Final Regulations under Pregnant Workers Fairness Act are Released

Gillian Thomas, Final "Pregnant Workers Fairness Act" Regulations Were Released -- and its Great News for Women, Ms.

On Monday, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) released its final regulations implementing the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act (PWFA). The landmark statute mandating “reasonable accommodation” of workers’ pregnancy-related needs went into effect last summer, but the regulations explain the PWFA’s protections in more detail, providing additional guidance to workers, employers and the courts, so that the full force of the law is given effect. ***

So what did Congress intend the PWFA to accomplish?

As the first federal statute enacted in 45 years to protect on-the-job rights of pregnant workers, Congress passed the PWFA to fill a significant gap in existing law when it comes to accommodations—those temporary on-the-job modifications that a person may need to maintain their health or the health of their pregnancy. These changes can be minor—such as a slightly later start time to account for “morning sickness” or more frequent breaks for workers who spend long shifts on their feet—or more significant, such as suspension of risky duties, like repeated heavy lifting or exposure to toxins.***

Given the statute’s obvious benefits to workers and their families alike, it’s no wonder that the PWFA was enacted with exceptionally broad bipartisan cooperation that is virtually unheard of in today’s Congress, and with supporters as diverse as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, and the American Civil Liberties Union, my employer. 

When the EEOC issued a draft version of its PWFA regulations last August, a small but noisy group raised the alarm that the agency had gone rogue. Why? The EEOC specifically stated that “pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions” includes abortion, so that time off for abortion care—like time off for other doctor’s visits and medical procedures—is a “reasonable accommodation” required by the new statute. Critics contended that such a requirement improperly forces employers to somehow participate in their employees’ abortion decisions, which they claimed is unfair to employers that object to abortion on religious grounds.