The PUMP Act: The New Law That Should be on Every Employer's Radar
The PUMP for Nursing Mothers Act (the PUMP Act), effective April 2023, amended the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and requires employers to provide reasonable break time and a location for employees to express breast milk for one year after the employee's birth of a child.
October 19, 2023 at 12:35 PM
4 minute read
Employment LawThe PUMP for Nursing Mothers Act (the PUMP Act), effective April 2023, amended the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and requires employers to provide reasonable break time and a location for employees to express breast milk for one year after the employee's birth of a child.
|- Why should the PUMP Act be on every employer's radar?
The PUMP Act should be on every employer's radar because under the FLSA, a PUMP Act violation may result in, among other remedies, payment of lost wages, liquidated damages (a recovery equal to two times the underlying unpaid wages), and punitive damages. These remedies are available for a PUMP Act violation regardless of whether the employee also experienced retaliation.
|- How many breaks can a nursing employee take?
The PUMP Act mandates that each nursing employee be permitted to take a reasonable break each time the nursing employee has a need to express milk for one year after the employee's birth of a child. There is no maximum number of reasonable breaks and a nursing employee is entitled to take as many as she needs that day to express milk.
|- Are the pumping breaks paid?
The PUMP Act entitles nursing employees to reasonable unpaid breaks. However, if the nursing employee is not completely relieved from her work obligations during that break (i.e., she brings her laptop with her and works while she is pumping, or participates on a client call while pumping), then the break must be paid.
|- What if my company is small and providing these unpaid breaks burdens my company's operations?
A company with less than 50 total employees can be exempt from the PUMP Act's provisions if the company can show that complying with the PUMP Act would impose an undue hardship.
|- What kind of space is required?
The PUMP Act requires employers provide nursing employees with a space that is shielded from view and specifically states that such a space cannot be a bathroom. Employers are not obligated to maintain a permanent dedicated space for nursing mothers, thus, the space can be temporarily created for use when needed by nursing mothers. While the PUMP Act does not provide specifics for what features or amenities are required in the space, the wage and hour division explained that the location must be functional as a space for expressing breast milk, and noted that a place to sit, a surface on which to place the pump, and access to electricity increases the functionality of the space.
|- How Does the PUMP Act Affect Remote Workers?
The Pump Act applies to remote workers. When pumping, a remote employee has a right to be shielded from view (this includes turning off all cameras and microphones) during a break to pump milk. The same rules apply to remote employees as if they were in the office in terms of having to compensate a remote employee for a break taken to pump milk if the employee is not entirely relieved of her job duties during that pumping break.
|- Does Florida have a state counterpart to the PUMP Act?
Some states have enacted state counterparts to the PUMP Act, however, as of now, Florida does not have a state counterpart. Nonetheless, Florida employers are still required to comply with the PUMP Act unless otherwise exempt. In line with the policies behind the enactment of the PUMP Act and the growing trend of states implementing local laws similar to the PUMP Act, the Florida legislature passed SB 144 this year, which requires each county courthouse to provide at least one lactation space for the public by Jan. 1, 2024.
|- What should employers do?
Employers should be proactive. It is critical that employers ensure they have a compliant space onsite for use when needed, as well as train management and human resources personnel on how to properly respond to PUMP Act requests. Employers should carefully review and revise their policies and handbooks to ensure compliance and provide a streamlined process for employees to request to use the space. Lastly, employers should promptly consult their employment law counsel for advice on how to properly implement these policies and on how to navigate any related issues stemming from such compliance.
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
© 2024 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 All'Get Rid of the Men': Employer Accused of Discrimination
Employee's Alleged Action Lands Marriott in Court for Defamation, Negligence
11th Circuit Rejects Former CSX Employee's Safety-Related Whistleblowing Claims
Judge Says University of Miami Should Face Discrimination Case by Ex-Department Chair
4 minute readLaw Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
- 1Gibson Dunn Sued By Crypto Client After Lateral Hire Causes Conflict of Interest
- 2Trump's Solicitor General Expected to 'Flip' Prelogar's Positions at Supreme Court
- 3Pharmacy Lawyers See Promise in NY Regulator's Curbs on PBM Industry
- 4Outgoing USPTO Director Kathi Vidal: ‘We All Want the Country to Be in a Better Place’
- 5Supreme Court Will Review Constitutionality Of FCC's Universal Service Fund
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
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