New Jersey Attorney General’s Office — 2025 state complaint and subsequent litigation concerning alleged pregnancy and disability discrimination by Amazon; Amazon — company response concerning pregnancy accommodations and approval of accommodation requests.
