Pregnant Workers Fairness Act “PWFA” Final Rules
April 16, 2024
As you may recall, we sent out an AHEAD Newsletter last May regarding the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act “PWFA,” which went into effect last June 27.
As a refresher, the law:
- Covers employers with 15 or more employees. Protects employees and applicants who have limitations related to pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions.
- Like the ADA, employers are required to provide reasonable accommodations, absent undue hardship. However, under the PWFA, such accommodation must be granted for “physical or mental conditions” related to pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical condition,” which is a lesser standard than the required “physical or mental impairment” under the ADA.Another major distinction between the ADA and the PWFA is the definition of a “qualified individual.” Under the ADA an individual must be able to perform the essential functions of the job with or without reasonable accommodation. Additionally, eliminating an essential job function is not a reasonable accommodation. However, under the PWFA, an individual is still considered “qualified” if the inability to perform an essential function is for a temporary period, and can be reasonably accommodated.
- Specifically requires employers to engage in the interactive process with employees requesting a reasonable accommodation related to pregnancy, childbirth, or a related medical condition.
- Prohibits employers from denying an employment opportunity, or taking an adverse employment action, based on the need for a reasonable accommodation to the known limitations related to pregnancy, childbirth, or a related condition.
- Prohibits employers from requiring employees to take leave if another reasonable accommodation could be provided. So, granting leave is a last resort, unless of course the employee prefers that as the reasonable accommodation.
- Prohibits employers from retaliating against anyone who complains about a violation of the PWFA, or participates in an investigation, hearing, or proceeding related to the same. Also prohibited is coercing, threatening, intimidating, or interfering with anyone’s rights under the PWFA
Two days ago, the EEOC released its final rules (regs) regarding how it interprets and will enforce the law. The regs are over 400 pages, so set forth below is an attempt to summarize some of the important points:
- The final regs contain a very broad definition of “Pregnancy, Child Birth or Related Medical Condition,” which in addition to the normal pregnancy related conditions includes: fertility treatment; and termination of pregnancy (miscarriage or abortion).
- The definition of those deemed “Qualified” is also very broad. As with the ADA, someone is Qualified if she can perform the essential functions of the job, with or without reasonable accommodation. However, under the PWFA, someone is also qualified if the inability to perform the essential functions is TEMPORARY, and will be able to be performed IN THE NEAR FUTURE (generally 40 weeks).
- The regs include a list of possible accommodations, including: Job restructuring; Schedule changes, part-time work, and paid and unpaid leave; Frequent breaks; Acquiring or modifying equipment, uniforms, or devices; Making existing facilities accessible or modifying the work environment; Allowing sitting or standing (and providing means to do so); Light duty; Telework or remote work; Providing a reserved parking space; Temporarily suspending one or more essential function; and Adjusting or modifying workplace policies.This list is not exhaustive. The EEOC and courts may consider other accommodations to be “reasonable,” so employers will want to work with the employee during the interactive process to review these options but to also identify other possible accommodations.
- The regs attempt to clarify when an accommodation request can be denied, which is only if it would impose an Undue Hardship on business operations. Generally, an accommodation would create an Undue Hardship if it would cause significant difficulty or expense. The following factors may be considered when considering whether temporarily suspending an essential job function would be an Undue Hardship: The length of time the employee or applicant will be unable to perform the essential function; whether there is work for the employee or applicant to accomplish; the nature of the essential function, including its frequency; whether you have provided other employees or applicants in similar positions who are unable to perform essential functions with temporary suspension of those functions and other duties; whether there are other employees, temporary employees, or third parties who can perform or be temporarily hired to perform the essential function in question, if needed; and whether the essential function can be postponed or remain unperformed for any length of time and, if so, for how long.
The final rules (regs) will take effect 60 days after they are published in the Federal Register. The effective date is anticipated to be around June 18. However, there is a chance that their implementation may be delayed by litigation.
The bottom line is that covered employers will need to carefully consider accommodation requests by employees covered by this law, with an understanding that the accommodation responsibility is much broader than that under the ADA.
Recent Posts
A recent Opinion Letter from the Department of Labor, “DOL,” serves as a good reminder that incentive bonus payment usually must be included in an employee’s regular rate used to calculate overtime. The Opinion Letter dealt with an employer in the waste industry that paid drivers a bonus every pay period if certain safety and performance criteria (punctuality, attendance, and consistency in completing daily safety tasks) were met. Not surprisingly, the DOL found that the bonus amounts should be included in the regular rate of pay for overtime calculation purposes, because the payments were incentives and Discretionary Bonuses. Discretionary bonuses may be excluded from the regular rate of pay if: (1) the fact and amount of the payment are determined at the SOLE Discretion of the employer; (2) with the determination being made at or near the time of the period when the work was performed; and the payment must not be made pursuant to any prior contract, agreement, or promise causing the employee to expect such payments regularly. The payments in this case were made pursuant to a predetermined plan to incentivize work performance. A true Discretionary bonus which can be excluded from overtime is quite unusual. Accordingly, most bonus payments must be included in overtime calculations.
As employers will recall, a federal court struck down the Fair Trade Commission’s (FTC) proposed ban on employee non-compete agreements over a year ago. The FTC has since abandoned its effort to enforce a rule completely banning such agreements. However, in September, the FTC surprised some by announcing that it intends to regulate the use of employee non-competes on a case-by-case basis. It seems that the FTC will consider whether the restrictions are “reasonable” by determining whether they are no greater than is necessary to protect the employer’s legitimate interests, balancing those interests against the hardship to the employee and public. Some factors that are likely to be considered are: The size of the company, both in terms of employees and business; Whether the employer requires non-competes of all employees, or only those with job duties that might justify their use to protect the employer’s interests; The scope of the geographic and time limitations contained in the non-competes. This “reasonableness” determination is very similar to the analysis that many state courts use in determining whether to enforce a non-compete. The FTC has announced its intention to put particular focus on employers in the healthcare space. However, all employers utilizing non-compete agreements should review the restrictions contained therein in an effort to determine that they appear reasonable under the above criteria.
A lawsuit was filed in 2023 in federal court in CA by a man alleging that he applied for many jobs at companies that utilize Workday’s platform, and that he was rejected for all, with many rejection emails coming within an hour of his application
The federal law enacted last week provides some tax relief for employees who work overtime, and for those who receive tips. A summary is set forth below: Overtime Deduction An employee must receive OT pay as defined by the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) (pay for hours worked beyond 40 in a workweek at a premium rate), and the deduction only applies to the premium portion of OT pay (the amount above the regular hourly rate). The deduction applies only to overtime compensation that is “required” under the FLSA. The deduction does not apply to overtime premiums that are not “required” by the FLSA, but instead are paid pursuant to contract (including a collective bargaining agreement), company policy, or because they are required under state law only. This is an above-the-line deduction, with the maximum deduction being $12,500 per year (up to $25,000 if married filing jointly). To be eligible for the full deduction, employees must earn $150,000 or less. Employers must include the total amount of qualified overtime compensation as a separate line item on the Form W-2. This will require employers to keep a distinct record of the overtime premium compensation that is both (a) required under the FLSA and (b) in excess of the regular rate. Tips Deduction To qualify for the deduction, the tips must be received by an individual engaged in an occupation that customarily and regularly received tips on or before Dec. 31, 2024, such as servers, bartenders, hotel staff, hairstylists, etc. To be considered a “qualified tip,” the amount must: (a) be paid voluntarily without any consequence in the event of nonpayment; (b) not be the subject of negotiation; and (c) be determined by the payor. Thus, for example, a mandatory service charge imposed by the employer for a banquet will not qualify for the deduction, and neither will a required gratuity that a restaurant adds automatically to a bill for large parties. Failing to make this distinction may lead employees to claim deductions to which they are not entitled. This is also an above-the-line deduction, with a cap of $25,000 per year. To be eligible for the full deduction, employees must earn $150,000 or less. The act requires employers to include on Form W-2 the total amount of cash tips reported by the employee, as well as the employee’s qualifying occupation. For 2025, the act authorizes the reporting party to “approximate” the amount designated as cash tips pursuant to a “reasonable method” to be specified in a forthcoming regulation by the Treasury secretary.
The FMLA contains specific provisions allowing eligible employees to take leave “to care for the employee's spouse, son, daughter, or parent with a serious health condition.” In December, the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals, which is the Federal Appellate Court for the above states, issued an opinion finding that an employee might be entitled to take FMLA leave to care for her sick sister. The language of the FMLA is crystal clear as to family members for which an employee may take FMLA leave to care for. Notwithstanding that, the court found that the in loco parentis (in the place of a parent) language in the FMLA’s definition of ‘Parent” and “Son or Daughter” showed that “Congress sought to protect parental relationships, whether biological, legal, or their functional equivalents.” So, the court sent the case back to the lower court to determine whether the employee in question had an “in loco parentis” relationship with her sister. If so, the employee would be entitled to FMLA leave to care for the sister. This nonsensical interpretation of the FMLA by court leaves employers in the above states with great uncertainty as to what to do if an employee requests FMLA leave to care for a sibling. Under the court’s skewed reasoning, the employer would have to determine whether an employee requesting such leave actually stood in loco parentis with the sibling. An employer facing such a request should consult with an HR or legal professional.
