Pregnant workers asked for bathroom breaks – got fired, EEOC alleges

During September, the EEOC alleges, she tried to secure accommodation multiple times, but the store refused to provide one or even talk through possible options. On September 27, she asked to transfer to a different store closer to where she was moving. Fred Meyer rejected the transfer and terminated her, according to the complaint.

The EEOC brings four counts under the PWFA. In plain terms, the agency alleges Fred Meyer refused to accommodate the workers’ pregnancy-related needs, denied them job opportunities because accommodating them would have been required, punished them for asking for help, and retaliated against both women for exercising their rights under the statute.

The agency is seeking back pay, damages for emotional distress, punitive damages, and a court order requiring Fred Meyer to overhaul its accommodation policies.

The complaint notes that the EEOC found reasonable cause to believe the law was violated, issued a formal determination on September 10, 2025, and attempted to resolve the matter before suing. Those efforts failed, and the agency issued a Notice of Failure of Conciliation on January 27, 2026.

For HR teams, the case puts a sharp point on what compliance with the PWFA looks like in practice: when an employee flags that her absences are pregnancy-related, the statute expects an actual conversation about what accommodation might work – not a disciplinary ladder.