Recent EEOC Enforcement Actions to Vindicate Employee Rights Under the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act

Gina Glatt, Associate

Last week, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) brought two suits alleging that each respective employer violated the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act (PWFA) by, among other things, denying reasonable accommodations under the PWFA, punishing employees for exercising their rights under the PWFA, and otherwise requiring employees to work against the advice and direction of the employee’s physicians. Both of the lawsuits reflect the EEOC’s current aggressive stance towards employer noncompliance with the PWFA’s provisions.

EEOC Ramps Up PWFA Enforcement in First String of Lawsuits

The Rocky Mountain Employer previously discussed the passage and implementation of the PWFA,[1] as well as the EEOC’s Final Rules from April 2024 setting forth the EEOC’s rules governing interpretation and enforcement of the PWFA.[2]  Generally speaking, the PWFA requires employers to provide reasonable accommodations to a qualified employee’s known limitations related to pregnancy, childbirth, or other related medical conditions.[3] This requirement to provide accommodations comes with a caveat: employers are not required to provide the accommodation if it will cause the employer undue hardship, meaning that the accommodation would require significant difficulty or expense to the employer, which is the same standard as applied by the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”).  Like the ADA, the PWFA requires employers to engage in an interactive process with employees who seek an accommodation for limitations caused by pregnancy, childbirth, etc., although the PWFA does not specify what such an interactive process must entail.

The first case filed by the EEOC last week is in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama, against employer Polaris Industries, Inc (“Polaris”).[4] The EEOC alleges Polaris: 1) refused to excuse an employee’s absences for pregnancy-related conditions and medical appointments; 2) required her to work mandatory overtime despite knowing that her physician had restricted her from working over 40 hours per week while pregnant; and 3) penalized her based on her absences. The employee subsequently resigned to avoid termination.

The EEOC also filed suit against Urologic Specialists of Oklahoma (“USO”) on the same day in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma.[5] In its complaint, the EEOC contends that USO denied a pregnant medical assistant the opportunity to sit, take breaks, or to work part-time pursuant to her physician’s recommendation to protect her health during the final trimester of her high-risk pregnancy. The EEOC also alleges that USO required the employee to take unpaid leave until she could give birth to her child, and then subsequently refused to guarantee that the employee would have the opportunity to take breaks to express breastmilk once she returned to work.  The EEOC also contends that USO terminated the employee for refusing to return to work unless USO provided her with guaranteed breaks to express breastmilk. 

While these actions are in their nascency and the merits of the allegations will likely not be decided or settled for some time, these two enforcement actions reflect a growing trend of EEOC enforcement actions across the spectrum of federal employment discrimination laws, and it is fair to assume that additional enforcement actions under the PWFA will be brought in the coming weeks and months.  

Employer Considerations

Given the EEOC’s recent spate of lawsuits specifically alleging violations of the PWFA, covered Colorado employers (meaning any employer with 15 or more employees in industries “affecting commerce”) should take care to ensure that they are taking accommodation requests for pregnancy-related conditions seriously.  Likewise, employers should review their policies (both written and in practice) to ensure that they are otherwise in compliance with the PWFA as well as other federal and state laws concerning the rights of pregnant workers, such as the recent federal PUMP Act and the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act.  Campbell Litigation remains available to assist with these and other employment-related questions.

[1] See EEOC Publishes Final Rules Governing the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act — The Rocky Mountain Employer, available at https://www.rockymountainemployersblog.com/blog/2024/4/25/eeoc-publishes-final-rules-governing-the-pregnant-workers-fairness-act.; see also EEOC Set to Issue Final Rule Implementing the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act on December 29, 2023 — The Rocky Mountain Employer, available at https://www.rockymountainemployersblog.com/blog/2023/12/14/eeoc-set-to-issue-final-rule-implementing-the-pregnant-workers-fairness-act-on-december-29-2023.

[2] See EEOC Issues Proposed Rule to Implement the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act — The Rocky Mountain Employer, available at https://www.rockymountainemployersblog.com/blog/2024/4/25/eeoc-publishes-final-rules-governing-the-pregnant-workers-fairness-act.

[3] 42 U.S.C. § 2000gg-1.

[4] E.E.O.C. v. Polaris Industries, Inc., Case 5:24-cv-1305.

[5] E.E.O.C. v. Urologic Specialists of Oklahoma, Inc., Case 4:24-cv-0452.