Court Denies Summary Judgment in Lactating Mother’s Reasonable Accommodation Case

A federal court recently refused to grant summary judgment in Weaver v. Gat Airline Ground Support, Inc. et al, in which the plaintiff alleges that an airport services employer failed to provide “reasonable accommodation” for an employee’s lactation needs. 

The ruling means that multiple claims will proceed to trial. Robin E. Shea of the Constangy firm writes that these include retaliation under the Fair Labor Standards Act, as well as discrimination and failure-to-accommodate claims under Title VII, the Pregnancy Discrimination Act, and Pennsylvania law.

Notably, the events occurred before the enactment of the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act and the PUMP for Nursing Mothers Act, both of which expand employee protections.

The plaintiff, an airport ground services employee in Pittsburgh, returned from maternity leave two months after giving birth and required private space to express milk. Her work environment lacked such facilities.

Available options included a shared employee room without privacy or a designated lactation area accessible only after clearing security, taking a tram, and walking several minutes.

When she sought alternatives, management allegedly offered options such as using non-private areas, adjusting her pumping schedule, or extending maternity leave.

Following her complaints to the Department of Labor, the plaintiff was suspended and terminated, which prompted the litigation.

The court found genuine disputes of material fact regarding whether the employer failed to accommodate the employee’s needs and retaliated against her for asserting her rights. The judge noted that while the employer faced logistical challenges, it had made accommodations for other employees and could have explored nearby airline facilities for temporary use.

Lawyers should be aware that even in challenging operational contexts, employers must engage in a genuine interactive process to identify workable accommodations. The case also demonstrates how retaliation and unequal treatment claims can survive summary judgment when evidence suggests inconsistent application of workplace flexibility.