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
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.
- 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.
Deedee Bitran is an associate in the Fort Lauderdale office of Shutts & Bowen, where she is a member of the business litigation practice group. Bitran represents employers, business owners, lenders, purchasers and developers.
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 AllSupreme Court Wrestles With Disabled Ex-Firefighter's Discrimination Case
Essential Labor Shifts: Navigating Noncompetes, Workplace Politics and the AI Revolution
Southwest Airlines Faces $100M Class Action Over Pay Periods
Law Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
- 1Trump Taps McKinsey CLO Pierre Gentin for Commerce Department GC
- 2Critical Mass With Law.com's Amanda Bronstad: 700+ Residents Near Ohio Derailment File New Suit, Is the FAA to Blame For Last Month's Air Disasters?
- 3Law Journal Column on Marital Residence Sales in Pending Divorces Puts 'Misplaced' Reliance on Two Cases
- 4A Message to the Community: Meeting the Moment in 2025
- 5Ex-Prosecutor Denies on Witness Stand That She Tried to Protect Ahmaud Arbery's Killers
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