headline is factual: Lawsuit: Amazon refused to give pregnant workers bathroom breaks and chairs

all the info you point out is in the first few paragraphs, much more context also provided as well as responses from amazon and context from the women

▲

Aurornis an hour ago | parent [-]

I'm talking about the actual lawsuit, which is linked in the article. That's what I was reading.

Amazon did grant extra breaks. The dispute is that they didn't grant them fast enough and that she expected to be paid for them, among other things.

Obviously nothing will ever satisfy people who are out for blood and would never give a corporation the benefit of the doubt, but I'm trying to point out that the headline's implication that pregnant workers weren't allowed any bathroom breaks is false.

	▲	selcuka an hour ago \| parent [-]
		It's not that "they didn't grant them fast enough". They made it unreasonably hard to request them. > Despite the PWFA’s requirements, Amazon’s policy is to unlawfully demand medical documentation prior to granting predictable assessment requests and unreasonably does not provide predictable assessments to qualified employees pending such documentation. I'm not "out for blood" but I would call this "refusing to give bathroom breaks" as well.