The EEOC's Litigation Under the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act
Since the law went into effect, the EEOC has reported that it has received more than 2,000 charges alleging violation of the PWFA. In addition, the EEOC has recently filed several lawsuits against employers who have allegedly violated the PWFA, which provides accommodations for pregnant, and postpartum, applicants and employees.
November 08, 2024 at 11:00 AM
8 minute read
Special SectionsOn June 27, 2023, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) began accepting charges of discrimination for alleged violations of the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act (PWFA). On April 15, 2024, the EEOC published the final regulations to enforce the act, with an effective date of June 18, 2024. Since the law went into effect, the EEOC has reported that it has received more than 2,000 charges alleging violation of the PWFA. In addition, the EEOC has recently filed several lawsuits against employers who have allegedly violated the PWFA, which provides accommodations for pregnant, and postpartum, applicants and employees.
The PWFA applies to employers who have 15 or more employees, in both the private and public sectors. It requires covered employers to provide reasonable accommodations to a worker's known limitations related to pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions, unless the accommodation will cause the employer an undue hardship. The PWFA also notes that covered employers cannot:
- Require the employee to accept an accommodation without having a discussion with the employee about the accommodation;
- Deny a job or other employment opportunities to an employee or an applicant based on the individual's needs for an accommodation;
- Require the employee to take a leave of absence if another accommodation would allow the employee to continue working;
- Retaliate against an individual for reporting or opposing discrimination under the PWFA (or for requesting an accommodation under the PWFA); or
- Interfere with any individual's rights under the PWFA.
On Sept. 10, 2024, the EEOC filed suit against Wabash National Corp. in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Kentucky. The EEOC alleges that Wabash failed to accommodate a pregnant employee by refusing to transfer her to a role that did not require she bend over or lay on her stomach, immediately placed her on unpaid leave after she requested an accommodation, and requested that her physician to fill out an ADA questionnaire "designed to elicit information about disabilities and disability-related impairments." When the employee's doctor indicated that her limitations were due to pregnancy, not disability, her accommodation request was denied. As a result of Wabash's actions, the employee resigned. The EEOC alleges two violations of the PWFA—denial of accommodation and adverse action for requesting an accommodation. The EEOC also alleges violations of the ADA and Title VII. See EEOC v. Wasbash National, 5:24-cv-00148, (W. D. Ky. 2024).
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 AllPa. Supreme Court to Decide Enforceability of 'Browsewrap' Arbitration Agreements
8 minute readFrom a Mediator’s Perspective: Common Mis-steps That Parties Make at Mediation
6 minute readLaw Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
- 1Cleary Nabs Public Company Advisory Practice Head From Orrick in San Francisco
- 2New York Environmental Legislation in 2024
- 3Cravath Hires Paul Weiss Antitrust Co-Chair
- 4Contract Technology Provider LegalOn Launches AI-powered Playbook Tool
- 5Court of Appeals Provides Comfort to Land Use Litigants Through the Relation Back Doctrine
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