Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, DISCRIMINATION—PREGNANCY—D.N.J.: Railroad worker advances PUMP Act claims amid pumping-space dispute, (Jul 28, 2026)

By Tulay Turan, J.D.

When she needed to express breast milk, she had to ask for a key to the office.

A railroad maintenance worker can proceed to trial with her PUMP Act claims because factual disputes existed as to whether her employer made a compliant space available to her to express breast milk, a federal district court in New Jersey ruled. The court also denied the defendants’ motion for summary judgment on her PUMP Act claim against her supervisor because there were disputes as to whether she exercised supervisory authority and was responsible for the pumping accommodation. In addition, the court denied the defendants’ motion for summary judgment on her disparate treatment and Pregnant Workers Fairness Act claims because there were genuine disputes as to whether a locked office was a reasonable accommodation and whether the authority acted in good faith. However, her hostile work environment claim failed (Cruz v. Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, No. 24-6938 (JXN)(AME) (D.N.J. July 23, 2026)).

The employee worked for the Port Authority Trans-Hudson Corporation (PATH), a subsidiary of the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, since 2021. She performed maintenance on PATH’s railcars at a maintenance facility that had three floors. The first floor had train tracks for maintenance on the cars, the second floor had employee break and locker rooms, and the third floor had management offices and a lunchroom.

Maternity leave, return to work. The employee went on maternity leave in April 2023. In the meantime, PATH began installing a permanent Mother’s Room at the facility. Several weeks before she returned to work, she emailed her supervisor that she needed a place to express breast milk. The supervisor replied with a list of all the “mother rooms” within the Port Authority. When the employee returned to work in September, she used the second-floor women’s locker room to express but found it neither sanitary nor private. She told her supervisor it was not adequate, and the supervisor offered a vacant office on the third floor.

Key problems. However, PATH did not give the employee a key to the office until November. PATH did not want copies of the key made because management personnel were slated to use it, and confidential documents would eventually be stored in the office. When she needed to express, she had to ask her supervisor, her supervisor’s assistant, or her supervisor’s manager for the key. She used the office without issue at times but was unable to access it on several occasions. As a result, she began using an unoccupied room on the third floor until October 13, 2023.

Comments during meeting. On that day, cleaning staff reported they could not access the room because there was a sign on the door saying it was in use for lactation. After the employee finished expressing, she met with her supervisor and union representative. Her supervisor told her to stop using the room because outside consultants were scheduled to use it as their temporary office. The employee claimed that during the meeting, her supervisor said the employee was “PMS-ing,” PATH is “a male railroad,” and by the time PATH would be able to accommodate her, her “one year of pumping will be up.”

Sick leave. Three days later, the employee went on sick leave. On November 3, 2023, she emailed her supervisor that she had one week of sick leave left and requested that she be given access to a room that complied with New Jersey state law to express milk. Five days later, she was given a key to the third-floor office. After receiving the key, she used the office to express without issue.

Complaint filed. Thereafter, the employee sued the Port Authority, PATH, and her supervisor, alleging violations of the Providing Urgent Material Protections for Nursing Mothers Act (PUMP Act), the FLSA, Title VII, and the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act (PWFA). The defendants filed this motion for summary judgment.

Office made available? Denying the defendants’ motion for summary judgment on the employee’s PUMP Act claim, the court found there were genuine factual disputes as to whether the third-floor office was made available to her to express breast milk. The employee asserted the office was not available when needed because she did not have a key, had to ask her supervisor and supervisor’s assistant for a key whenever she needed to pump, and repeatedly had difficulty accessing the office. The Port Authority countered that she had no trouble accessing the office. This is precisely the kind of factual dispute reserved for a factfinder, the court said. Thus, the court could not determine, as a matter of law, that the third-floor office complied with the PUMP Act.

Notice. Likewise, a factual dispute existed as to whether the employee put the Port Authority on notice that she could not access the office. The Port Authority contended that even if she could not access the office, she formally notified the defendants about it a week before she returned from her sick leave, after which point, they promptly gave her a key. The employee asserted that her supervisor’s assistant knew of her difficulty accessing the office, her repeated difficulties in accessing it put defendants on notice that the office was not “made available” to her, and at least as of the October 13, 2023, meeting with her, the defendants expressed they had no intention of providing a compliant space. A reasonable juror could conclude the defendants already knew she needed a key to the office, however, that was a question for the jury to decide, the court said.

FLSA claim. The court next granted summary judgment to the Port Authority on the employee’s FLSA retaliation claim because she did not address the argument in her summary judgment opposition papers.

Isolated comments. Turning to the employee’s hostile work environment claim, the court granted summary judgment to the Port Authority because her supervisor’s three isolated comments were not severe or pervasive enough to alter the conditions of her employment. The employee pointed to inappropriate comments that her supervisor made in the October 13, 2023, meeting, including that the employee was “PMS-ing,” that PATH is “a male railroad,” and that by the time PATH would be able to accommodate her, her “one year of pumping will be up.”

None of these remarks rose to the level of severe or pervasive harassment, the court found. The employee’s supervisor allegedly made the inappropriate comments at a single meeting two years into the employee’s tenure at PATH, no harassment occurred after she returned to work, and there was no evidence that the supervisor physically threatened or humiliated the employee. Also, the facts did not suggest the comments unreasonably interfered with her work performance.

Disparate treatment. Next, the court denied the Port Authority’s motion for summary judgment on the employee’s disparate treatment claim because there was a genuine factual dispute about the Port Authority’s motive. The employee argued her supervisor refused to provide a compliant lactation space and when she lactated elsewhere, her supervisor made the three inappropriate comments. A reasonable juror could infer the defendants refused to provide her with a place to lactate because she is a woman and PATH is “a male railroad.” The court again found that, like the other factual disputes previously mentioned, this was a question for a jury to decide.

Reasonable accommodation. Turning to the employee’s PWFA claim, the court denied the Port Authority’s motion for summary judgment because there were genuine disputes as to whether a locked office was a reasonable accommodation for her to express breast milk and whether the Port Authority acted in good faith, particularly given the adversarial October 13, 2023, meeting between the employee and her supervisor.

Individual claims. Finally, the court granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment on the Title VII disparate impact and PWFA claims against her supervisor because individual employees cannot be held liable under those statutes.

However, the analysis of individual liability under the PUMP Act claim was different because the Act uses the FLSA’s definition of an “employer” and imposes individual liability on anyone who exercises “supervisory authority over the complaining employee and was responsible in whole or in part for the alleged violation.” Here, the parties disputed whether the supervisor exercised supervisory authority over the employee and was responsible for her pumping accommodation. Only a jury could weigh the evidence as to whether she was a supervisor. Thus, the court denied summary judgment as to the individual PUMP Act claim.

The case is No. 24-6938 (JXN)(AME).

Judge: Neals, J.

Attorneys: Eric Harris Lubin (Lomurro Law) for Taylor Cruz. Brian Hodgkinson, The Port Authority of NY & NJ, for Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, Jessica Carmona, and The Port Authority Trans-Hudson Corp.

Companies: Port Authority of New York and New Jersey; The Port Authority Trans-Hudson Corp.; PATH

Cases: PregnancyDiscrimination SexDiscrimination SexualHarassment Discrimination WageHour Retaliation StateLawClaims NewJerseyNews