A missing PWFA policy and a blanket HIPAA practice drew federal scrutiny
The EEOC sued a Midwest grocery chain that allegedly fired a nursing employee for keeping a water bottle at her bakery workstation.
The federal agency filed suit on March 23 against Roundy's Supermarkets, Inc., which operates stores under the Pick 'n Save and Metro Market brands, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin (EEOC v. Roundy's Supermarkets, Inc., No. 3:26-cv-00241-jdp). No final determination has been made in the case.
According to the filing, a cake decorator at one of Roundy's stores returned from maternity leave in June 2024 and asked for two accommodations: a 20-minute break every four hours to pump breast milk and access to drinking water at her workstation to stay hydrated and maintain her milk supply. She provided a doctor's letter supporting both requests.
Her original location — a Pick 'n Save in Madison, Wisconsin — approved both without issue. But after the company transferred her to a Metro Market in Shorewood Hills, the situation allegedly shifted. The new store's management denied her request for water at her workstation and offered pumping spaces that were either frequently locked or dirty and lacking privacy, the filing alleges.
When she raised the matter with human resources, the company allegedly required her to sign a HIPAA release granting access to her private medical records — a step the company later acknowledged to the EEOC was not actually necessary for the accommodation she had requested. The filing also alleges the company routinely requires such releases from any employee seeking a workplace accommodation, regardless of whether the inquiry is warranted.
After the employee continued keeping a water bottle at her workstation, she was placed on unpaid suspension and ultimately terminated on August 16, 2024, according to the filing.
The EEOC also alleges that Roundy's — which has more than 500 employees — did not have a written policy addressing pregnancy-related accommodations at the time, and on the agency's information and belief, still does not.
The agency is seeking back pay, compensatory and punitive damages, and a court order requiring the company to put accommodation policies in place.
For HR teams, this case hits close to home. The Pregnant Workers Fairness Act is still relatively new, and the EEOC is clearly staking out how far it will go to enforce it. What stands out here is not just the individual facts but what the agency appears to be signaling: that it will look past whether a single request was granted or denied and examine whether employers have the policies, processes, and frameworks to handle accommodation requests consistently and lawfully.
The absence of a written accommodation policy, a blanket practice of demanding medical releases, and inconsistent treatment across store locations — these are the kinds of systemic gaps that tend to draw federal attention. For any HR leader still treating pregnancy accommodation compliance as a work in progress, this case is a pointed reminder that the EEOC is not waiting.
