The PUMP Act: How Will It Impact Florida Employers?
As Florida consistently ranks at the top of lists of the largest number of small businesses among states, this exemption will be especially significant to Florida employers.
June 14, 2023 at 10:03 AM
7 minute read
Board of ContributorsCongress recently passed the Providing Urgent Maternal Protections for Nursing Mothers Act (PUMP Act) expanding the right for millions of workers to break time and a private space to pump breast milk. Before passage of the PUMP Act, only certain workers were legally entitled to reasonable break time and a space to pump breast milk under the Break Time for Nursing Mothers Act of 2010. Millions of workers, including those exempt from overtime pay, were left unprotected by the Break Time for Nursing Mothers Act because the break time language was included in the section of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) requiring employers to pay overtime compensation. The PUMP Act remedies this exclusion and expands legal break time and private space protections to pump breast milk to most FLSA covered employees, with a few important exceptions. One of those exemptions is an "undue hardship" exemption that applies only to small businesses. As Florida consistently ranks at the top of lists of the largest number of small businesses among states, this exemption will be especially significant to Florida employers.
The PUMP Act requires covered employers to provide nursing workers reasonable break time and a space to pump breast milk for one year following the birth of a child. The U.S. Department of Labor Wage and Hour Division (WHD) advises that workers are entitled to breaks every time they need to pump, and as such, the frequency and length of breaks will depend on each worker and child's specific circumstances. The space cannot be a bathroom due to safety and health concerns. The space must be shielded from view, free from intrusion from coworkers and the public, and functionable as a space for pumping breast milk. The space does not need to be a permanent and dedicated space. However, if it is not, the space must be available when needed. Depending on the number of nursing workers an employer has, an employer may need to provide more than one space. The employer does not need to compensate the worker for break time to pump breast milk so long as the worker is completely relived form work duties during the break. If the worker chooses to work during the break time, the employer needs to compensate the worker. If the employer provides paid break time to its workers, the worker must be permitted to use those paid break times to pump breast milk. Once the worker uses all of her allotted paid break times, the worker can take additional uncompensated breaks to pump breast milk. Off-site or remote workers are eligible to take reasonable break times to pump breast milk on the same basis as onsite workers.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllDon’t Forget the Owner’s Manual: A Guide to Proving Liability Through Manufacturers’ Warnings and Instructions
5 minute readLaw Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250