About time!
NOTE FROM ROBIN: The post below was emailed to our subscribers as a Constangy legal bulletin on Tuesday, August 8. However, this blog post links to the official copy of the proposed regulations, which had not been published in the Federal Register as of Tuesday. This version also has some art and prettier colors.
As most of you know, the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act took effect on June 27, but employers had virtually no guidance regarding how to comply.
The PWFA requires employers with 15 or more employees to make reasonable accommodations for the “known limitations” of applicants and employees related to pregnancy and related conditions.
This past Monday, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission – which will enforce the PWFA – issued proposed regulations. If you have had dealings with reasonable accommodation under the Americans with Disabilities Act, you will get a definite sense of deja vu. However, there are some important differences, and that is what I will focus on here.
Conditions covered
In contrast with the ADA, the PWFA does not require that an employee be “substantially limited” and does not require that the condition be relatively long term in nature. Instead, the PWFA is intended to address the limitations that arise during pregnancy, including morning sickness, lifting requirements, postpartum depression, and other conditions that may go away in a relatively short time.
Not surprisingly, the PWFA applies to conditions that may occur outside the roughly nine months of pregnancy, including trying to get pregnant and trying not to be pregnant. In addition to pregnancy, childbirth, and labor, the regulations say that the following is a “non-exhaustive list” of conditions that will be covered if related to pregnancy:
[M]iscarriage, stillbirth, or abortion; infertility; fertility treatment; ectopic pregnancy; preterm labor; pelvic prolapse; nerve injuries; cesarean or perineal wound infection; maternal cardiometabolic disease; gestational diabetes; preeclampsia; HELLP (hemolysis, elevated liver enzymes and low platelets) syndrome; hyperemesis gravidarum; anemia; endometriosis; sciatica; lumbar lordosis; carpal tunnel syndrome; chronic migraines; dehydration; hemorrhoids; nausea or vomiting; edema of the legs, ankles, feet, or fingers; high blood pressure; infection; antenatal (during pregnancy) anxiety, depression, or psychosis; postpartum depression, anxiety, or psychosis; frequent urination; incontinence; loss of balance; vision changes; varicose veins; changes in hormone levels; vaginal bleeding; menstrual cycles; use of birth control; and lactation and conditions related to lactation . . ..
“Known limitation”
Unlike the ADA, the PWFA has more of a laid-back reasonable accommodation process. Generally, the EEOC envisions that employers will receive informal, word-of-mouth requests for pregnancy accommodation. In many cases, the employer will not need a doctor’s note. Employers would not be allowed to require that accommodation requests be made in writing or by filling out a form.
Also, if the condition is obvious (for example, an employee who is eight months pregnant), the employer would not be expected to have to confirm the condition, although it might still need to get help from the employee’s health care provider about the need for accommodation. As with the ADA, “mitigating measures” that are good may not be considered, but bad “mitigating measures” (for example, if the employee has to take medication with bad side effects) must be.
“Qualified individual”
Under the PWFA, a pregnant employee is “qualified” if she can perform the essential functions of her job with or without a reasonable accommodation, OR if she is temporarily unable to perform an essential function of her job but will be able to do so again “in the near future.” The EEOC proposes to use 40 weeks as “the near future,” meaning that if the mother can perform her essential job functions within 40 weeks of the time that the function is suspended, she is “qualified.” The 40 weeks is based on the duration of a normal, full-term pregnancy. However, the EEOC has asked for comments as to whether it should expand this period to a full year.
Determining whether a particular job function is “essential” (as opposed to “marginal”) would be done in essentially the same way that it is done under the ADA.
Reasonable accommodation
The definition of “reasonable accommodation” under the PWFA is essentially the same as under the ADA. but the PWFA definition includes
breaks for use of the restroom, drinking, eating, and/or resting; acquisition or modification of equipment, uniforms, or devices, including devices that assist with lifting or carrying . . . providing seating for jobs that require standing, or standing for jobs that require sitting . . ..
Under the proposed regulations, employers would also be required to consider letting employees with pregnancy-related limitations participate in a pre-existing light duty program, even if that program is normally available only to employees who are injured on the job.
Paid or unpaid leave could be another type of reasonable accommodation, but employers should not require employees to take leave if the employees are able to continue working and prefer to do so.
Accommodating lactation needs is similar to what is now required under the PUMP for Nursing Mothers Act, although the PWFA regulations would require employers to
- Provide lactation accommodations beyond one year after the baby’s birth.
- Ensure that the lactation area “is in reasonable proximity to the employee’s usual work area.
- Ensure that the lactation area is “regularly cleaned; that it has electricity, appropriate seating, and a surface sufficient to place a breast pump; and that it is in reasonable proximity to a sink, running water, and a refrigerator for storing milk.”
“Predictable assessments”
The proposed regulations include a list of accommodations that the EEOC says will almost always be found to be reasonable and that employers should grant without asking for documentation:
- Letting the individual keep handy water or another beverage throughout the workday.
- Providing extra bathroom breaks.
- Letting the individual sit or stand.
- Letting the individual have extra breaks for eating and drinking.
The “interactive process” and documentation
Under the PWFA (the statute), it is unlawful for an employer to require an employee to accept a reasonable accommodation without first going through the interactive process.
An employer can request documentation, but it is more limited in that regard than under the ADA. It would be all right for the employer to request documentation to confirm the employee’s condition, that the condition is pregnancy-related, and that work-related adjustments need to be made. The request can be made to an appropriate health care provider, but the employer would not be able to send the employee to a health care provider of the employer’s choice.
The proposed regulations warn employers that making requests for documentation that are not “reasonable” can violate the PWFA. “Unreasonable” requests for documentation would include the following:
- Requests made even though the employee’s condition and need for accommodation are obvious.
- Requests made even though the employee has already provided adequate documentation.
- Requests for documentation when the employee has asked for an accommodation that the EEOC has included in its “predictive assessments” category.
- Any request for documentation when the employee needs lactation accommodation.
Violations
Nor surprisingly, it is a violation of the PWFA for an employer to refuse to accommodate an applicant or employee’s known pregnancy-related limitations unless doing so would be an undue hardship. The proposed regulations also provide that an undue delay in making an accommodation would violate the law. (The EEOC recommends that, if an employer foresees a delay, it should make an “interim accommodation” pending a final decision.
An employee who can’t perform the essential functions of the job because she rejected a reasonable accommodation offered by the employer after the interactive process will not be “qualified” under the PWFA.
Of course, retaliation, harassment, and “coercion” (interference) are also prohibited, and this applies to all employees, not just employees with pregnancy-related conditions.
Nice appendix!
The proposed regulations also have an Interpretive Guidance Appendix that contains helpful examples and more detailed information.
- Partner
Robin has more than 30 years' experience counseling employers and representing them before government agencies and in employment litigation involving Title VII and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, the Americans with ...
Robin Shea has 30 years' experience in employment litigation, including Title VII and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act (including the Amendments Act).
Continue Reading
Subscribe
Contributors
- William A. "Zan" Blue, Jr.
- Obasi Bryant
- Kenneth P. Carlson, Jr.
- James M. Coleman
- Cara Yates Crotty
- Lara C. de Leon
- Christopher R. Deubert
- Joyce M. Dos Santos
- Colin Finnegan
- Steven B. Katz
- Ellen C. Kearns
- F. Damon Kitchen
- David C. Kurtz
- Angelique Groza Lyons
- John E. MacDonald
- Kelly McGrath
- Alyssa K. Peters
- Sarah M. Phaff
- David P. Phippen
- William K. Principe
- Sabrina M. Punia-Ly
- Angela L. Rapko
- Rachael Rustmann
- Paul Ryan
- Piyumi M. Samaratunga
- Robin E. Shea
- Kristine Marie Sims
- David L. Smith
- Jill S. Stricklin
- Jack R. Wallace
Archives
- November 2024
- October 2024
- September 2024
- August 2024
- July 2024
- June 2024
- May 2024
- April 2024
- March 2024
- February 2024
- January 2024
- December 2023
- November 2023
- October 2023
- September 2023
- August 2023
- July 2023
- June 2023
- May 2023
- April 2023
- March 2023
- February 2023
- January 2023
- December 2022
- November 2022
- October 2022
- September 2022
- August 2022
- July 2022
- June 2022
- May 2022
- April 2022
- March 2022
- February 2022
- January 2022
- December 2021
- November 2021
- October 2021
- September 2021
- August 2021
- July 2021
- June 2021
- May 2021
- April 2021
- March 2021
- February 2021
- January 2021
- December 2020
- November 2020
- October 2020
- September 2020
- August 2020
- July 2020
- June 2020
- May 2020
- April 2020
- March 2020
- February 2020
- January 2020
- December 2019
- November 2019
- October 2019
- September 2019
- August 2019
- July 2019
- June 2019
- May 2019
- April 2019
- March 2019
- February 2019
- January 2019
- December 2018
- November 2018
- October 2018
- September 2018
- August 2018
- July 2018
- June 2018
- May 2018
- April 2018
- March 2018
- February 2018
- January 2018
- December 2017
- November 2017
- October 2017
- September 2017
- August 2017
- July 2017
- June 2017
- May 2017
- April 2017
- March 2017
- February 2017
- January 2017
- December 2016
- November 2016
- October 2016
- September 2016
- August 2016
- July 2016
- June 2016
- May 2016
- April 2016
- March 2016
- February 2016
- January 2016
- December 2015
- November 2015
- October 2015
- September 2015
- August 2015
- July 2015
- June 2015
- May 2015
- April 2015
- March 2015
- February 2015
- January 2015
- December 2014
- November 2014
- October 2014
- September 2014
- August 2014
- July 2014
- June 2014
- May 2014
- April 2014
- March 2014
- February 2014
- January 2014
- December 2013
- November 2013
- October 2013
- September 2013
- August 2013
- July 2013
- June 2013
- May 2013
- April 2013
- March 2013
- February 2013
- January 2013
- December 2012
- November 2012
- October 2012
- September 2012
- August 2012
- July 2012
- June 2012
- May 2012
- April 2012
- March 2012
- February 2012
- January 2012
- December 2011
- November 2011
- October 2011
- September 2011
- August 2011
- July 2011
- June 2011
- May 2011
- April 2011
- March 2011
- February 2011
- January 2011
- December 2010
- November 2010
- October 2010