Class Action Lawsuit Alleges Amazon Discriminates Against Pregnant Warehouse Employees

New to ClassAction.org? Read our Newswire Disclaimer

A proposed class action lawsuit alleges that Amazon discriminates against pregnant warehouse workers and retaliates against those who seek basic, legally protected pregnancy accommodations, such as bathroom breaks, an extra 15-minute break, and sitting instead of standing.

Get class action lawsuit and class action settlement news sent to your inbox – sign up for ClassAction.org’s free weekly newsletter.

The 49-page lawsuit was filed by four plaintiffs who became pregnant while working for Amazon, which allegedly demanded from the women “medical paperwork for every pregnancy-related accommodation request, no matter how basic.” The filing alleges that Amazon has not only required pregnant warehouse employees to continue working without reasonable accommodations—“at great risk to their health,” the suit stresses—but “punished” the plaintiffs for medically necessary breaks or absences, including by deducting their available unpaid time off.

According to the Amazon lawsuit, the online retail giant unlawfully terminated each of the plaintiffs pursuant to its systemically discriminatory policies against pregnant employees.

“Plaintiffs and other Amazon employees who are currently pregnant or may become pregnant—all of whom work tirelessly to make Amazon’s operations possible—should not have to choose between their health and their livelihoods,” the complaint states. “This suit seeks to hold Amazon accountable and ensure it follows the law.”

The case states that the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) recognizes four accommodations that pregnant workers routinely seek, known as “predictable assessments,” which include allowing pregnant employees to carry and drink water, take additional bathroom breaks, sit or stand as needed, and take breaks to eat or drink. Per the filing, the EEOC recognizes that these simple modifications should not cause undue hardship on an employer and should be granted in “virtually all cases” in which a worker needs pregnancy-related accommodations.

However, the case argues that Amazon unlawfully requires pregnant workers seeking pregnancy-related predictable assessments to submit a doctor’s note, which in turn causes an unreasonable delay in the provision of reasonable accommodations and forces pregnant employees to choose between taking a leave of absence or working without accommodations, even when such work puts their pregnancy or overall health at risk.

The lawsuit goes on to allege that Amazon also punishes pregnant employees who require time off or breaks. Specifically, the filing says, Amazon applies its Unpaid Time Policy (UPT) and Time Off-Task Policy (TOT) to assess disciplinary penalties for legally protected absences and breaks, using the former policy to deduct pregnancy-related breaks and absences from workers’ bank time, and the latter to account for the time a pregnant employee spends pumping.

“The pregnancy-related penalties in the UPT and TOT systems are then used as a basis to threaten termination, and in many instances, actually terminate pregnant workers [...] Amazon threatens—and regularly fires—employees who exceed the thresholds of these point systems,” the lawsuit says.

According to the suit, Amazon’s conduct violates the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act (PWFA), which requires entities to make reasonable accommodations for qualified employees affected by pregnancy, childbirth, lactation or related medical conditions, and ensures that pregnant workers can easily request and receive necessary accommodations without a “cumbersome” process. Moreover, the PWFA outlines that employers must make reasonable accommodations for pregnant workers unless they cause undue hardship or burden, the suit says.

Importantly, the class action complaint states that when a pregnant Amazon warehouse employee successfully submits a request for predictable assessment accommodations, the company uses a strict, punitive absence-control policy that punishes them for taking legally protected breaks for pumping or other pregnancy-related conditions while they await a decision on their accommodation request.

The lawsuit also alleges that employees whose requests for pregnancy accommodations are approved still face discrimination and are often terminated for exercising their right to take breaks, pump breast milk, use the bathroom, and more, in violation of New York Labor Law.

Per the filing, one plaintiff alleges that even after she informed her supervisors that she was pregnant, Amazon’s burdensome accommodations process meant she was still required to lift heavy boxes, climb ladders, and stand for long periods while waiting for her request to be approved, causing severe pain, dizziness and distress.

When the woman received accommodations and began taking her lawfully protected breaks, Amazon deducted the time from her bank of unpaid time off and ultimately terminated her after she was hospitalized for a pregnancy-related medical emergency, the suit says.

Another plaintiff alleges that she was punished for taking breaks to pump breast milk, and claims her supervisor told her to “limit [her] time” spent in the lactation room, the complaint says. The lawsuit states Amazon counted the time she spent pumping against her time-off-task and unpaid time off balances and eventually fired her.  

The Amazon class action lawsuit looks to cover the following groups:

• All individuals in the United States who are or will be employed by Amazon, who are or will be pregnant, who have or will have pregnancy-related limitations, and who have sought or will seek reasonable accommodations for those limitations; and
• All individuals in the United States who, within the statute of limitations, are or have been employed by Amazon, have sought or will seek reasonable accommodations from Amazon due to pregnancy-related limitations, and have been subject to Amazon’s unlawful policies and procedures as described in the lawsuit.

Check out ClassAction.org’s lawsuit list for the latest open class action lawsuits and investigations.