Amazon Pregnancy Discrimination Lawsuit Tests Federal Accommodation Requirements

by Ian S. Lam and Nikita Khare

Under the Federal Pregnant Workers Fairness Act (PWFA), employers may be required to provide reasonable accommodations related to an employee’s limitations arising from pregnancy, childbirth, or associated medical conditions.  The purpose of such requirement is to keep pregnant workers safe and prevent health problems while on the job.  The PWFA went into effect on June 27, 2023, and the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) issued a final rule implementing the PWFA on April 15, 2024.   

On September 8, 2026, four pregnant warehouse workers filed a lawsuit in federal court against Amazon for violating the PWFA (Barclay et al. v. Amazon.com Services, LLC, 1:26-cv-05531-OEM-RML (E.D.N.Y.)).  As the United States’ second-largest private employer, Amazon employs 1.58 million full-time and part-time workers—in 2024, 46% of Amazon’s U.S. workforce identified themselves as women.  The Barclay plaintiffs assert that Amazon’s actions are systemic and raise serious implications for pregnant workers across the company, and seek relief on behalf of a nationwide class of similarly situated Amazon workers, as well as a subclass of workers in New York State.  

The Warehouse Workers’ Complaint Against Amazon

The Barclay plaintiffs allege that Amazon violated the PWFA in two ways.  First, they argue that Amazon’s “Medical Documentation for Predictable Assessment Policy” violates the PWFA because the policy does not permit pregnant workers reasonable accommodations—such as water breaks—unless a worker provides a doctor’s note justifying such need for accommodation.   

Second, the Barclay plaintiffs argue that Amazon’s attendance policies violate the PWFA because they punish pregnant workers for certain absences and breaks protected under law.  Specifically, Amazon employs two attendance policies: the Unpaid Time Policy (UPT) and the Time Off-Task Policy (TOT), both of which impose penalties for absences and breaks.  For example, workers may accumulate unfavorable “time off task” points when they take protected absences or breaks.  Under Amazon’s UPT and TOT, the accumulation of these “time off task” points may then be used to justify the termination of pregnant workers.  According to the Barclay plaintiffs, pregnant employees are regularly forced to take unpaid medical leave, penalized for taking short breaks often approved by managers, and fired for exceeding the allowed amount of UPT “time off task” points. 

What Protections Do Pregnant Workers Currently Receive Under Law?

Federal Protections

The PWFA, which is enforced by the EEOC, expands upon two landmark pieces of antidiscrimination legislation: (1) Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964—the protections of which were extended to pregnant workers with the passage of the Pregnancy Discrimination Act of 1978—and (2) the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA).   

The PWFA requires that covered entities, such as employers, make reasonable accommodations for pregnancy, childbirth, lactation, or any related medical conditions and limitations, so long as doing so “does not create an undue hardship on the entity’s operations.”  Covered entities are not allowed to take adverse action—such as termination, coercion, or intimidation—when a qualified employee requests or otherwise uses an accommodation protected under the PWFA.   

Predictable assessments, as the name implies, exist in response to needs that predictably arise from an uncomplicated pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions.  Some of these needs include carrying drinking water, taking additional restroom breaks, sitting or standing as needed, and taking breaks to eat or drink as needed.  Lactation, nursing, and pumping needs similarly qualify as pregnancy-related conditions that are to be expected and accounted for. 

An employer risks violating the PWFA by requiring documentation to justify predictable assessments, which may also create an impermissible “unnecessary delay” in providing the accommodation.   

As applicable to the Barclay lawsuit, predictable assessments are particularly important for warehouse workers given the physically demanding work that they are engaged in.  As the Barclay plaintiffs explains, Amazon warehouse workers “rapidly code, pick, pack, sort, and organize items for delivery” in each of the 30 logistics facilities located in New York, which can include long standing hours, lifting heavy items, and climbing ladders.  

State-Level Protections

The Barclay plaintiffs also point to New York Labor Law § 215(1)(a) in support of their case, which provides that discrimination or retaliation against any employee for using “a legally protected absence pursuant to federal, local, or state law” is unlawful.  Section 215(1)(a) also outlaws “assessing any demerit, occurrence, any other point, or deductions from an allotted bank of time” to “threaten, penalize, or in another manner discriminate or retaliate against any employee.”   

The Anatomy of a Class Action 

The Barclay plaintiffs allege that they, and many others across the country, have been subject to Amazon’s alleged violation of the PWFA.  As such, they bring a putative—or “proposed”— class action against Amazon in federal court, which is governed in part by Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.  Rule 23 describes four prerequisites to filing a suit on behalf of a proposed class: (1) the class must be large enough that individually consolidating each proposed class member’s case would be impractical, (2) questions of law or fact are common among the proposed class, (3) the claims of the individual(s) seeking to represent the class (in this case, the four female warehouse workers) must be typical of the class, and (4) the proposed class representatives will “fairly and adequately” protect the interests of the proposed class.   

In asking the court to approve their proposed class—known as “certifying” the class or “class certification”— the Barclay plaintiffs point to the sheer size of Amazon’s workforce and argue that the policies and practices implemented by Amazon’s central human resources department are applied nationwide.  There is thus a “common question of law” that the court can resolve.  One of these questions, for example, is whether Amazon violates the PWFA by automatically requiring medical documentation for pregnant Amazon workers seeking reasonable accommodations.

The Workers’ Next Steps and Implications

An Amazon spokesperson claimed that, in the past year, Amazon has approved 99.9% of pregnancy-related accommodation requests—despite numerous EEOC and state investigations to the contrary.   

For instance, in 2022, the state of New York alleged that Amazon often causes workers to take unpaid leave rather than continuing work with a reasonable accommodation.   

And in 2025, the New Jersey Attorney General filed a complaint against Amazon, alleging that Amazon failed to adequately train its Disability & Leave Services (DLS) staff, which is part of Amazon’s human resources team.  Among other things, the New Jersey Attorney General alleged that Amazon failed to train its personnel on how to modify policies in cooperation with the PWFA, prepare relevant training material or handbooks for workers, and respond to PWFA accommodation requests. On July 31, 2025, the judge denied Amazon’s attempts to dismiss that case. 

As for the Barclay case, it will undergo a lengthy investigative period, where the plaintiffs will work to gather documentation and other evidence to support their claims regarding Amazon’s alleged violation(s) of the PWFA.  

If the federal court eventually rules in the plaintiffs’ favor, Amazon could be required to modify its policies and practices to prevent discrimination of pregnant workers, and members of the class—if the class is certified—could be awarded compensatory, liquidated, or punitive damages.