PWFA roundup: 4 cases that spotlight ways to comply
Some employers are violating the still-somewhat-new federal Pregnant Workers Fairness Act (PWFA), which has been effective since June 27, 2023. By watching cases progress, employers can learn from those missteps. Compliance might not be as easy as “1, 2, 3,” but below are some examples of what not to do.
One settled case
Leave denied
The employee asked for time off to recover and grieve following a stillbirth, but the employer denied the request. Because under the PWFA stillbirth is a pregnancy-related condition, and time off can be a reasonable accommodation, this employer violated the law.
EEOC v. Lago Mar Properties, Inc., District Court for the Southern District of Florida, No. 24-cv-61812, October 11, 2024.
Two conciliation agreements
Fired for asking for reasonable accommodation
The employee asked for time off to attend monthly medical appointments for her pregnancy. In response to the request, the company fired her.
Fired for being pregnant
Upon learning that an employee was pregnant, the company allegedly fired her because it believed that she would need accommodations to perform her job duties.
Agreements
As part of the agreements for these two examples, the employers had to:
- Pay the former employees,
- Revise their policies to include making reasonable accommodations under the PWFA,
- Provide training to all employees on pregnancy discrimination,
- Appoint a coordinator to ensure that the company’s revised policies and practices are aligned with the requirements under the PWFA and other laws protecting pregnant workers, and
- Report any complaints of discrimination or accommodation requests to the EEOC regularly.
Three ongoing court cases
Transfer and unlawful questions
An employer allegedly denied a pregnant employee’s request to transfer to a role that did not require lying on her stomach. Instead, the company forced her to take unpaid leave and ultimately gave her no choice but to return to her position without modification. Fearing for her pregnancy health, she was forced to resign. The company also allegedly required the employee to provide too much medical documentation.
EEOC v. Wabash National Corporation, Case No. 5:24-cv-00148, September 10, 2024.
Time off denied
An employee asked for time off for pregnancy-related conditions and medical appointments but was denied. The employer also allegedly required her to work mandatory overtime despite knowing she was medically restricted from doing so. The company assessed attendance points against her for the pregnancy-related absences and warned that she would be fired if she acquired another point. Instead, the employee resigned to protect her pregnancy.
EEOC v. Polaris Industries, Inc., U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama, No. 5:24-cv-1305, September 26, 2024.
Forced leave
An employee said she needed to sit, take extra breaks, and/or work part-time to protect her health and safety during the final trimester of her high-risk pregnancy. Instead, the employer forced her to take unpaid leave.
EEOC v. Urologic Specialists of Oklahoma, Inc., U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma, No. 4:24-cv-0452, September 26, 2024.
Key to remember: Employers that don’t want to risk similar PWFA violations can learn what not to do from these employers. Unpaid leave is an accommodation of last resort under the PWFA, employers should not jump to that option first. The law also limits what documentation employers may require.