10/2/24
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.
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.
Share
Save Print