Pregnant Workers Fairness Act

Federal Pregnant Workers Fairness Act Lawsuits

One claim involves a manufacturing company in the Northern District of Alabama. The EEOC describes this case as the manufacturer refusing to excuse an employee’s absence for pregnancy-related conditions, and medical appointments as well as requiring her to work mandatory overtime while pregnant. Apparently, the employee had been medically restricted from working more than 40 hours per week during her pregnancy.  She was, however, assessed attendance points for pregnancy-related absences and was specifically told that she would be terminated if she had additional lost time.

Marsha Rucker, Regional Attorney for the EEOC’s Birmingham District, in filing the claim states, “It is also illegal under the PWFA to take adverse action against an employee requesting a reasonable accommodation related to pregnancy, childbirth or related medical conditions of that employee. The EEOC will diligently pursue remedies for individuals whose employers denied them the protections that the PWFA offers.”

The PWFA provides for a wide array of accommodations for persons who are pregnant. In this case, what might be considered “basic” pregnancy accommodations such as extra breaks, time to sit down, water, some lifting restrictions, and similar items are unlikely, under the EEOC’s interpretation of the regulations, to require medical certification. The PWFA specifically indicates that things employers “might anticipate” to be standard requirements for a pregnant person should be provided without undue delay or burden, which includes the need for medical certification. Limitation of work hours is something that may fall into the medical certification category, depending upon the circumstances, although in this instance, medical certification had been provided, limiting the employee’s hours to 40 hours per week.

In the Northern District of Oklahoma, the EEOC sued a specialty medical practice for failing to allow a pregnant medical assistant to sit, take breaks, or work part-time. The request for part-time work had been supported by medical certification from the pregnant person’s physician. The medical provider had stated that part-time work was needed to protect this person’s “health and safety during the final trimester of her high-risk pregnancy.”  The EEOC further alleges that this employer prospectively violated the PUMP Act by indicating that she would not have guaranteed breaks to express breast milk upon returning to work. When the employee stated that she would not return to work without a guarantee of breaks, the EEOC alleges that the employer terminated her.

This case involves not only the regulations for the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act, but also the PUMP Act, which falls within DOL’s wage hour requirements. It guarantees lactating employees the right to uninterrupted, sanitary, and private space in which to pump breast milk for a period of 12 months.

In Indiana, another manufacturing group was subject to a federal lawsuit brought by the EEOC claiming a PWFA violation. The EEOC alleges that the company denied accommodation to a pregnant employee which included a request “to transfer to a role that did not require laying on her stomach.” The EEOC alleges this ultimately resulted in a constructive discharge (forced resignation) when the employee was eight months pregnant.

It is important to note that this lawsuit also alleges that the company “unlawfully required medical documentation.”  As noted above, the PWFA differs substantially from the ADA/ADAAA by restricting when an employer can request medical certification for accommodation, especially when it’s unclear if the need is pregnancy related. 

Another recent claim announced this week involved a small business that terminated the employee while on pregnancy leave while hiring to fill her position.

Public Conciliation

The EEOC also announced on September 11, 2024, that it had entered into the first public conciliation regarding a Pregnant Workers Fairness Act violation. This involved a Florida pest control company where the employee alleged that the company terminated her due to her request to attend monthly medical appointments for her pregnancy. This conciliation sets forth that the company will provide $47,480 in damages to the former employee, the company will appoint an EEO coordinator, revise its employment policies, provide training to management as well as non-management employees about compliance, and provide quarterly reports presumably to the EEOC for accommodation requests and complaints of discrimination resulting in additional oversight by the agency for a period of time. 

The Big Picture

In less than three months, the EEOC has filed four Pregnant Workers Fairness Act lawsuits and entered into a public conciliation, clearly signaling its intention to assertively enforce the terms of the act, retroactively and prospectively.

Employers should take a variety of steps to comply with the PWFA. This includes making sure that employees understand that at any point in time they may need accommodation for any pregnancy-related condition, that they have clear lines of communication with employees. Policies may need to be streamlined to allow for accommodation without the need for medical certification (in pregnancy-related situations) and training should occur for both front-line managers and personnel who have the responsibility to provide for or enforce accommodation requirements. 

Note that none of the listed cases involve someone who was not pregnant, or for a condition that may have been considered to “linger” after a pregnancy. All of these issues involved a person who was currently or recently pregnant, so it is unclear how the EEOC will approach issues that may be more complex, such as infertility treatments or issues that occur postpartum.