How the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act Expands the Duty To Accommodate
The PWFA expands the pregnancy-related protections of the Pregnancy Discrimination Act, which amended Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to protect employees from discrimination based on pregnancy or related conditions but does not impose an accommodation obligation.
September 28, 2023 at 10:00 AM
8 minute read
As of June 27, 2023, the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act (PWFA) significantly expanded protections for pregnant applicants and employees by requiring employers with 15 or more employees to make reasonable accommodations to known limitations related to pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions, whether or not such condition qualifies as a disability, as long as the accommodation does not pose an undue hardship on the employer.
Overview of the PWFA
As background, the PWFA expands the pregnancy-related protections of the Pregnancy Discrimination Act, which amended Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII) to protect employees from discrimination based on pregnancy or related conditions but does not impose an accommodation obligation. It also expands on current case law, which requires only that employers accommodate pregnant employees in the same manner they accommodate other employees who are similar in their inability to work. The U.S. Supreme Court's 2015 decision in Young v. United Parcel Service held that employers who provided accommodations for other similarly situated workers with medical restrictions could not deny comparable accommodations to pregnant workers, but the ruling did not go as far as requiring pregnancy-related accommodation independent of such comparator situations. The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA) requires employers to provide reasonable accommodations to qualified individuals with certain medical conditions related to pregnancy that qualify as a disability. The PWFA is intended to fill the gap by affirmatively requiring reasonable accommodations for conditions associated with pregnancy or childbirth that do not rise to the level of disability under the ADA.
This content has been archived.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 AllArbitrators Under Fire for Allegedly Forcing Workers to 'Stay or Pay' Employers
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