Check out what’s clicking on FoxBusiness.com.
Amazon has been accused of discriminating against potentially thousands of pregnant employees by allegedly firing or retaliating against workers seeking additional accommodations, according to a nationwide class-action lawsuit filed Tuesday.
The lawsuit, brought by four former hourly warehouse employees, alleged that the retail giant violated the federal Pregnant Workers Fairness Act and New York state law, which require employers to provide reasonable accommodations to pregnant workers without penalty.
“This case arises from Amazon’s systematic, company-wide failure to accommodate pregnant workers and its deliberate policies of retaliation against workers who seek pregnancy accommodations,” the lawsuit stated.
According to the complaint, Amazon required “unnecessary” medical documentation for every accommodation request, with plaintiffs saying the added requirements often resulted in denials or delays for basic needs such as requests for chairs and bathroom and water breaks.
AMAZON ACCUSED OF KEEPING HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS IN TARIFF COSTS TO CURRY FAVOR WITH TRUMP ADMINISTRATION
FILE — Packages are seen at an Amazon warehouse. The company is facing a class-action lawsuit alleging discrimination against pregnant workers. (Carlos Jasso / Reuters Photos)
The lawsuit also alleges that time off for medical appointments and emergencies is automatically deducted from workers’ limited banks of unpaid time off. Once that time is exhausted, workers can receive termination warnings and ultimately be fired, according to the complaint.
Amazon’s tracking practices are also under scrutiny. The company reportedly uses handheld scanners to monitor workers’ activities minute-by-minute, including time spent in lactation rooms, according to the suit. The complaint alleges the system could penalize employees for taking legally protected pumping breaks.
Kelly Nantel, an Amazon spokesperson, rejected the accusations, saying the company approved more than 99.9% of pregnancy-related accommodation requests over the past year. The adjustments included 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 told FOX Business.
The company said accommodations are provided on an individualized basis, adding that the approach is consistent with federal law.
“Our accommodations policies follow the Pregnancy Workers Fairness Act, and any implication we don’t follow federal law is false and misleading,” Amazon said.
AMAZON PLANS MASSIVE EXPANSION OF PRIME AIR DRONE DELIVERIES
FILE — A general view of the inbound area of an Amazon.com fulfillment center. Amazon has denied allegations that it retaliated against pregnant employees. (Emanuele Cremaschi/Getty Images)
According to the lawsuit, plaintiff Willamina Barclay had a high-risk pregnancy with preeclampsia and severe morning sickness but was denied a seated position.
Amazon allegedly delayed 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 suit said.
The company then deducted her approved extra breaks and time spent in the emergency room from her unpaid time off (UPT), according to the complaint. She was reportedly fired on June 22, 2025, after her UPT balance fell below zero.
Plaintiff Kristina Green, who was at risk of preeclampsia, was also denied additional accommodations after a two-month delay, according to the lawsuit.
Her UPT was drained during unpaid maternity leave and while taking lactation breaks, the complaint said.
She received a final written warning for about two hours of unverified inactive time and was fired on May 7, 2026, according to the lawsuit.
AMAZON’S 30-MINUTE DELIVERY PUSH RAISES STAKES IN RACE FOR SPEED
FILE — A worker sorts out parcels in the outbound dock at an Amazon fulfillment center. The company says it approved more than 99.9% of pregnancy-related accommodation requests over the past year. (Watchara Phomicinda/MediaNews Group/The Press-Enterprise / Getty Images)
Plaintiff Jennifer Hatch, who had a high-risk pregnancy and asthma, also had four emergency room visits for severe abdominal pain, according to the lawsuit.
An operations manager allegedly ordered her to stand and refused to let her use an available chair because her accommodation had not been approved, the complaint said.
Hatch was fired on April 2, 2025, after her UPT balance fell below zero, according to the lawsuit.
CLICK HERE TO GET FOX BUSINESS ON THE GO
| Ticker |
Security |
Last |
Change |
Change % |
| AMZN |
AMAZON.COM INC. |
256.97 |
-1.54 |
-0.60%
|
|
Plaintiff Dazaria Parks, who suffered from pregnancy-related sciatica, was also denied permission to sit, according to the lawsuit.
She was reprimanded by automated monitoring systems for avoiding packages weighing more than 20 pounds and penalized for taking approved medical leave, the complaint said.
Parks was automatically fired on July 13, 2026, according to the lawsuit.
Amazon said it is reviewing each case but maintained that the allegations in the lawsuit do not present the full picture.
“The details provided in this lawsuit do not reflect the full facts of these cases or the reality of our extensive accommodations process,” the company said.
“While we’re not able to discuss individual employee details, we have conducted thorough internal reviews of each case referenced. We’re limited in discussing ongoing legal matters, however we look forward to a timely resolution of these matters, as extended investigation timelines benefit neither employees nor employers.”
You must be logged in to post a comment Login