Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, DISCRIMINATION—PREGNANCY—S.D. Ohio: Office employee, who allegedly quit due to manager’s anti-lactation harassment, states a myriad of claims, (Sep 12, 2025)

By Marjorie Johnson, J.D.

She claimed the manager expressed disgust over her use of the term “pumping” and told her to keep her lactation needs secret, and then engaged in pervasive harassment and humiliation for a four-month period.

A federal court declined to dismiss several claims brought by an accounts receivable specialist allegedly forced to resign after her manager routinely harassed and humiliated her because she took lactation breaks, denied her request for a modified schedule and refused to consider other accommodations, ignored her request to leave to change her shirt after she lactated through it, and responded to her complaints to HR by intensifying scrutiny of the length of her pumping breaks, criticizing her work, and assigning more work than she could complete. In addition to stating plausible claims of hostile work environment, constructive discharge, and retaliation under Title VII and its Ohio counterpart, she also advanced claims under the Providing Urgent Maternal Protections for Nursing Mothers Act (PUMP Act), and the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act (PWFA) (Varney v. Health Carousel, LLC, No. 1:24-cv-624 (S.D. Ohio Sept. 9, 2025)).

“Pumping” hostility. After giving birth, the employee returned to work on July 18, 2023, and advised her manager that she would need to express breast milk with the assistance of a pump during work hours. Though she was approved for lactation breaks, she claimed the manager expressed disgust at her use of the term “pumping” and discouraged her from making coworkers aware that she would be expressing breast milk at work.

HR complaint. At a meeting on July 25, the manager invited attendees to share personal information, and the employee shared that her baby had spit up milk on her that morning. The manager allegedly expressed disgust and criticized her for sharing the story, prompting her colleagues to also express disgust. She complained to HR, but no action was taken. Afterwards, her coworkers treated her “more coldly,” and the manager continued to express frustration with her pumping accommodation.

Denied overtime accommodation. On September 26, she asked to work overtime since her longer pumping breaks were interfering with her ability to complete her work. In response, her manager allegedly denied the request, refused to discuss any other options, and routinely criticized her for the length of her pumping breaks.

Second HR complaint. She reported the manager's refusal to accommodate and lactation-based harassment to HR, but no action was taken. The manager then allegedly intensified the scrutiny of the length of her pumping breaks, became overly critical of her work, and assigned her more work than she could complete.

Seeks counseling, quits. On October 12, she lactated through her shirt and asked her manager if she could leave to change her shirt, but the request was ignored. The following day, she sought mental health treatment regarding the breastfeeding-related humiliation and harassment. Over the next few weeks, her mental health continued to decline as the manager continued the harassment and intimidation, prompting her to resign on November 7.

Pregnancy discrimination. The employee brought pregnancy discrimination claims under Title VII, as amended by the Pregnancy Discrimination Act, and Ohio's analogous state law. Though her complaint was not clearly worded, the court surmised that she was claiming she was subjected to a hostile work environment that eventually led to her constructive discharge. The employer argued that both claims failed since she only alleged “isolated incidents,” but the court disagreed, finding that she plausibly alleged certain instances of harassment and humiliation.

Routine harassment, not isolated incidents. In particular, she claimed her manager expressed disgust at her use of the word “pumping,” discouraged her from letting her coworkers know that she was expressing breastmilk, ignored her request to go home and change her shirt that had milk on it, and criticized her for sharing an experience where her baby had spit up milk. In addition, her colleagues allegedly treated her “coldly,” and the employer failed to take prompt remedial action when she twice reported her manager's harassment.

Thus, she described examples of pervasive and “routine” harassment and humiliation in the compressed timeframe of approximately four months. She also alleged that the situation caused her mental health to decline to the point of seeking treatment, which the count found bolstered the plausibility that the harassment unreasonably interfered with her work performance. Viewing her allegations in their totality, she plausibly alleged a hostile work environment that led to a constructive discharge.

Retaliation claims advance. She also alleged plausible retaliation claims under Title VII and Ohio’s counterpart, the PUMP Act, and the PWFA. Though the employer argued that she failed to adequately allege she suffered a materially adverse employment action, the court again disagreed. She alleged that her manager retaliated against her for reporting lactation harassment by intensifying scrutiny of the length of her pumping breaks, being overly critical of her work, and assigning more work than she could complete. These circumstances “might well have dissuaded a reasonable worker from making or supporting a charge of discrimination,” concluded the court.

PWFA claims. The court also declined to dismiss her failure to accommodate claim under the PWFA. Absent undue hardship, the statute requires employers to “make reasonable accommodations to the known limitations related to the pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions of a qualified employee.” While the employer partially granted her initial request for accommodation by allowing her break time and a space to pump, she also alleged she was denied a modified work-schedule accommodation and that the employer refused to engage in the interactive process to identify alternative accommodations.

The court also allowed her PWFA interference to proceed to discovery. She stated a plausible claim by alleging that her manager routinely interfered with her PWFA rights by criticizing and harassing her for the length of pumping breaks in order to intimidate and coerce her into taking shorter pumping breaks.

The case is No. 1:24-cv-624.

Judge: McFarland, M.

Attorneys: Trisha M. Breedlove (Spitz, The Employee's Law Firm) for Kaitlin Varney. Sarah Clay Leyshock (Taft Stettinius & Hollister) for Health Carousel, LLC.

Companies: Health Carousel, LLC

Cases: PregnancyDiscrimination Discrimination Discharge Retaliation OhioNews