A federal civil rights lawsuit filed in Brooklyn has brought renewed scrutiny to workplace protections for lactating mothers, centering on allegations made by Isharae Jackson, a New Jersey mother of twins who worked at an Amazon fulfillment center in Staten Island. Jackson claims that after returning from maternity leave, she faced persistent harassment, excessive monitoring, and discriminatory treatment from supervisors related to her need to pump breast milk during overnight shifts.
According to the complaint, the conditions she encountered were so restrictive and punitive that she ultimately felt forced to stop pumping altogether out of fear of losing her job. Her case raises broader questions about how federal lactation protections are applied in high-demand warehouse environments and whether existing corporate policies meaningfully safeguard nursing employees in practice. Jackson’s lawsuit describes a workplace culture in which her legally approved lactation accommodations were treated as inconveniences rather than protected rights.
While federal law requires employers to provide reasonable break time and a private space for nursing mothers to express milk, Jackson alleges that Amazon’s implementation of these requirements was inconsistent, inadequately supported by management, and, in her case, actively undermined through disciplinary actions and retaliation. The claims outlined in the complaint situate her experience within a pattern of prior legal challenges brought by lactating workers against large employers, including Amazon itself, suggesting an ongoing tension between operational efficiency and employee rights.
Workplace Conditions and Alleged Harassment After Returning From Maternity Leave
According to the complaint, Isharae Jackson began working at the Amazon fulfillment center in May 2024 as a picker, a role that required her to collect items and send them to delivery platforms during overnight shifts from 6:15 p.m. to 6:45 a.m., Thursday through Sunday. She earned $21.25 per hour and was entitled to a standard 15-minute paid break and a 45-minute unpaid lunch break during each shift. In late September 2024, Jackson went on maternity leave following the birth of her twins, returning to work in early December.
Before resuming her duties, Jackson contacted Amazon’s Disability and Leave Services department to request a reasonable accommodation for pumping breast milk at work. Her request was approved, granting her a 30-minute lactation break every two hours. However, the lawsuit alleges that the practical realities of the workplace made this accommodation nearly impossible to use as intended. The designated pumping room was located far from her assigned work areas, requiring a 10- to 15-minute walk each way.
This travel time, combined with the need to express milk and clean pumping equipment, exceeded the allotted break duration. Jackson further alleges that she was instructed to clock out before leaving her workstation to pump, effectively docking her pay for time spent accessing the lactation room.
Supervisors reportedly monitored her absences from her station closely, questioning the frequency and duration of her pumping breaks and issuing warnings when she returned later than expected. The complaint lists repeated comments and questions allegedly directed at Jackson, including inquiries about why she could not pump during lunch or a standard 15-minute break, why she needed to pump so often, and who had authorized her to do so.
Read : Overdue Book Returned After 84 Years to Helsinki Library
The lawsuit contends that rather than adjusting her assignments to make the pumping room more accessible, supervisors placed her in work areas increasingly distant from it. If she exceeded the permitted break time due to walking distance, she was reprimanded for being away from her station too long. Jackson claims that this pattern of scrutiny and questioning created a hostile environment, signaling that her need to pump was viewed as an unacceptable disruption rather than a protected medical and parental necessity.
Human Resources Complaints, Retaliation Claims, and Termination
In January 2025, Jackson emailed an on-site human resources representative to report that she felt targeted because of her pumping schedule and requested an investigation. According to the complaint, her concerns were not meaningfully addressed. The following month, she escalated the issue to Amazon’s Ethics Line. A senior HR investigator responded within days, stating that a thorough investigation had been conducted and that no violation of Amazon policy had been found.
Jackson alleges that after this determination, retaliatory actions intensified. In April 2025, she was written up for allegedly miscounting an item during her shift. The complaint explains that Amazon’s system allows employees to correct certain counting errors by scanning a high volume of additional items. Because Jackson’s pumping breaks reduced the total number of items she could scan, she claims she was unable to offset the alleged error in the same way as other employees.
According to the lawsuit, non-nursing and male coworkers were not disciplined for similar mistakes because they could meet the scanning threshold required to cancel out errors. Jackson states that she asked colleagues whether they had ever been written up under similar circumstances and was told they had not. She reported the write-up as retaliatory, but the complaint alleges that her objections were ignored. Instead, she claims, each complaint she raised about discrimination was followed by further disciplinary action.
By May 2025, Jackson asserts that the cumulative effect of the scrutiny, write-ups, and perceived hostility left her feeling she could no longer safely exercise her right to pump milk at work. Fearing termination, she made the decision to stop pumping altogether, a choice she claims she would not have made absent the alleged discriminatory practices. She again contacted human resources to report ongoing issues and was called into a meeting two weeks later, where she was told the matter was closed.
The complaint further alleges that during this meeting, Jackson was informed that two coworkers who had encouraged her to assert her rights as a nursing mother had been removed from the site. She was also asked whether she intended to continue pumping, a question her lawsuit characterizes as inappropriate given the context. In mid-June 2025, Jackson was terminated. The complaint asserts that her dismissal was directly linked to her opposition to what she describes as Amazon’s discriminatory treatment of lactating employees.
Legal Context, Broader Implications, and Requested Remedies
Federal law, including provisions under the Fair Labor Standards Act as expanded by the PUMP for Nursing Mothers Act, requires employers to provide reasonable break time and a private, non-bathroom space for employees to express breast milk for up to one year after childbirth. These protections apply to most workers, including those in physically demanding and time-sensitive roles such as warehouse operations. Jackson’s lawsuit argues that while Amazon formally approved her accommodation, the company failed to implement it in a manner that complied with the law’s intent.
The complaint also situates Jackson’s experience within a broader pattern of litigation involving lactation rights. In 2019, an Amazon warehouse employee in California brought a similar lawsuit, which the company later settled under confidential terms. That same year, an Arizona jury awarded $3.8 million to a nursing paramedic after her employer allegedly deemed her pumping needs excessive and incompatible with her job. More recently, New York City settled a lawsuit with nursing police officers who claimed they were denied clean pumping spaces and disciplined when they objected.
Jackson’s lawsuit seeks multiple forms of relief, including an injunction barring Amazon from engaging in discrimination against lactating mothers, compensation for lost wages and benefits, damages for emotional distress, and punitive damages to be determined by a jury. The complaint details claims of emotional pain, suffering, inconvenience, and both physical and psychological distress resulting from the alleged harassment and retaliation.
Amazon did not respond to a request for comment at the time the lawsuit was reported. As the case proceeds through federal court, it may further test how large employers operationalize lactation accommodations in environments driven by productivity metrics and constant monitoring. Regardless of the outcome, the allegations underscore ongoing challenges faced by nursing mothers seeking to balance infant care with demanding work schedules, and they highlight the gap that can exist between statutory rights and lived workplace experiences.