BlogLine

EEOC ramps up enforcement of the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act

10/2/24

By: Christian M. Gunneson

A few weeks ago, the EEOC filed the first-of-its kind lawsuit against an employer for violations of the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act (PWFA). The PWFA, which took effect in June 2023, is a federal law that places additional requirements on employers with 15 or more employees when handling accommodation requests from pregnant workers. The PWFA is like the ADA, but with some subtle, but important differences. In this lawsuit, the EEOC’s allegations seem to focus primarily on the fact that the employer treated its employee’s pregnancy accommodation request as it would have treated a request from a disabled, non-pregnant employee.

Summary of the Allegations 

Hayley Knight worked for her employer as a “front plate” assembler which required her to install wiring in trailers by bending over the tops of them. When Knight was seven months pregnant, she approached her employer seeking accommodations for her pregnancy.

It is alleged Knight told her employer’s human resources department that her pregnant stomach made bending over trailers painful. Knight asked to be moved to another assembly line position or to be moved to a light-duty position. As alleged, in response, her employer did not engage in an interactive process with her to determine if her accommodation requests were feasible, and instead, placed her on unpaid leave and requested that her physician complete an ADA-like questionnaire designed to elicit information about disabilities and disability-related impairments. The employer’s only “accommodation” was to allow Knight to return after her unpaid leave period to the front-plate position without modification.

The EEOC’s lawsuit alleges that accommodations were feasible. Other co-workers were willing to switch assembly line positions with Knight. Further, the employer allegedly failed to engage in any interactive process with Knight to determine if it could provide her a light duty assignment, even though (1) the employer had a designated “light-duty” position called “Material Handler”; (2) the employer had offered the Material Handler position to accommodate other disabled, non-pregnant employees; and (3) Knight could have performed the essential functions of the Material Handler position, which would have included tasks like administrative work, inventory management, workspace housekeeping, and assembly assistance.

Considerations for Employers

Of course, these are just the EEOC’s allegations. The employer has not yet responded to the lawsuit, and we do not know its side of the story, or how the court will ultimately rule. But, in the meantime, employers should take the following actions and focus on several takeaways.   

• Employers should anticipate increased enforcement action of the PWFA. On September 26, 2024, the EEOC filed two additional lawsuits against employers for alleged violations of the PWFA. The EEOC sued an Alabama automaker, alleging that the employer violated the PWFA by requiring its pregnant employee to take mandatory overtime. In the other case, it sued a medical urology practice in Oklahoma for allegedly violating the PWFA when it did not allow a pregnant employee to sit, take breaks, or work part-time.
• Employers should not treat pregnant worker accommodation requests as it would treat a disabled employee’s accommodation request under the ADA. Under the PWFA, a pregnant worker is still entitled to protection under the act even if the employee has a healthy pregnancy. To put it another way, a pregnant employee does not need to show proof of a disabling condition as a result of the pregnancy to qualify for protection under the PWFA.
  • Further, by doing so, the employer may expose itself to an ADA claim. In this case, the EEOC alleged the employer violated the ADA by asking the employee to complete a medical questionnaire about her pregnancy which allegedly violated the ADA because it was an “impermissible medical inquiry.”
  • The PWFA only allows employers to ask for medical documentation under “reasonable” circumstances. To this end, asking for too much information about the pregnant employee’s condition could be considered invasive, especially when the employee’s need is obvious, like needing a uniform modification.
• The employer cannot require the employee to take leave – whether paid or unpaid – if a reasonable accommodation can be made.
• The employer must engage in the interactive process with a pregnant worker to determine whether accommodations should be made.
• If not done already, employers should update their handbooks and other policies to ensure that employee rights under the PWFA are clear and explicit. Employers can ultimately deny accommodation requests under the PWFA if they impose an “undue hardship.” It is recommended though that the employer contact its legal counsel before doing so.

For more information about this case, or if you have questions about the PWFA and its application, please contact Christian Gunneson at christian.gunneson@fmglaw.com or your local FMG relationship partner.