Dive Brief:
- A former Chipotle employee sued the restaurant chain Thursday alleging that the general manager of a Pennsylvania location refused to accommodate her need to pump breastmilk at work in violation of the Providing Urgent Maternal Protections for Nursing Mothers Act, or PUMP Act.
- The plaintiff in Small v. Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc. claimed that she informed the manager that she would need to take pump breaks when working shifts of six hours or more. Though the manager assured her she could do so, she alleged her hours were subsequently reduced. When she confronted her manager, he allegedly informed her that the restaurant could not provide her a space to pump or store her milk and that its scheduling system didn’t prioritize her over employees with better availability.
- The plaintiff asked the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania for a jury trial and sued for relief, including back pay, front pay and other damages. A Chipotle spokesperson said the company does not comment on pending litigation.
Dive Insight:
The PUMP Act, which took effect in 2022, amended the Fair Labor Standards Act to grant nursing employees the right to reasonable break time for up to one year after their child’s birth and a private space other than a bathroom for the purpose of pumping breast milk. The employee must be either completely relieved from duty to pump or compensated for the break time if they are not so relieved, according to the U.S. Department of Labor.
The law’s provisions further specify that the space must be functional as a space to pump, and may be either dedicated to the nursing employee’s use or be made available when needed by the employee, per DOL. If an employer temporarily creates the space or converts an existing space for pumping, this is sufficient provided that the space is shielded from view and free from any intrusion from co-workers and the public.
In Small, the employee alleged she was told by her manager that he could not find a pumping and milk storage space for her to use but that he would consider scheduling her for longer shifts if she obtained something to store her milk for herself.
“Accordingly, Defendant made it clear that they had no intention of complying with their obligations under the PUMP Act, but were happy to force Plaintiff to bear the burden of their own legal obligations,” the employee said in her complaint.
The manager also allegedly blamed Chipotle’s refusal to schedule the plaintiff on the availability of employees who did not require a similar accommodation, as well as changing business needs. “It limits you even more,” the manager allegedly told the plaintiff.
The PUMP Act exempts certain employees of airlines, railroads and motorcoach carriers from its protections, and employers with fewer than 50 employees are not subject to its requirements if compliance would present an undue hardship.
Employers have already been sued for alleged violations of the law’s provisions, including big names like McDonald’s, Nike and the U.S. Postal Service. Refusal to accommodate pumping sometimes comes with a hefty price tag for employers, as was the case when an Arizona federal jury awarded $3.8 million to a paramedic who claimed she was not provided a lactation space as required by the PUMP Act.
A 2024 report by lactation services companies Mamava and Medela found that 1 in 3 U.S. parents said they lacked reliable access to a dedicated lactation space at work, and 43% were either unsure or unaware of the PUMP Act’s legal requirements. Sources who previously spoke to HR Dive noted that employers can take steps to go beyond compliance with the law by providing pumping spaces that are comfortable and convenient.
