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
On May 28, the US Department of Labor, “DOL,” issued four Opinion Letters in an attempt to answer some “real world” questions Employers have about wage and hour law, governed on the Federal level by the Fair Labor Standards Act, “FLSA.” You can find links to the actual Opinion Letters here: https://www.dol.gov/newsroom/releases/whd/whd20260529-0 . Additional Opinion Letters are also available on that site. Unfortunately, the FLSA is an old law with many complexities and nuances. Set forth below is our attempt to provide the takeaways from two of the Opinion Letters: FLSA 20026-7 – This was a meal period case. The question was whether employees were entitled to pay for time spent walking out of a large facility and going through security to take their meal break. The short answer is no. The employees in this case had the meal period option to leave the worksite or stay onsite. Their choice to leave did not convert their travel time into time worked. The letter notes that the FLSA does not require that employees be given a meal period at all (Please note that state law often does require a meal period). However, if an UNPAID meal period is provided, it must be at least 30 minutes of UNINTERRUPTED time during which the employees are COMPLETELY relieved of all duties. The letter also mentions that employees may be required to stay on the premises during the unpaid meal period, provided they perform no work. FLSA 2026-5 – The question in this letter was whether an employee who is properly exempted from overtime can also be paid for working in an hourly position that is not exempt from overtime. The short answer is yes, provided that the employee’s PRIMARY DUTY is in the overtime exempt position. The case involved nurses who worked 62 – 77% of their weekly hours in a properly overtime-exempt Specialist position; with the other hours being worked in an hourly nonexempt Floor Nurse position. Under the FLSA, an exempt employee can pick up extra hourly shifts in a non-exempt role and be paid hourly for that non-exempt work, so long as their primary duty is exempt work and they are paid the full guaranteed salary for the exempt position on a salary basis.
With military deployments of National Guard, and other military personnel, being at a 20 year high, employers are likely to have employees who request to be absent from work due to military service. Set forth below is a summary of the protections provided to such individuals by USERRA. This is only a summary. This law contains more provisions, and some complexities, as do most federal laws. Additionally, state laws may also be applicable. Employers should consult an expert for specific guidance. USERRA SUMMARY USERRA applies to all employers: There is no threshold based on the number of workers. An employer with just one employee must provide USERRA protections. Prohibition against discrimination and retaliation : Employers cannot deny initial employment, reemployment, retention, promotion, or any benefit on the basis a person’s membership, application for service, or obligation for service in the armed forces. Retaliation is similarly prohibited. Continuation of benefits while on leave : Employers must provide eligible employees with up to five years of unpaid leave during the life of their employment. Throughout this period, employers must maintain the employee’s seniority, health care, and pension benefits. Right to reemployment : Returning service members have a nearly unfettered right to reemployment by their pre-service employers upon timely application for return to work – and need to be returned to a position and pay level they would have risen to had they remained at work during their military leave. Exception to at-will employment: Employees returning from protected leave are no longer pure “at will” employees for a period of time following reemployment. If the deployment was for more than 30, but less than 180 days, they can only be terminated “for cause” for 180 days following reemployment, or for one year if the length of deployment exceeded 180 days.
On March 16, 2026, ICE updated its Form I-9 Inspection fact sheet, effectively superseding prior guidance that had governed I-9 enforcement for nearly three decades. Specifically, more than 10 error categories previously treated as correctable technical violations—eligible for the statutory 10-day cure period—are now reclassified as substantive violations subject to immediate fines of $288 to $2,861 per violation. What Has Changed
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.
