Did Amazon Deny You Pregnancy-Related Breaks or Other Workplace Accommodations?

A class action complaint has been filed against Amazon.com Services, LLC (“Amazon”) alleging Amazon denied or delayed basic accommodations for pregnant workers and penalized workers who took pregnancy-related breaks or absences.

The case, Barclay et al. v. Amazon.com Services, LLC, Case No. 1:26-cv-05531, was filed on September 8, 2026, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York. The complaint asserts claims under the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act (“PWFA”) and the New York Labor Law (“NYLL”).

What the Amazon Pregnancy Lawsuit Alleges

The complaint alleges Amazon has company-wide policies that fail to accommodate pregnant workers and penalize workers who seek or use pregnancy-related accommodations. The named plaintiffs are former Amazon warehouse employees who became pregnant and asked Amazon for accommodations so they could continue working.

• Required doctor’s notes: The complaint alleges Amazon required medical documentation before providing basic pregnancy-related accommodations, including additional bathroom or water breaks and opportunities to sit.
• Delayed or denied accommodations: The complaint alleges Amazon delayed or denied certain pregnancy-related accommodations while workers attempted to obtain or provide medical documentation.
• Unpaid time off (UPT) deductions: The complaint alleges Amazon deducted UPT for pregnancy-related breaks and absences, including certain breaks that had already been approved as accommodations.
• Time off task (TOT): The complaint alleges Amazon counted certain pregnancy-related breaks as TOT, which could lead to discipline or termination. One plaintiff alleges Amazon treated time she spent pumping breast milk in an Amazon lactation room as “inactive” time and flagged her for excessive TOT.
• Discipline or termination: The complaint alleges UPT deductions and time counted as TOT were used as a basis for termination warnings and, in some instances, termination.

Which Amazon Workers May Be Affected?

The lawsuit seeks to represent certain current and future Amazon workers nationwide who have sought or may seek accommodations for pregnancy-related limitations. It also seeks damages for certain current and former Amazon workers who sought pregnancy-related accommodations and were subjected to the policies challenged in the complaint. The lawsuit includes corresponding proposed classes of Amazon workers in New York.

You may be covered by the lawsuit if, while working for Amazon, you:

• Requested a pregnancy-related workplace accommodation, such as additional breaks or an opportunity to sit;
• Had a pregnancy-related accommodation delayed or denied;
• Were required to provide a doctor’s note before receiving a pregnancy-related accommodation;
• Had unpaid time off (UPT) deducted for pregnancy-related breaks or absences;
• Had pregnancy-related breaks or time spent pumping counted against you as time off task (TOT); or
• Were disciplined, threatened with termination, or terminated after requesting an accommodation or taking pregnancy-related time away from work.

What Does the Lawsuit Seek?

The complaint asserts claims under the PWFA concerning alleged failures to accommodate, retaliation, and intimidation or interference with workers’ pregnancy-related accommodation rights. It also asserts a claim under the NYLL alleging Amazon penalized certain New York workers for pregnancy-related absences.

The plaintiffs seek changes to the challenged Amazon policies and practices, as well as damages, reinstatement, back pay, front pay, lost benefits, attorneys’ fees and costs, and other relief.

Amazon Workers: Contact Kehoe Law Firm

If you worked for Amazon while pregnant and were denied or delayed a workplace accommodation, had unpaid time off (UPT) deducted for pregnancy-related breaks or absences, had pregnancy-related breaks or time spent pumping counted against you as time off task (TOT), or faced discipline or termination after requesting or using an accommodation, contact Kehoe Law Firm to learn more about the allegations and your potential rights.

For a free, no-obligation legal evaluation, contact:

Michael Yarnoff, Esq., (215) 792-6676, Ext. 804
[email protected]
[email protected]

About Kehoe Law Firm, P.C.

Kehoe Law Firm, P.C. is a nationally recognized, plaintiff-side class action law firm representing investors, consumers, and employees in matters involving securities fraud, corporate misconduct, mergers and acquisitions, antitrust violations, whistleblower claims, data breaches, consumer fraud, employment law violations, and retirement-plan mismanagement. Its attorneys have served as lead or co-lead counsel in major securities cases, recovering more than $10 billion for institutional and individual investors.

Kehoe Law Firm’s class action legal services are provided on a contingency-fee basis, meaning plaintiffs are not responsible for attorneys’ fees or litigation expenses. Any request for attorneys’ fees and expenses will be subject to court approval.

PHONE

Tel: 215-792-6676

EMAIL

[email protected]

Did You Work More Than 40 Hours But Only Get Paid for 40?

A class and collective action complaint has been filed against The Campbell’s Company and CorTech, LLC (“CorTech”) on behalf of certain hourly contingent workers who allegedly worked more than 40 hours per week without receiving all overtime compensation owed.

The case, Onyango v. The Campbell’s Company and CorTech, LLC, Case No. 1:26-cv-09799, was filed on August 3, 2026, in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. The complaint asserts claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”), the New Jersey Wage and Hour Law (“NJWHL”), the New Jersey Wage Payment Law (“NJWPL”), and for breach of contract.

If you worked as an hourly contingent worker for Campbell’s in a non-manual role and worked more than 40 hours in a week without receiving all overtime compensation owed, contact Kehoe Law Firm to learn more about the allegations and your potential rights.

Campbell’s Contingent Worker Overtime Allegations

The complaint alleges Campbell’s business model includes using staffing agencies such as CorTech to obtain “contingent workers” and that Campbell’s and CorTech jointly employed the plaintiff and similarly situated workers. It alleges certain hourly, non-exempt contingent workers performed work beyond 40 hours per week but were not paid overtime compensation for all overtime hours worked.

• Work beyond 40 hours: The complaint alleges workers were required, permitted, or allowed to perform work beyond 40 hours, including nights and weekends.
• Time limited to 40 hours: The plaintiff alleges Campbell’s marketing leadership instructed her to submit only 40 hours per week and eight hours per day on her timesheets.
• Timekeeping restrictions: The complaint alleges Fieldglass, CorTech’s timekeeping system, blocked, restricted, or did not allow the plaintiff to enter certain weekend and overtime hours.
• Unpaid overtime: The plaintiff alleges she generally worked approximately 50 to 55 hours per week, but was paid for only 40 hours, despite being classified as non-exempt and eligible for overtime payments at 1.5 times her standard pay rate.

Which Campbell’s Contingent Workers May Be Covered?

The lawsuit seeks to cover certain current and former hourly contingent workers who worked more than 40 hours in a week without receiving overtime compensation for all overtime hours worked, including:

• Campbell’s workers nationwide: Hourly contingent workers in the United States who were employed by Campbell’s as non-manual workers, onsite or remotely, during the three years before the lawsuit was filed through the present.
• Workers in New Jersey: Hourly contingent workers employed by Campbell’s and CorTech as non-manual workers, onsite or remotely, or in substantially similar roles in New Jersey, during the six years before the lawsuit was filed through the present.
• Workers placed by CorTech at Campbell’s: Hourly contingent workers who received offer letters from CorTech and/or entered into employment contracts with CorTech, were placed by CorTech at Campbell’s within the applicable limitations period, worked more than 40 hours in a workweek, and were not paid overtime compensation for all overtime hours worked.

Claims and Relief Sought

The complaint asserts claims for failure to pay overtime under the FLSA and NJWHL, failure to pay wages under the NJWPL, and breach of contract. The plaintiff seeks unpaid wages and overtime compensation, liquidated damages, attorneys’ fees and costs, interest, and other relief. For the New Jersey statutory claims, the complaint seeks liquidated damages equal to 200% of unpaid wages, including overtime wages.

Campbell’s Contingent Workers: Contact Kehoe Law Firm

If you worked as an hourly contingent worker for Campbell’s in a non-manual role and believe you worked more than 40 hours in a week without receiving all overtime compensation owed, contact Kehoe Law Firm to learn more about the allegations and your potential rights.

For a free, no-obligation legal evaluation, contact:

Michael Yarnoff, Esq., (215) 792-6676, Ext. 804
[email protected]
[email protected]

About Kehoe Law Firm, P.C.

Kehoe Law Firm, P.C. is a nationally recognized, plaintiff-side class action law firm representing investors, consumers, and employees in matters involving securities fraud, corporate misconduct, mergers and acquisitions, antitrust violations, whistleblower claims, data breaches, consumer fraud, employment law violations, and retirement-plan mismanagement. Its attorneys have served as lead or co-lead counsel in major securities cases, recovering more than $10 billion for institutional and individual investors.

Kehoe Law Firm’s class action legal services are provided on a contingency-fee basis, meaning plaintiffs are not responsible for attorneys’ fees or litigation expenses. Any request for attorneys’ fees and expenses will be subject to court approval.

PHONE

Tel: 215-792-6676

EMAIL

[email protected]

Did You Work as a Store Manager at a Dunkin’ or Baskin-Robbins Location?

A class and collective action complaint has been filed against Restaurant Services of the Outer Banks, LLC, a franchisee that the complaint alleges operated more than 50 Dunkin Donuts and Baskin Robbins locations in northeastern North Carolina, Virginia’s Tidewater Region, and the Richmond, Virginia metropolitan area. The lawsuit seeks recovery of allegedly earned and unpaid overtime wages for Store Managers.

The case, Wimbish v. Restaurant Services of the Outer Banks, LLC, Case No. 3:26-cv-00896, was filed on September 4, 2026, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, Richmond Division. The complaint asserts claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”), the Virginia Overtime Wage Act (“VOWA”), and the Virginia Wage Payment Act (“VWPA”).

Store Manager Overtime Pay Allegations

The complaint alleges that Restaurant Services of the Outer Banks classified Store Managers as exempt from federal and Virginia overtime requirements even though the method used to pay them allegedly did not qualify as a “salary.” It further alleges that Store Managers typically worked 50 to 60 hours per week and were not paid the required time-and-one-half overtime premium for hours worked over 40.

• 50–60 hour workweeks: The complaint alleges the defendant typically scheduled, directed, or knowingly permitted Store Managers to work 50 to 60 hours per week.
• Weekly wages tied to hours worked: The complaint alleges Store Managers received pre-set weekly wages only if they worked at least 50 hours, and that their weekly wages were reduced when they worked fewer than 50 hours.
• Allegedly not paid on a qualifying salary basis: The complaint alleges the weekly wages were non-guaranteed and fluctuated according to the number of hours worked, and, therefore, did not qualify as a salary under the FLSA or Virginia law.
• Overtime allegedly paid at straight time: The complaint alleges Store Managers were paid at their straight-pay rates for hours over 40 rather than at one-and-one-half times their regular hourly rates.
• Alleged unpaid overtime premiums: The complaint alleges the defendant failed to pay Store Managers earned overtime premium wages for hours worked over 40 per week and alleges the failure was willful or, at the least, reckless under the FLSA.

Which Store Managers May Be Covered by the Lawsuit?

The complaint seeks to pursue an FLSA collective on behalf of Store Managers who, from September 4, 2023 through the date of judgment, worked more than 40 hours in a week at the defendant’s stores and did not receive overtime wages at the FLSA-required time-and-one-half rate.

The complaint also seeks certification of a Virginia class consisting of Store Managers who worked more than 40 hours in a week at the defendant’s stores in Virginia during that period and did not receive their full overtime premium wages at the Virginia-law-required time-and-one-half rate.

Important: The named defendant is Restaurant Services of the Outer Banks, LLC. The complaint alleges that it operated the relevant Dunkin Donuts and Baskin Robbins locations as a franchisee. The lawsuit does not name Dunkin’ Brands, Inc. or Baskin-Robbins as defendants.

Claims and Relief Sought

The complaint asserts an FLSA claim for failure to pay overtime wages and Virginia claims under VOWA and the VWPA. The plaintiff seeks designation of the FLSA collective, certification of the Virginia class, unpaid overtime premium wages, liquidated damages and, for the Virginia claims, alternatively treble damages for alleged knowing violations, as well as interest, attorneys’ fees, costs, and other relief.

Dunkin’ and Baskin-Robbins Store Managers: Contact Kehoe Law Firm

If you worked as a Store Manager at a Dunkin’ or Baskin-Robbins location operated by Restaurant Services of the Outer Banks, LLC at any time since September 4, 2023, contact Kehoe Law Firm to learn more about the allegations and your potential rights.

For a free, no-obligation legal evaluation, contact:

Michael Yarnoff, Esq., (215) 792-6676, Ext. 804
[email protected]
[email protected]

About Kehoe Law Firm, P.C.

Kehoe Law Firm, P.C. is a nationally recognized, plaintiff-side class action law firm representing investors, consumers, and employees in matters involving securities fraud, corporate misconduct, mergers and acquisitions, antitrust violations, whistleblower claims, data breaches, consumer fraud, employment law violations, and retirement-plan mismanagement. Its attorneys have served as lead or co-lead counsel in major securities cases, recovering more than $10 billion for institutional and individual investors.

Kehoe Law Firm’s class action legal services are provided on a contingency-fee basis, meaning plaintiffs are not responsible for attorneys’ fees or litigation expenses. Any request for attorneys’ fees and expenses will be subject to court approval.

PHONE

Tel: 215-792-6676

EMAIL

[email protected]