Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, DISCRIMINATION—PREGNANCY—W.D. Pa.: Airport employee, fired after taking pumping breaks at the time she sought to take them, gets trial, (Sep 18, 2025)

By Marjorie Johnson, J.D.

All of the incidents for which discipline was imposed centered on the parties’ disagreements with respect to the employee’s right to a reasonable opportunity to express breastmilk in accordance with her physiological need.

While an airline ground support company won’t face a former customer service agent’s claim that it violated a the FLSA’s “Break Time for Nursing Mothers” provisions when it allegedly failed to accommodate her request for reasonable accommodations to express milk for her newborn child since she could not show a compensable injury, the employer will face trial on her claims that it disciplined and ultimately terminated her in retaliation for complaining both internally and to the Department of Labor (DOL) and EEOC in violation of the FSLA, Title VII, Pennsylvania Human Relations Act (PHRA). Pointing to evidence of suspicious timing and ongoing antagonism, a federal district court in Pennsylvania also denied the employer’s bid for summary judgment on her claims of pregnancy discrimination, discriminatory failure to accommodate, and hostile work environment, as well as her PHRA aiding and abetting claim against the decisionmakers (Weaver v. GAT Airline Ground Support, Inc., No. 2:23-cv-00869-NBF (W.D. Pa. Sept. 15, 2025)).

In August 2021, the employer hired the employee as a customer service agent at Pittsburgh International Airport. The company provides airport ground support to commercial aviation clients at airports at which that client does not have base operations employees.

Request for regular lactation breaks. In October 2021, she announced that she was pregnant, and in late March 2022, she began her maternity leave. She returned to work on May 26, initially in a reduced two-day-a-week schedule, and advised the employer that her lactation specialist recommended she pump milk every three hours to avoid pain and blockages. She was scheduled to work the afternoon (3 p.m. to 10 p.m.) shift, which covered a 5:05 p.m. and 9:15 p.m. flight. The employer allowed her to pump during the flight operations interval from 5:30 p.m. to 7:15 p.m., but not during actual operations.

Requested times denied. Within the first month, she was unable to leave her shift to pump at the three-hour intervals on multiple days due to flight operations, and at times had to take a pumping break when it was not needed. By late June, she had suffered a clogged milk duct as a result. She and her supervisors had multiple discussions regarding her concerns, and management considered several accommodations, including assigning her exclusively to the ticket counter since it closed earlier or exclusively to the gate so that she would be closer to the mother’s lounge. However, it would not allow her to leave her current assigned location in the middle of flight operations.

Meanwhile, she was admonished for breastfeeding needs, advised to stay home until she was done nursing, subjected to demeaning comments regarding her post-partum emotional state, and endured daily expressions of annoyance and hostility over her pumping needs.

Complaints. After meeting with management and HR over her concerns, she sent them an email on June 29 disclosing her intent to file a complaint with the DOL. The next day, she was denied her request to pump at 4:30 pm, and complained that she was unable to pump until 54 minutes after the time requested.

Written warnings after leaving to pump. After her request to pump at 4:30 was again denied on July 1, she pumped at that time anyway, and received a written warning for leaving her post without authorization. After she did so again on July 7, her supervisor sent her home for insubordination. When she returned for her shift the next day and requested to pump at 4:30 pm, she was told that unless she agreed to follow company rules, she would be “suspended until further notice” and she was sent home again. On July 14, she received another written warning for leaving her post without authorization on July 7.

DOL investigation. From mid-July until early August, a DOL representative was in regular communication with HR concerning its investigation of the employee’s complaint that she was being denied reasonable pumping accommodations. On July 25, the DOL advised the employer it must permit her to take breaks to express milk at the times she requested, and that despite “inconvenience due to the timing of the scheduled flights,” the employer “must come up with a solution” or face further action.

Terminated. On August 10, the employee received a text from her supervisor requesting that she return her work badge until she was “ready to return to work.” On August 17, she received a notice stating that she had been terminated for “job abandonment” effective “today, 08/10/2022.”

Compensable injury under FLSA. The employee failed to state a viable claim under § 207(r) of the FLSA, which required the employer to provide “reasonable break time,” and an appropriate private place, for a nursing mother to express breast milk. While the court rejected the employer’s contention that its undisputedly offered reasonable accommodations, it explained that she did not suffer a compensable injury since she did not dispute that she was paid more than minimum wage for each shift she worked—even taking into account unpaid breaks. She also was not required to take leave to pump.

Retaliation claims advance. However, her retaliation claims under the FLSA, Title VII, and PHRA advanced to trial. First, causation between her protected activities and adverse actions could be inferred from the timing and ongoing antagonism. Within a matter of days after she asserted her rights and contacted the DOL, she was subjected to “escalating punishment,” and then fired within about six weeks. Moreover, “evidence of dismissive, hostile and obstructive comments from supervisory personnel, and mischaracterization of [her] absences, provide additional support for an inference of retaliatory intent,” concluded the court.

Pretext. A jury could also find this evidence cast doubt on the employer’s contention that it took these adverse actions due to her own misconduct in leaving her assigned post without approval and in refusing to return to work unless she was permitted to leave her gate whenever she needed to express milk. Indeed, all of the incidents for which discipline was imposed centered on the parties’ disagreements with respect to her right to a reasonable opportunity to express breastmilk in accordance with her physiological need.

Pregnancy discrimination. This evidence also supported her Title VII (as amended by the PDA) and PHRA claims alleging that the employer discriminated against her as a “woman affected by pregnancy” by failing to provide meaningful accommodation for expressing milk during the workday, impeding her from meeting her lactation needs, and subjecting her to adverse employment actions for pretextual reasons. In addition to the other evidence, the record suggested that the employer refused to “shuffle around” other staff to cover for her if she needed a pumping break during operational times, yet routinely did so to cover for those who needed to be away from their posts for reasons other than to pump breastmilk.

Harassment. Also allowing her hostile work environment claim to advance, the court rejected the employer’s argument that failing to permit pumping breaks whenever she wanted was not severe and pervasive conduct. Rather, she presented evidence that she “was discouraged from continuing to work while nursing, her physiological and medical needs were treated dismissively and impeded, she was demeaningly and distressingly forced to delay her need to pump to conform to [the employer’s] shift/break schedules and to pump when she did not need to, she was repeatedly rebuffed and derided for attempting to obtain legally-required accommodations to meet her reasonable lactation needs, and she was falsely and hostilely accused of neglecting her job duties, refusing offered return to the work schedule, and (ultimately) of abandoning her job.” A jury could reasonably find that the employer’s conduct “was not merely offensive, but was deeply humiliating and posed a threat to Plaintiff’s health (and her baby’s well-being).”

Aiding and abetting. Finally, she advanced her PHRA aiding and abetting claims against her supervisor, the operations manager, and the top HR executive. There was substantial evidence that each defendant “substantially participated, in a supervisory capacity,” in a pattern of conduct toward the employee that could “fairly be found to constitute unlawful discrimination and retaliation.”

The case is No. 2:23-cv-00869-NBF.

Judge: Fischer, N.

Attorneys: Caroline Hope Miller (Derek Smith Law Group) for Madison Weaver. Christopher Rankin Williams (Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton) for GAT Airline Ground Support, Inc., Christina Gayle and Holly Followell.

Companies: GAT Airline Ground Support, Inc.

Cases: PregnancyDiscrimination Discrimination Discharge Retaliation WageHour StateLawClaims PennsylvaniaNews