One worker was terminated the same day she requested maternity leave
The federal agency that enforces workplace discrimination laws has sued a major Pacific Northwest retailer, alleging it punished two pregnant employees for requesting basic accommodations - and then fired them both.
The US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission filed the complaint against Fred Meyer Stores, a Kroger subsidiary, on September 30, 2026, in the Western District of Washington. The case is brought under the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act, which took effect on June 27, 2023, and requires employers with 15 or more workers to provide reasonable accommodations for pregnancy-related conditions.
The allegations center on a single Fred Meyer store in Vancouver, Washington, and two women who worked there during overlapping periods in 2023.
The first worker started as a home clerk and cashier at the store in March 2022, according to the filing. She was working around 40 hours a week when she became pregnant in approximately April 2023 and began experiencing severe pregnancy-related nausea and vomiting.
She called out sick four days that month. In May, she told management she was pregnant.
What followed, the EEOC alleges, was a months-long pattern of escalating discipline. On June 8, 2023, the complaint says, she received a written warning for missing four shifts in May - with no prior verbal warning. She reminded management her absences were pregnancy-related. The store then cut her weekly hours from 40 to roughly 32, the filing states, even though she never asked for a reduction.
By July, the EEOC alleges, she received another written warning and was suspended without pay for a week. During that meeting, the complaint says, she offered to bring in doctor's notes. A manager told her not to bother. She also asked to move off the cash register to a role closer to the bathroom. That request was denied, the filing states, despite vacant positions being available.
In August, her hours dropped again - to around 25 per week, according to the complaint. She received what the filing describes as a "last and final" written warning. When she handed over a medical note excusing her pregnancy-related absences, the EEOC alleges the manager refused to accept it and told her it would not help.
Around the same time, the worker learned of an open Lead Clerk position in the Home Improvement Department - a role off the register with guaranteed 40-hour weeks and easier bathroom access, the filing states. She put her hand up for it. According to the complaint, her direct manager raised her as a candidate, but the HR manager refused to consider her.
Then came October. The complaint alleges the worker submitted a maternity leave request on October 18, 2023, to cover childbirth and recovery. Fred Meyer terminated her later that same day, citing excessive absenteeism.
The second worker, described in the complaint as a "Class Member," started as an apparel associate at the same store in April 2023. She became pregnant around August 2023 and immediately began experiencing severe nausea and vomiting.
Her path followed a strikingly similar arc, according to the filing. A written warning on August 29 for three absences, accompanied by a threat of termination. She told her supervisor that day she was pregnant and her absences were pregnancy-related.
The complaint alleges she sent medical documentation to the store's HR manager on September 7, confirming her pregnancy and requesting accommodations - frequent restroom breaks and excused absences for severe nausea. On September 20, the filing states, she received another written warning for six September absences and was suspended without pay for four days. She provided additional medical records on September 24.
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.
None of the allegations have been tested, and no court has made any findings or rulings in the matter.
