Criminal Judicial Administration Act of 2021

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 380, I call up the bill (H.R. 1065) to eliminate discrimination and promote women's health and economic security by ensuring reasonable workplace accommodations for workers whose ability to perform the functions of a job are limited by pregnancy, childbirth, or a related medical condition, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and insert extraneous material on H.R. 1065, the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 1065, the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act introduced by Representatives Nadler and Katko.

It is unacceptable that, in 2021, pregnant workers can still be denied basic workplace accommodations that help them stay healthy during their pregnancy. These accommodations, from

providing seating and water to excusing pregnant workers from heavy lifting, are not complex or costly.

But without these protections, too many workers are forced to either leave their jobs or put their health and the health of their pregnancy at risk. We can and must do better to ensure that no worker in this country is forced to choose between financial security and a healthy pregnancy.

The Pregnant Workers Fairness Act would finally establish a right to reasonable accommodations to all pregnant workers, and it would guarantee that pregnant workers can seek those accommodations without facing discrimination or retaliation.

Last Congress, 226 House Democrats and 103 Republicans came together to pass this legislation by a margin of 329-73. I hope we can come together again this year and finally deliver this bipartisan priority to our Nation's workers.

Mr. Speaker, I urge strong support for the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act, and I reserve the balance of my time.

House of Representatives,

Committee on House Administration,

Washington, DC, March 24, 2021.

Hon. Robert C. ``Bobby'' Scott,

Chairman, Committee on Education and Labor,

House of Representatives, Washington, DC.

Dear Chairman Scott: I am writing to you concerning H.R.

1065, the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act. There are certain

provisions in the legislation which fall within the Rule X

jurisdiction of the Committee on House Administration.

In the interest of permitting your committee to proceed

expeditiously to floor consideration, the Committee on House

Administration agrees to forego action on the bill. This is

done with the understanding that the Committee on House

Administration's jurisdictional interests over this and

similar legislation are in no way diminished or altered. In

addition, the Committee reserves its right to seek conferees

on any provisions within its jurisdiction which are

considered in a House-Senate conference and requests your

support if such a request is made.

I would appreciate your response confirming this

understanding with respect to H.R. 1065 and ask that a copy

of our exchange of letters on this matter be included in your

committee report on the bill and in the Congressional Record

during consideration of the bill on the House floor.

Sincerely,

Zoe Lofgren,

Chairperson.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Bonamici), the chair of the Civil Rights and Human Services Subcommittee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from New Mexico (Ms. Leger Fernandez), a member of the Committee on Education and Labor.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Georgia (Mrs. McBath), a member of the Education and Labor Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/4\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Wasserman Schultz).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Katko), the lead cosponsor of this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds to briefly respond to the fact that, first of all, this only applies to those employers with 15 workers or more. Furthermore, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act and First Amendment still apply. It is hard to imagine any religious objection to giving a pregnant worker water or an extra bathroom break, and there haven't been any complaints to the EEOC about the failure to do that.

At this time I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Michigan (Ms. Stevens), a member of the Committee on Education and Labor.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler), the chair of the House Judiciary Committee and sponsor of the legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/4\ minutes to the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Fortenberry).

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a letter from dozens of religious organizations, including the Catholic Labor Network, Jewish Women International, National Council of Churches, Union for Reform Judaism, and United Church of Christ, Justice and Witness Ministries in support of the legislation as it is.

Dear Representative: On behalf of the undersigned religious

and faith-based organizations representing a diversity of

faith traditions and communities across the nation, we write

today in support of healthy workplace environments and

conditions for pregnant workers. We urge you to pass the

Pregnant Workers Fairness Act (H.R. 1065). People of faith

across the ideological spectrum understand that prioritizing

the health and safety of pregnant workers should not be a

partisan issue. The Pregnant Workers Fairness Act would

ensure that pregnant workers can continue safely working to

support their families during a pregnancy. The bill requires

employers to make the same sort of accommodations for

pregnant workers as are already in place for workers with

disabilities.

Our faith traditions affirm the dignity of pregnant

individuals and the moral imperative of ensuring their

safety. We also affirm the dignity of work and the obligation

to treat workers justly. It is immoral for an employer to

force a worker to choose between a healthy pregnancy and

earning a living. By passing the bipartisan Pregnant Workers

Fairness Act (H.R. 1065), Congress will ensure that workers

who are pregnant will be treated fairly in the workforce and

can continue earning income to support themselves and their

families. Efforts to distract from the central goal of

ensuring pregnant workers can maintain their health and the

health of their pregnancies by inserting unnecessary,

harmful, and politically divisive language into this bill

undermines our obligation to protect pregnant workers across

our country.

While many pregnant individuals continue working throughout

their pregnancies without incident, there are instances when

minor accommodations are necessary at the workplace to ensure

the safety of the expecting mother and the baby. All too

often, requests for simple workplace accommodations like a

stool to sit, a water bottle, or a bathroom break are denied.

Within the COVID-19 context, such critical accommodations

might include proper protective equipment, telework, or

staggered work schedules that offer employees commute times

which avoid crowded public transportation and increased

exposure. Currently, pregnant workers may continue to work

without necessary accommodations because they fear losing

their jobs and need the income, thus endangering their health

or the health of their pregnancy. Without these protections,

it is not uncommon for pregnant workers to be let go or

forced out onto unpaid leave for requesting accommodations.

Many others must quit their job to avoid risking the health

of their pregnancy.

Passing the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act is a moral and

economic imperative; two-thirds of women who had their first

child between 2006 and 2008, the last year for which data is

available, worked during pregnancy, and 88 percent of these

first-time mothers worked into their last trimester. Keeping

these women healthy and in the workforce is paramount to

family economic security. In 2020, 77.5 percent of mothers

with children under age 6 worked full time, and that number

goes up to 81.2 percent for employed mothers with children

ages 6 to 17. Millions of families rely on their earnings. In

2019, the last year for which data is available, 41 percent

of mothers were the sole or primary breadwinners in their

families, while 24.8 percent of mothers were co-breadwinners.

Whole families suffer when pregnant workers are forced out of

a job.

The undersigned religious and faith-based groups are united

in support of the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act. We strongly

urge you to vote for the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act.

Sincerely, the undersigned:

Ameinu, Arizona Jews for Justice, Aytzim: Ecological

Judaism, Bend the Arc: Jewish Action, Catholic Labor Network,

Church World Service, Columban Center for Advocacy and

Outreach, Congregation of Our Lady of Charity of the Good

Shepherd, U.S. Provinces, Faith Action Network, Faith Action

Network--Washington State.

Franciscan Action Network, Friends Committee on National

Legislation, Jewish Alliance for Law and Social Action,

Jewish Family & Children's Service of Greater Boston, Jewish

Women International, Justice Revival, Keshet, Leadership

Conference of Women Religious, National Advocacy Center of

the Sisters of the Good Shepherd, National Coalition Against

Domestic Violence.

National Council of Churches, National Council of Jewish

Women, NETWORK Lobby for Catholic Social Justice, Network of

Jewish Human Service Agencies, Pax Christi USA, T'ruah: The

Rabbinic Call for Human Rights, Union for Reform Judaism,

United Church of Christ, Justice and Witness Ministries, Uri

L'Tzedek.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Green).

Mr. Speaker, could you advise as to how much time is remaining on both sides?

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the majority leader of the United States House of Representatives.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Cohen), the chair of the Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties of the Judiciary Committee.

Mr. Speaker, how much time do I have remaining?

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 4\1/2\ minutes.

Mr. Speaker, the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act is based on the simple idea that no one in this country should have to choose between financial security and a healthy pregnancy.

This concept of fairness for pregnant workers is precisely why both Democrats and Republicans came together to pass the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act in the last Congress.

Let's be clear. Reasonable protections for workers are nothing new in our Nation's workplaces. Employers already have several decades of experience providing reasonable accommodations for workers with disabilities under the Americans with Disabilities Act.

We have heard about the fact that it doesn't include a religious exemption. Well, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act still applies. The First Amendment still applies. But there is no reason to give a wholesale exemption to religious organizations, because what are you exempting them from? Providing water for pregnant workers, giving a bathroom break to a pregnant worker, is that what they need an exemption from?

We need to make sure that those accommodations are available to all pregnant women who are working and that organizations with at least 15 workers are guaranteeing protections for pregnant workers in Federal law.

By doing that, this bill will eliminate the confusing patchwork of State and local workplace standards that workers and employers are currently forced to navigate. This legislation has broad support across the political spectrum and our communities.

In a recent nationwide survey, 89 percent of voters say they support the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act. Labor unions; civil rights groups, as we have heard; and the business community, including the Chamber of Commerce, have all endorsed this proposal as it is. It is imperative that we finally guarantee pregnant workers access to reasonable workplace accommodations.

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a letter signed by over 250 organizations in support of H.R. 1065, the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act.

May 11, 2021.

Re Pregnant Workers Fairness Act.

Dear Member of Congress: As organizations committed to

promoting the health and economic security of our nation's

families, we urge you to support the Pregnant

Workers Fairness Act, a crucial maternal and infant health

measure. This bipartisan legislation promotes healthy

pregnancies and economic security for pregnant workers and

their families and strengthens the economy.

In the last few decades, there has been a dramatic

demographic shift in the workforce. Not only do women now

make up almost half of the workforce, but there are more

pregnant workers than ever before and they are working later

into their pregnancies. The simple reality is that some

pregnant workers--especially those in physically demanding

jobs--will have a medical need for a temporary job-related

accommodation in order to maintain a healthy pregnancy. Yet,

too often, instead of providing pregnant workers with an

accommodation, employers will fire or push them onto unpaid

leave, depriving them of a paycheck and health insurance at a

time when it may be most needed.

Additionally, discrimination affects pregnant workers

across race and ethnicity, but women of color and immigrants

may be at particular risk. Latinas, Black women and immigrant

women are more likely to hold certain inflexible and

physically demanding jobs that can present specific

challenges for pregnant workers, such as cashiers, home

health aides, food service workers, and cleaners, making

reasonable accommodations on the job even more important, and

loss of wages and health insurance due to pregnancy

discrimination especially challenging. American families and

the American economy depend on women's income: we cannot

afford to force pregnant workers out of work.

In 2015, in Young v. United Parcel Service, the Supreme

Court held that a failure to make accommodations for pregnant

workers with medical needs will sometimes violate the

Pregnancy Discrimination Act of 1978 (PDA). Yet, even after

Young, pregnant workers are still not getting the

accommodations they need to stay safe and healthy on the job

and employers lack clarity as to their obligations under the

law. The Pregnant Workers Fairness Act will provide a clear,

predictable rule: employers must provide reasonable

accommodations for limitations arising out of pregnancy,

childbirth, or related medical conditions, unless this would

pose an undue hardship.

The Pregnant Workers Fairness Act is modeled after the

Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and offers employers

and employees a familiar reasonable accommodation framework

to follow. Under the ADA, workers with disabilities enjoy

clear statutory protections and need not prove how other

employees are treated in order to obtain necessary

accommodations. Pregnant workers deserve the same clarity and

streamlined process and should not have to ascertain how

their employer treats others in order to understand their own

accommodation rights, as the Supreme Court's ruling currently

requires.

Evidence from states and cities that have adopted laws

similar to the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act suggests that

providing this clarity reduces lawsuits and, most

importantly, helps ensure that workers can obtain necessary

reasonable accommodations in a timely manner, which keeps

pregnant workers healthy and earning an income when they need

it most. Workers should not have to choose between providing

for their family and maintaining a healthy pregnancy, and the

Pregnant Workers Fairness Act would ensure that all those

working for covered employers would be protected.

The need for the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act is

recognized across ideological and partisan lines. Thirty

states and D.C. have adopted pregnant worker fairness

measures with broad, and often unanimous, bipartisan support.

Twenty-five of those laws have passed within the last seven

years. These states include: Alaska, California, Colorado,

Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Kentucky, Louisiana,

Maryland, Maine, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Nebraska, New

Mexico, Nevada, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, North

Dakota, Oregon, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee,

Texas, Utah, West Virginia, Vermont, Virginia, and

Washington. Lawmakers have concluded that accommodating

pregnant workers who need it is a measured approach grounded

in family values and basic fairness.

The Pregnant Workers Fairness Act is necessary because it

promotes long-term economic security and workplace fairness.

When accommodations allow pregnant workers to continue to

work, they can maintain income and seniority, while forced

leave sets new parents back with lost wages and missed

advancement opportunities. When pregnant workers are fired,

not only do they and their families lose critical income, but

they must fight extra hard to re-enter a job market that is

especially brutal on those who are pregnant and unemployed.

The Pregnant Workers Fairness Act is vital because it

supports healthy pregnancies. The choice between risking a

job and risking the health of a pregnancy is one no one

should have to make. Pregnant workers who cannot perform some

aspects of their usual duties without risking their own

health or the health of their pregnancy, but whose families

cannot afford to lose their income, may continue working

under dangerous conditions. There are health consequences to

pushing pregnant workers out of the workforce as well. Stress

from job loss can increase the risk of having a premature

baby and/or a baby with low birth weight. In addition, if

workers are not forced to use their leave during pregnancy,

they may have more leave available to take following

childbirth, which in turn facilitates lactation, bonding with

and caring for a new child, and recovering from childbirth.

For all of these reasons, we urge you to support the

Pregnant Workers Fairness Act.

We also welcome the opportunity to provide you with

additional information.

Sincerely,

A Better Balance, American Civil Liberties Union, National

Partnership for Women & Families, National Women's Law

Center, 1,000 Days, 2020 Mom, 9to5, ACTION OHIO Coalition For

Battered Women, Advocates for Youth, AFL-CIO, African

American Ministers In Action, Alaska Breastfeeding Coalition,

Alianza Nacional de Campesinas, All-Options, Academy of

Nutrition and Dietetics, American Academy of Pediatrics,

American Association of University, Women (AAUW), American

Association of University, Women (AAUW) Indianapolis,

American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, American

Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees.

American Federation of Teachers, American Public Health

Association, AnitaB.org, Asian Pacific American Labor

Alliance, AFL-CIO, Association of Farmworker Opportunity

Programs, Association of Maternal & Child Health Programs,

Association of State Public Health Nutritionists, Autistic

Self Advocacy Network, Baby Cafe USA, Beaufort-Jasper-Hampton

Comprehensive Health Services, Black Mamas Matter Alliance,

Black Women's Roundtable, Bazelon Center for Mental Health

Law, Bloom, Baby! Birthing Services, Bread For the World.

Breastfeeding Coalition of Delaware, Breastfeeding Family

Friendly Communities, Breastfeeding Hawaii, BreastfeedLA,

Building Pathways, Inc, California Breastfeeding Coalition,

California WIC Association, California Work & Family

Coalition, California Women's Law Center, Casa de Esperanza:

National Latina@ Network for Healthy Families and

Communities, Center for American Progress, Center for Law and

Social Policy (CLASP), Center for LGBTQ Economic, Advancement

& Research, Center for Parental Leave Leadership, Center for

Public Justice, Center for Reproductive Rights, Chosen

Vessels Midwifery Services, Church World Service,

Clearinghouse on Women's Issues, CLUW.

Coalition for Restaurant Safety & Health, Coalition of

Labor Union Women (CLUW), Coalition on Human Needs,

Congregation of Our Lady of Charity of the Good Shepherd,

U.S. Provinces, Connecticut Women's Education and Legal Fund

(CWEALF), DC Dorothy Day Catholic Worker, Disability Rights

Education & Defense Fund, Disciples Center for Public

Witness, Economic Policy Institute, Equality Ohio, Equal Pay

Today, Equal Rights Advocates, Every Texan, Every Mother,

Inc., Family Equality, Family Values @ Work, Farmworker

Justice, Feminist Majority Foundation, First Focus Campaign

for Children.

Futures Without Violence, Gender Equality Law Center,

Gender Justice, Grandmothers for Reproductive Rights (GRR!),

Hadassah, The Women's Zionist, Organization of America, Inc.,

Hawai`i Children's Action Network Speaks!, Health Care For

America Now, Healthier Moms and Babies, Healthy Children

Project, Inc., Healthy and Free Tennessee, Healthy Mothers,

Healthy Babies Coalition of Georgia, HealthyWomen, Hispanic

Federation, Hoosier Action, Human Rights Watch, ICNA CSJ, In

Our Own Voice: National Black Women's Reproductive Justice

Agenda, Indiana Chapter of the American Academy of

Pediatrics, Indiana Institute for Working Families.

Indianapolis Urban League, Institute for Women's Policy

Research, Interfaith Workers Justice, Justice for Migrant

Women, Kansas Action for Children, Kansas Breastfeeding

Coalition, KWH Law Center for Social Justice and Change, La

Leche League Alliance, La Leche League USA, LatinoJustice

PRLDEF, LCLAA, Legal Aid at Work, Legal Momentum, The Women's

Legal Defense and Education Fund, Legal Voice, Mabel

Wadsworth Center, Main Street Alliance, Maine Women's Lobby,

Make It Work Nevada, Mana, A National Latina Organization.

March of Dimes, Maternal Mental Health Leadership Alliance,

MCCOY (Marion County Commission on Youth), Methodist

Federation for Social Action, Michigan Breastfeeding Network,

Michigan League for Public Policy, Midwives Alliance of

Hawaii, Minus 9 to 5, Mississippi Black Women's Roundtable,

Mom Congress, MomsRising, Monroe County NOW, Mother Hubbard's

Cupboard, Mothering Justice, Mother's Own Milk Matters, MS

Black Women's Roundtable & MS, Women's Economic Security

Initiative, NAACP, NARAL Pro-Choice America, National

Advocacy Center of the Sisters of the Good Shepherd, National

Asian Pacific American Women's Forum (NAPAWF).

National Association of Pediatric Nurse Practitioners,

National Association of Social Workers, National Association

of Social Workers NH Chapter, National Advocates for Pregnant

Women, National Birth Equity Collaborative, National Center

for Law and Economic Justice, National Center for Lesbian

Rights, National Center for Parent Leadership, Advocacy, and

Community Empowerment (National PLACE), National Coalition

for the Homeless, National Coalition of 100 Black Women,

Inc., Central Ohio Chapter, National Coalition Against

Domestic Violence, National Consumers League, National

Council for Occupational Safety and Health (National COSH).

National Council of Jewish Women, National Council of

Jewish Women Cleveland, National Council of Jewish Women

(NCJW), Atlanta Section, National Domestic Workers Alliance,

National Education Association, National Employment Law

Project, National Employment Lawyers Association, National

Health Law Program, National Hispanic Council on Aging,

National Network to End Domestic Violence, National

Organization for Women, National Urban League, National WIC

Association, National Women's Health Network, NETWORK Lobby

for Catholic Social Justice, New Jersey Breastfeeding

Coalition, New Jersey Citizen Action, New Jersey Time to Care

Coalition.

New Mexico Breastfeeding Task Force, New Working Majority,

North Carolina Justice Center, Northwest Arkansas

Breastfeeding Coalition, Nurse-Family Partnership, Nutrition

First, Ohio Alliance to End Sexual Violence, Ohio Coalition

for Labor Union Women, Ohio Domestic Violence Network, Ohio

Federation of Teachers, Ohio Religious Coalition for

Reproductive Choice, Ohio Women's Alliance, Oxfam America,

Paid Leave For All, Partnership for America's Children,

Peirce Consulting LLC, Philadelphia Coalition of Labor Union,

Women Philly CLUW, Philadelphia NOW Education Fund,

Philaposh, Physicians for Reproductive Health, Planned

Parenthood Federation of America.

PL+US: Paid Leave for the United States, Poder Latinx,

Pontikes Law LLC, PowHer New York, Pray First Mission

Ministries, Pretty Mama Breastfeeding, LLC, Prevent Child

Abuse NC, Public Advocacy for Kids (PAK), Restaurant

Opportunities Center United, RESULTS, RESULTS DC/MD, Shriver

Center on Poverty Law, SisterReach, SPAN Parent Advocacy

Network (SPAN), Solutions for Breastfeeding, Speaking of

Birth, Southwest Women's Law Center, The International Union,

United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement

Workers of America (UAW), The Leadership Conference on Civil

and Human Rights,

The Little Timmy Project, The National Domestic Violence

Hotline, The Ohio Women's Public Policy Network, The Women

and Girls Foundation of Southwest Pennsylvania, The Women's

Law Center of Maryland, The Zonta Club of Greater Queens,

TIME'S UP Now, U.S. Breastfeeding Committee, Ujima Inc: The

National Center on Violence Against Women in the Black

Community, UltraViolet, Union for Reform Judaism, United

Church of Christ Justice and Witness Ministries, United

Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers of America (UE), United

Food and Commercial Workers International Union (UFCW),

United Spinal Association, United State of Women, United

Steelworkers, United Today, Stronger Tomorrow.

Universal Health Care Action Network of Ohio, VA NOW, Inc.,

Virginia Breastfeeding Advisory Committee, Virginia

Breastfeeding Coalition, Voices for Progress, Wabanaki

Women's Coalition, We All Rise, West Virginia Breastfeeding

Alliance, Western Kansas Birthkeeping, William E. Morris

Institute for Justice (Arizona), Women and Girls Foundation

of Southwest Pennsylvania, Women Employed, Women of Reform

Judaism, Women's Fund of Greater Chattanooga.

Women's Fund of Rhode Island, Women's Law Project, Women's

March, Women's Media Center, Women's Rights and Empowerment

Network, Women4Change, Workplace Fairness, Workplace Justice

Project at Loyola Law Clinic, Worksafe, WV Breastfeeding

Alliance, WV Perinatal Partnership, Inc., YWCA Dayton, YWCA

Greater Cincinnati, YWCA Mahoning Valley, YWCA McLean County,

YWCA Northwestern Illinois, YWCA USA, YWCA of the University

of Illinois, ZERO TO THREE.

Mr. Speaker, lastly, I thank Chairman Nadler and Congressman Katko for their leadership on this important legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``yes'' vote, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I have one last speaker, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), the Speaker of the House of Representatives.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I thank Mr. Katko for cosponsoring this bill.

For as long as women have been in the workforce, they have faced discrimination because of their sex, which is only amplified when a woman is pregnant. Pregnant workers are often passed over for promotions, forced out on leave, whether paid or unpaid, and sometimes even fired. As we have seen time and again, these policies disproportionately impact women of color and low-wage hourly workers.

We all agree that pregnancy is not a disability, but sometimes pregnant workers need an easy fix, such as a stool or an extra bathroom break, to stay on the job. These accommodations are short in duration, and typically cost very little to provide, but they can mean the difference between keeping your job or putting your pregnancy at risk.

Given the low cost of these accommodations, we must ask why so many employers are unwilling to provide them and keep their pregnant workers employed. The answer, unfortunately, is that for many employers, a pregnant employee embodies negative gender stereotypes regarding motherhood and pregnancy. Society still expects women to conform to stereotypical notions that to be a good parent, you must choose between pregnancy and work.

This harmful stereotype puts working women in an impossible position of having to choose between their family's health and their financial well-being. While pregnancy may create some known physical limitations, this choice between work and pregnancy is a fallacy and can be remedied with a reasonable accommodation. Despite repeated attempts by Congress over the years to address this persistent gender discrimination, many employers still view pregnancy and work as incompatible.

Current law continues to allow employers to simply force most pregnant workers out on leave rather than even considering providing an accommodation. The Americans with Disabilities Act does require employers to accommodate a pregnant worker if her work limitations rise to the disability impacting one or more major life functions. Women who have limitations that do not rise to this level are not protected under the ADA, which was not designed to address pregnancy-related gender discrimination.

Furthermore, the courts have hamstrung other attempts by Congress to address pregnancy-related gender discrimination. Courts have interpreted the Pregnancy Discrimination Act to only require employers to provide an accommodation if they also accommodate nonpregnant employees similar in their ability or inability to work and employed in similar working conditions.

In order to prove discrimination, pregnant women must have perfect and complete employment and medical histories for every other employee in their workplace. It is obviously nearly impossible for employees to have that information, as evidenced by the fact that in over two-thirds of cases, courts have sided with employers who denied a pregnant worker accommodation.

Current law lets women fall through the cracks in every sector of our economy, including the public sector. Take, for example, the story of Devyn Williams, a correctional officer trainee with the Alabama Department of Corrections. From the moment Ms. Williams told her employer she was pregnant, they started a campaign to fire her.

When she presented a note from her doctor requesting to be excused from a monthly physical training session during her pregnancy, the State fired her. Her employer actually wrote an email stating that her doctor's note gave them grounds to dismiss Ms. Williams.

Even with that email in her possession, Ms. Williams is still litigating her case 5 years later. No one should have to go to Federal court to get a simple accommodation to safely stay on the job while pregnant.

The bipartisan Pregnant Workers Fairness Act before us today will close this gap in the law and create an affirmative right to accommodation for all pregnant workers. Using the familiar language of the ADA as a framework, the bill requires employers to provide reasonable accommodations to pregnant workers as long as the accommodation does not impose an undue hardship on the employer.

Courts know exactly how to interpret that language.

Employers know exactly what their responsibilities will be. But most importantly, women will have the certainty they can safely stay on the job.

That is why 30 States have passed pregnancy accommodation laws similar to the PWFA and over 200 business, civil rights, health, and labor organizations support the bill.

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record letters of support from two of those organizations, A Better Balance and the National Women's Law Center.

May 11, 2021.

Re The Pregnant Workers Fairness Act (H.R. 1065).

Dear Representative: On behalf of A Better Balance, I write

to express our strong support for the Pregnant Workers

Fairness Act (``PWFA''; H.R. 1065). This legislation will

ensure pregnant workers, particularly low-income workers and

women of color, are not forced to choose between their

paycheck and a healthy pregnancy. The bill will require

employers to provide reasonable accommodations for pregnant

workers unless doing so would impose an undue hardship on the

employer, similar to the accommodation standard already in

place for workers with disabilities.

Forty-two years after the passage of the Pregnancy

Discrimination Act, pregnant workers still face rampant

discrimination on the job and treatment as second-class

citizens, as I explained in detail in my Congressional

testimony before the House Education & Labor Committee in

March 2021 and October 2019, as well as in A Better Balance's

May 2019 report, Long Overdue. We urge you to support healthy

pregnancies, protect pregnant workers' livelihoods, and end

the systemic devaluation of women of color and vote YES on

the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act.

A Better Balance is a national non-profit legal

organization that advances justice for workers so they can

care for themselves and their loved ones without sacrificing

their economic security. Since our founding, we have seen day

in and day out the injustices that pregnant workers continue

to face because they need modest, temporary pregnancy

accommodations and have led the movement at the federal,

state, and local level to ensure pregnant workers can receive

the accommodations they need to remain healthy and working.

As I wrote in my 2012 Op-Ed in The New York Times ``Pregnant

and Pushed Out of Job,'' which sparked the PWFA's

introduction in Congress, ``[Gaps in our civil rights laws

leave this enormous class without the right to the modest

accommodations that would protect them.'' As a result, ``for

many women, a choice between working under unhealthy

conditions and not working is no choice at all.''

We founded A Better Balance 15 years ago because we

recognized that a lack of fair and supportive work-family

laws and policies--the ``care crisis''--was

disproportionately harming women, especially Black and Latina

mothers, in low-wage jobs. As I recently shared before

Congress, ``This bias and inflexibility often kicks in when

women become pregnant and then snowballs into lasting

economic disadvantage. We call this the `pregnancy penalty'--

and since day one, A Better Balance has recognized it as a

key barrier to gender equality in America.''

Through our free, national legal helpline, we have spoken

with thousands of pregnant workers, disproportionately women

of color, who have been fired or forced on to unpaid leave

for needing accommodations, often stripping them of their

health insurance when they need it most, driving them into

poverty, and at times, even homelessness. Other women we have

assisted were denied accommodations but needed to keep

working to support themselves and their families and faced

devastating health consequences, including miscarriage,

preterm birth, birth complications, and other maternal health

effects.

In the past year alone, we have heard from women across the

country who continue to face termination or are forced out

for needing pregnancy accommodations, in situations often

exacerbated by the pandemic and economic crisis. Tesia, a

retail store employee from Missouri called us in 2020 after

she was forced to quit her job because her employer refused

to let her carry a water bottle on the retail floor even

though she was experiencing severe dehydration due to hot

temperatures in the store this summer. A massage therapist

from Pennsylvania called us in June 2020 requesting to return

to work on a part-time basis on the advice of her OB-GYN

after experiencing cramping in her uterus. Her employer

responded that they would not accommodate her and cut off all

communication with her after that, forcing her out of work

just three months before she was due to give birth. A nurse

we spoke with from Pennsylvania who was six months pregnant

requested to avoid assignment to the COVID-19 unit. Though

her hospital was not overwhelmed by the pandemic at that

time, had many empty beds, and other workers were being sent

home, her employer refused her request and made heartless

comments mocking her need for accommodation. She decided not

to jeopardize her health and lost pay for missing those

shifts as a result. She also worried about being called to

the COVID unit shift constantly. Without the law on their

side, these women had little legal recourse because they

lived in a state without a state-level pregnant workers

fairness law.

Although the pandemic has shined a spotlight on these

issues, the stories we heard in 2020 are in many ways similar

to those we've been hearing for over a decade. ln 2012,

Armanda Legros was forced out of her job at an armored truck

company because her employer would not accommodate her

lifting restriction. Without an income, she struggled to feed

her newborn and young child. As she told the Senate Health,

Education, Labor, and Pensions committee in a hearing in

2014, ``Once my baby arrived just putting food on the table

for him and my four-year-old was a challenge. I was forced to

use water in his cereal at times because I could not afford

milk.'' The need for the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act

preceded our current public health crisis and will remain in

place beyond the pandemic, until the law is passed.

Current Federal Law is Failing Pregnant Workers: The Pregnant Workers

Fairness Act is the Solution

Gaps in federal law, namely the Pregnancy Discrimination

Act (PDA) and Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), mean

many pregnant workers in need of accommodation are without

legal protection in states that do not have statewide PWFA

protections. As we explained in our report Long Overdue,

``[w]hile the PDA bans pregnancy discrimination, it requires

employers to make accommodations only if they accommodate

other workers, or if an employee unearths evidence of

discrimination. The Americans with Disabilities Act requires

employers to provide reasonable accommodations to workers

with disabilities, which can include some pregnancy-related

disabilities. However, pregnancy itself is not a disability,

leaving a gap wherein many employers are in no way obligated

to accommodate pregnant workers in need of immediate relief

to stay healthy and on the job.''

Original analysis we conducted for Long Overdue found that

even though the 2015 Supreme Court Young v. UPS case set a

new legal standard for evaluating pregnancy accommodation

cases under the Pregnancy Discrimination Act, in two-thirds

of cases decided since Young, employers were permitted to

deny pregnant workers accommodations under the Pregnancy

Discrimination Act. As I shared in my recent testimony, women

are continuing to lose their cases because of this uniquely

burdensome standard.

That statistic, as devastating as it is, does not account

for the vast majority of pregnant workers who do not have the

resources to vindicate their rights in court. Beyond being

resource strapped, most pregnant workers we hear from do not

have the desire to engage in time-consuming and stressful

litigation. They want to be able to receive an accommodation

so they can continue working at the jobs they care about

while maintaining a healthy pregnancy.

The Americans with Disabilities Act is also inadequate for

pregnant workers for two reasons. First, because pregnancy is

not itself a disability under current disability law, a

pregnant worker who has no complications but seeks an

accommodation in order to avoid a complication, will not be

able to get an accommodation under the Americans with

Disabilities Act. Second, even though Congress expanded the

Americans with Disabilities Act in 2008, courts have

interpreted the ADA Amendments Act in a way that did

little to expand coverage even for those pregnant workers

with serious health complications. As one court concluded in

2018, ``Although the 2008 amendments broadened the ADA 's

definition of disability, these changes only have had a

modest impact when applied to pregnancy-related conditions.''

The Pregnant Workers Fairness Act is a Critical Economic Security,

Maternal Health, and Racial Justice Measure

Pregnant workers who are fired or forced on to unpaid leave

for needing accommodations face significant economic

hardship. In addition to losing their livelihood, many of

these workers lose their health benefits at a time when they

need them most, forcing them to switch providers, delay

medical care, or face staggering health care costs associated

with pregnancy and childbirth. Many workers must use up saved

paid or unpaid leave they had hoped to reserve to recover

from childbirth. We worked with one woman who was eight

months pregnant and whose hours were cut after she needed an

accommodation which meant she also lost her health insurance.

As a result, she asked her doctor if they could induce her

labor early, despite the health risks in doing so, so that

she would not be left facing exorbitant medical bills. In the

long term, being pushed out for needing pregnancy

accommodations also exacerbates the gender wage gap, as it

means not only a loss of pay, but also losing out on many

types of benefits such as 401K and retirement contributions,

social security contributions, pensions, as well as

opportunities for promotion and growth.

To be clear, most pregnant workers may not need

accommodations. However, for those who do, reasonable

accommodations can avert significant health risks. For

instance, in a Health Impact Assessment of state level

pregnant workers fairness legislation, the Louisville,

Kentucky Department of Public Health and Wellness concluded,

``Accommodating pregnant workers, upon their request, is

critical for reducing poor health outcomes . . . Improving

birth outcomes makes a sustainable impact for a lifetime of

better health.'' The report noted that those poor health

outcomes can include miscarriage, preterm birth, low birth

weight, preeclampsia (a serious condition and leading cause

of maternal mortality), among other issues. According to the

March of Dimes, in the U.S., nearly 1 in 10 babies are born

pre-term and the preterm birth rate among Black women is

nearly fifty percent higher than it is for all other women.

Preterm birth/low birthweight is a leading cause of infant

mortality in America. The Pregnant Workers Fairness Act is a

key measure to reduce poor maternal and infant health

outcomes.

Pregnancy accommodations are also a key solution, among

many, needed to address the Black maternal and infant health

crisis. Systemic racism has led to the shameful reality that

Black women in this country are three to four times likelier

to die from pregnancy-related causes than white women, and

Black babies are more than two times as likely to die in the

first year of life than white babies. At the same time, we

know Black women also face devastating health consequences

when they are unable to obtain needed pregnancy

accommodations to maintain their health and the health of

their pregnancies. When Tasha Mureil, a Black woman who

worked at a warehouse in Tennessee, received a doctor's note

saying she needed a lifting restriction and complained of

extreme stomach pain, she was forced to continue lifting on

the job. One day, she told a supervisor she was in pain and

asked to leave early. Her manager said no. Tragically, she

had a miscarriage the next day. Tasha was not alone. Three

more of her coworkers, also Black, miscarried after

supervisors dismissed their requests for reprieve from heavy

lifting. As Cherisse Scott, CEO of Memphis-based SisterReach,

explained ``It doesn't surprise me that this is the culture

of that workplace. I think it's important to look at the fact

that since we arrived here in chains, we [Black women] were

regarded as producers to fuel a labor force that couldn't

care less for us . . .'' The Pregnant Workers Fairness Act

will ensure pregnant workers and their health are valued and

that Black mothers, especially, are not treated as expendable

on the job.

The Pregnant Workers Fairness Act is a Bipartisan Bill That Has the

Support of This Country's Largest Business Groups

The Pregnant Workers Fairness Act is not a partisan bill.

Not only does it have strong bipartisan support in Congress,

but thirty states and five cities including Tennessee,

Kentucky, South Carolina, West Virginia, Illinois, Nebraska,

and Utah already have laws requiring employers to provide

accommodations for pregnant employees. All of the laws passed

in recent years are highly similar to the federal

legislation, and all passed with bipartisan, and often

unanimous, support.'' Many, including Tennessee's and

Kentucky's, were championed by Republican legislators.

Pregnant workers are a vital part of our economy. Three-

quarters of women will be both pregnant and employed at some

point during their lives'' Ensuring pregnant workers can

remain healthy and attached to the workforce is an issue of

critical importance, especially as this country faces a

devastating economic crisis. That is why leading business

groups like the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Society for Human

Resources Management, many major corporations, and local

chambers around the country including, Greater Louisville

Inc., one of Kentucky's leading chambers of commerce, support

this measure. The PWFA will provide much needed clarity in

the law which will lead to informal and upfront resolutions

between employers and employees and help prevent problems

before they start. Furthermore, accommodations are short term

and low cost. The Pregnant Workers Fairness Act will help

employers retain valuable employees and reduce high turnover

and training costs. The reasonable accommodation framework is

also borrowed from the American with Disabilities Act

framework so employers are already familiar with the

standard. Furthermore, keeping pregnant workers employed

saves taxpayers money in the form of unemployment insurance

and other public benefits.

The Pregnant Workers Fairness Act Uses a Familiar Framework That Provides Key Protections to Pregnant Workers and Clarity to Employers

The Pregnant Workers Fairness Act has several key

provisions that will address the inequality pregnant workers

continue to face at work. Employers, including private

employers with fifteen or more employees, will be required to

provide reasonable accommodations to qualified employees

absent undue hardship on the employer. Both the term

``reasonable accommodation'' and ``undue hardship'' have the

same definition as outlined in the American with Disabilities

Act. Similar to the Americans with Disabilities Act,

employers and employees will engage in an interactive process

in order to determine an appropriate accommodation. In order

to prevent employers from pushing pregnant employees out on

leave when they need an accommodation, the bill specifies

that an employer cannot require a pregnant employee to take

leave if another reasonable accommodation can be provided.

The bill also includes clear anti-retaliation language such

that employers cannot punish pregnant workers for requesting

or using an accommodation. This is critical as many pregnant

workers often do not ask for accommodations because they are

afraid they will face repercussions for requesting or needing

an accommodation.

Critically, the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act is also very

clear that a pregnant worker need not have a disability as

defined by the Americans with Disabilities Act in order to

merit accommodations under the law. Rather, the bill

indicates that pregnant workers with ``known limitations

related to pregnancy, childbirth, and related medical

conditions'' are entitled to reasonable accommodations.

``Known limitations'' is defined as a ``physical or mental

condition related to, affected by, or arising out of

pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions that the

employee or employee's representative has communicated to the

employer whether or not such condition meets the definition

of disability'' as set forth in the Americans with

Disabilities Act. This addresses the two challenges with the

ADA outlined above.

Now, more than ever, the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act is

an urgent maternal health, racial justice, and economic

security measure to keep pregnant workers healthy and earning

a paycheck. We cannot delay justice and fairness for pregnant

workers any longer. For the sake of this country's pregnant

workers and our nation's families, we implore Congress to put

aside its many differences and pass this legislation with a

strong bipartisan vote. We ask every Member of Congress to

vote YES on the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act. It is long

overdue.

Sincerely,

Dina Bakst,

Co-Founder & Co-President,

A Better Balance.

Mr. Speaker, that is why, last Congress, the House passed identical legislation with an overwhelming bipartisan vote. But as the economy reopens, the problem persists. The House must act again to pass this bill, and the Senate must take it up.

Providing reasonable accommodations to pregnant workers helps businesses, workers, and families. Passing this bill is long overdue, and I urge a ``yes'' vote.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentleman from Virginia for his kindness.

This has to pass today if we have any sense of fairness not only to women, but to our children.

The Pregnant Workers Fairness Act would establish that private-sector employers with more than 15 employees, and public-sector employers must make reasonable accommodations for pregnant employees, job applicants, and individuals with known limitations related to pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions.

Pregnant workers and individuals with known limitations related to pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions cannot be denied employment.

The Supreme Court decision, just recently, in 2015, that allowed pregnant workers to bring reasonable accommodation discrimination claims is not enough because pregnant workers are still being denied accommodations, because the Young decision set an unreasonably high standard for proving discrimination.

This is not discrimination. I have never seen a religious organization that wants to deny anyone any opportunity.

This is a fair assessment. I know it personally because I was denied a job because I was nursing. A job was taken away from me. When I was pregnant and was about to give birth, there was no definition of pregnancy leave for my position. At that time I was a lawyer, practicing law in a large firm, and it was, at best, two weeks and get back.

So I understand that this is essential for those workers in working conditions where they do not have the power to be protected, that they are doing heavy lifting, that they have physically demanding jobs, that they are the sole provider of their family.

This is important. Black and Latino women particularly suffer, minority women, particularly a burden.

Three in ten pregnant workers are employed in four of the occupations that make up the backbone of our communities. We must have this bill.

I ask my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a letter from the disabled community, mental health community, United Spinal Association, and others.

May 11, 2021.

Re Support for Pregnant Workers Fairness Act, H.R. 1065.

Hon. Bobby Scott,

Chairman, Committee on Education and Labor,

House of Representatives, Washington DC.

Hon. Virginia Foxx,

Ranking Member, Committee on Education and Labor, House of

Representatives, Washington DC.

Dear Chairman Scott and Ranking Member Foxx: As co-chairs

of the Consortium for Citizens with Disabilities (CCD) Rights

Task Force, we write in strong support of the Pregnant

Workers Fairness Act, H.R. 1065. CCD is the largest coalition

of national organizations working together to advocate for

federal public policy that ensures the self-determination,

independence, empowerment, integration and inclusion of

children and adults with disabilities in all aspects of

society.

The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)'s mandate that

covered employers make reasonable accommodations to ensure

equal opportunity for applicants and employees with

disabilities has been tremendously important in helping

people with disabilities secure and maintain employment.

While the ADA does not cover pregnancy itself as a

disability, in light of the ADA Amendments Act, which lowered

the standard for demonstrating a disability from what the

courts had previously applied, many pregnant workers who

experience pregnancy-related complications should be covered

as people with disabilities and entitled to reasonable

accommodations under the ADA. Yet many courts have continued

to interpret the ADA's coverage narrowly, and in practice,

large numbers of pregnant workers are not offered reasonable

accommodations. Furthermore, a clear pregnancy accommodation

standard will help prevent pregnancy-related complications

before they arise. Such accommodations should be provided to

pregnant workers so that they can remain in the workforce and

not lose their employment simply because they experience

pregnancy-related limitations.

The accommodation requirement of H.R. 1065 is limited, as

is the ADA's accommodation requirement, to those

accommodations

that are reasonable and would not impose an undue hardship.

That standard takes into account the needs of employers while

also ensuring that pregnant workers can stay on the job with

reasonable accommodations. This protection is critical not

only for pregnant workers but for our national economy.

The Pregnant Workers Fairness Act is particularly important

to people with disabilities. Many people with disabilities

who did not require accommodations before becoming pregnant

experience new complications due to how pregnancy impacts

their disabilities, and need accommodations once they become

pregnant. These workers are sometimes told that they are not

entitled to accommodations because the employer views the

need for accommodation as related to pregnancy rather than to

the worker's underlying disability.

We thank the Committee for moving the bill forward and urge

all members of the House of Representatives to vote for the

Pregnant Workers Fairness Act and oppose any motion to

recommit.

Sincerely,

Jennifer Mathis,

Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law.

Stephen Lieberman,

United Spinal Association.

Allison Nichol,

Epilepsy Foundation.

Kelly Buckland,

National Council on Independent Living.

Samantha Crane,

Autistic Self Advocacy Network.

Molly Burgdorf,

The Arc of the United States.

Co-chairs, CCD Rights Task Force.

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a letter representing organizations from Black Mamas Matter Alliance, to March of Dimes, to 1,000 Days to Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics.

May 11, 2021.

Re Support the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act.

Dear Representative: The undersigned organizations

dedicated to assuring quality maternal, infant, and child

health and well-being, improving pregnancy and birth

outcomes, and closing racial disparities in maternal health

enthusiastically support the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act

(H.R. 1065). Modeled after the Americans with Disabilities

Act, the bill would require employers to provide reasonable,

temporary workplace accommodations to pregnant workers as

long as the accommodation does not impose an undue hardship

on the employer. This bill is critically important because no

one should have to choose between having a healthy pregnancy

and a paycheck.

Congress must do all it can to end the prejudice pregnant

workers, especially Black pregnant workers and workers of

color, continue to face in the workplace. This includes

making sure when pregnant workers voice a need for reasonable

accommodations that those needs are met rather than penalized

and that the workplace is an environment where pregnant

workers do not fear asking for the accommodations they need

to maintain their health.

Three-quarters of women will be pregnant and employed at

some point in their lives.) (Most pregnant workers can expect

a routine pregnancy and healthy birth. However, health care

professionals have consistently recommended that some

pregnant individuals make adjustments in their work

activities to sustain a healthy pregnancy and prevent adverse

pregnancy outcomes, including preterm birth or miscarriage.

These medically necessary workplace accommodations can

include allowing additional bathroom breaks, opportunities to

stay hydrated, lifting restrictions, or access to a chair or

stool to decrease time spent standing.

Unfortunately, too many pregnant workers, particularly

pregnant people of color, face barriers to incorporating even

these small changes to their workdays. For example, Black

women experience maternal mortality rates three to four times

higher than white women, with Indigenous women similarly

experiencing disproportionately high rates. The circumstances

surrounding these alarming statistics can often be attributed

to a lack of access to care, including due to inflexible

workplaces, and deep biases in racial understanding. Various

social determinants such as health, education, and economic

status drastically influence the outcomes of pregnancy for

Black women leading to severe pregnancy-related

complications. As the Black Mamas Matter Alliance has pointed

out ``Health is determined in part by our access to social

and economic opportunities, the resources and supports that

are available in the places where we live, and the safety of

our workplaces . . . however, disparities in these conditions

of daily life give some people better opportunities to be

healthy than others.'' Black pregnant workers along with

Latinx and immigrant women are disproportionately likely to

work in physically demanding jobs that may lead to workers

needing modest accommodations to ensure a healthy pregnancy.

Too often, however, those requests are refused or ignored,

forcing pregnant workers of color to disproportionately

contend with unsafe working conditions.

Furthermore, Black mothers have among the highest labor

force participation rates in the country and 80 percent of

Black mothers are their family's primary breadwinner. Yet,

historically, Black women have been exploited in the

workplace, and that exploitation continues to this day.

Though Black women only comprise 14.3 percent of the

population, nearly thirty percent of pregnancy discrimination

complaints are filed by Black women. This is because of the

multiple forms of discrimination Black workers and other

workers of color too often face in the workplace. As scholar

Nina Banks has noted, ``The legacy of black women's

employment in industries that lack worker protections has

continued today since black women are concentrated in low-

paying, inflexible service occupations . . .'' Black women in

low wage jobs working during pregnancy face little support

from employers when safeguards do not address pregnancy

related accommodations. Faced with the threat of termination,

loss of health insurance, or other benefits, Black pregnant

people are often forced to keep working which can compromise

their health and the health of their pregnancy.

Workplace accommodations help safeguard a healthy pregnancy

or prevent harm to a higher-risk pregnancy. Across the

country, pregnant workers continue to be denied simple, no-

cost or lowcost, temporary adjustments in their work settings

or activities and instead risk being fired or forced to take

unpaid leave to preserve the health of their pregnancy.

This impossible choice forces many pregnant workers to

continue working without accommodations, putting women and

their pregnancies at risk of long-lasting and severe health

consequences. When pregnant workers must continue working

without accommodations, they risk miscarriage, excessive

bleeding, and other devastating health consequences. Black

women have the highest incidence of preterm birth and yet we

know that workplace accommodations such as reducing heavy

lifting, bending, or excessive standing can help prevent

preterm birth, the leading cause of infant mortality in this

country.

Black women also experience higher rates of preeclampsia,

which is one of the leading causes of maternal mortality. We

are still learning about how to prevent this dangerous

medical condition, yet we know that simply allowing workers

to take bathroom breaks can prevent urinary tract infections

which are ``strongly associated with preeclampsia. Similarly,

ensuring pregnant workers can drink a sufficient amount of

water can also help pregnant workers maintain their blood

pressure which is critically important since hypertensive

disorders (high blood pressure) are also a leading cause of

maternal morbidity and mortality. By putting a national

pregnancy accommodation standard in place, the Pregnant

Workers Fairness Act has the potential to improve some of the

most serious health consequences Black pregnant people

experience. Furthermore, the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act

will help remove one of the many barriers Black pregnant

people face at work by ensuring they are afforded immediate

relief under the law, and not thrown into financial dire

straits for needing pregnancy accommodations.

The Pregnant Workers Fairness Act is a measured approach to

a serious problem. As organizations dedicated to maternal

health and closing racial disparities in pregnancy and birth

outcomes, we understand the importance of reasonable

workplace accommodations to ensure that pregnant persons can

continue to provide for their families and have safe and

healthy pregnancies. We collectively urge swift passage of

the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act.

Sincerely,

Black Mamas Matter Alliance; March of Dimes; National WIC

Association; 1,000 Days; Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics;

American Academy of Pediatrics; American College of

Obstetricians and Gynecologists; Agricultural Justice

Project; Ancient Song Doula Services; Association of Maternal

& Child Health Programs; Baobab Birth Collective; Black

Women's Health Imperative; Breastfeeding in Combat Boots.

California WIC Association; Centering Equity, Race &

Cultural Literacy in Family Planning (CERCL-FP); Earth

Action, Inc.; Farmworker and Landscaper Advocacy Project;

Farmworker Association of Florida; Feminist Women's Health

Center; First Focus Campaign for Children; Healthy Mothers,

Healthy Babies Coalition of Georgia; Healthy Women; Human

Rights Watch; Mom2Mom Global; NARAL Pro-Choice America.

National Association of Nurse Practitioners in Women's

Health; National Birth Equity Collaborative; National

Partnership for Women & Families; National Women's Health

Network; Nebraska WIC Association; Nurse-Family Partnership;

Physicians for Reproductive Health; Planned Parenthood

Federation of America; Public Citizen, SisterReach;

SisterSong National Women of Color Reproductive Justice

Collective; U.S. Breastfeeding Committee; Workplace Fairness;

Wisconsin WIC Association; ZERO TO THREE.

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a letter from the YWCA dealing with 200 local organizations in 45 States.

Mr. Speaker, women are in the workplace. They are the backbone of this economy. We need to pass this legislation and pass it now.

I thank Mr. Scott and Mr. Nadler for their leadership.

Mr. Speaker, as a senior member of the Judiciary, Homeland Security, and Budget Committees, the Democratic Working Women Task Force, the Founder and Co-Chair of the Congressional Children's Caucus, and as cosponsor, I rise in strong support of H.R. 1065, the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act (PWFA), which would ensure that pregnant workers can continue to do their jobs and support their families by requiring employers to make workplace adjustments for those workers who need them due to pregnancy, childbirth, and related medical conditions, like breastfeeding.

The Pregnant Workers Fairness Act would establish that private sector employers with more than 15 employees and public sector employers must make reasonable accommodations for pregnant employees, job applicants, and individuals with known limitations related to pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions.

Similar to the Americans with Disabilities Act, employers are not required to make an accommodation if it imposes an undue hardship on an employer's business.

Pregnant workers and individuals with known limitations related to pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions cannot be denied employment opportunities, retaliated against for requesting a reasonable accommodation, or forced to take paid or unpaid leave if another reasonable accommodation is available.

Workers denied a reasonable accommodation under the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act will have the same rights and remedies as those established under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, including recovery of lost pay, compensatory damages, and reasonable attorneys' fees.

While the Pregnancy Discrimination Act (PDA) and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) provide some protections for pregnant workers, there is currently no federal law that explicitly and affirmatively guarantees all pregnant workers the right to a reasonable accommodation so they can continue working without jeopardizing their pregnancy.

The Supreme Court's landmark decision in Young v. United Parcel Service, 575 U.S. --, No. 12-1226, 135 S.Ct. 1338; 191 L. Ed. 2d 279 (2015) allowed pregnant workers to bring reasonable accommodation discrimination claims under the PDA.

But pregnant workers are still being denied accommodations because the Young decision set an unreasonably high standard for proving discrimination, requiring workers to prove that their employers accommodated non-pregnant workers with similar limitations.

The fact is, Mr. Speaker, there are no similar conditions to pregnancy.

As a result, in two-thirds of cases after Young, courts ruled against pregnant workers who were seeking accommodations under the PDA.

Providing accommodations ensures that women can work safely while pregnant instead of getting pushed out of work at a time when they may need their income the most.

The Pregnant Workers Fairness Act is especially important considering that many pregnant workers hold physically demanding or hazardous jobs, and thus may be especially likely to need reasonable accommodations at some point during their pregnancy.

Mr. Speaker, research shows that pregnant workers are likely to hold jobs that involve standing and making continuous movements, which can raise specific challenges during pregnancy.

Such physically demanding work--including jobs that require prolonged standing, long work hours, irregular work schedules, heavy lifting, or high physical activity--carries an increased risk of pre-term delivery and low birth weight.

Twenty-one (20.9) percent of pregnant workers are employed in low- wage jobs, which are particularly likely to be physically demanding.

Pregnant black and Latina women are disproportionately represented in low-wage jobs, which means as a result, these workers are especially likely to stand, walk or run continuously during work, and therefore may be more likely to need an accommodation at some point during pregnancy to continue to work safely.

Three in ten pregnant workers are employed in four of the occupations that make up the backbone of our communities: elementary school teachers, nurses, and home health aides.

Employers can accommodate pregnant workers because pregnant women make up a small share of the workforce, even in the occupations where they are most likely to work, which means that only a very small share of an employer's workforce is likely to require pregnancy accommodations in any given year since less than two percent of all workers in the United States are pregnant each year.

Not all pregnant workers require any form of accommodation at work, so only a fraction of that small fraction will need accommodations.

For example, pregnant women are most likely to work as elementary and middle school teachers but only three percent (3.2 percent) of all elementary and middle school teachers are pregnant women.

But workers employed in four of the ten most common occupations for pregnant workers--retail salesperson; waiter or waitress;

nursing, psychiatric and home health aide; and cashier--who report continuously standing on the job would particularly benefit from this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, prolonged standing at work has been shown to more than triple the odds of pregnant women taking leave during pregnancy or becoming unemployed.

Another four of the ten most common occupations for pregnant workers--waiter or waitress; nursing, psychiatric and home health aide; cashier; and secretaries and administrative assistants--involve making repetitive motions continuously on the job which have been shown to increase the likelihood of pregnant women taking sick leave.

Pregnant workers in low-wage jobs are particularly in need of this legislation granting them the clear legal right to receive accommodations because, in addition to the physically demanding nature of their jobs, they often face inflexible workplace cultures that make it difficult to informally address pregnancy-related needs.

For instance, workplace flexibility--such as the ability to alter start and end times or take time off for a doctor's appointment--is extremely limited for workers in low-wage jobs.

Over 40 percent of full-time workers in low-wage jobs report that their employers do not permit them to decide when to take breaks; between two-thirds and three-quarters of full-time workers in low-wage jobs report that they are unable to choose their start and quit times; and roughly half report having very little or no control over the scheduling of hours more generally.

The second most common occupation for pregnant Latinas--maids and housekeeping cleaners--is especially physically demanding because, according to the data, 80 percent of maids and housekeeping cleaners stood continuously, 38 percent were exposed to disease daily, and 70 percent walked or ran continuously on the job.

Occupations that have seen the most growth among pregnant women in the past decade expose many workers to disease or infection daily; depending on the disease, this can pose particular challenges to some pregnant workers at some points during pregnancy.

When pregnant workers are exposed to some diseases, they face particular risks; pregnant women with rubella are at risk for miscarriage or stillbirth and their developing fetuses are at risk for severe birth defects.

Mr. Speaker, no one should have to choose between a paycheck and a healthy pregnancy, which is why they should have clear rights to reasonable accommodations on the job to ensure they are not forced off the job at the moment they can least afford it.

I urge all Members to join me in voting for H.R. 1065, the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act.

This meaningful legislation will protect pregnant workers who have suffered because of insufficient workplace protections, a story far too familiar to many workers in my district in Memphis, Tennessee.

In 2018, I was shocked to read of the disturbing workplace abuses in an XPO Logistics warehouse in Memphis, which was reported in The New York Times. Warehouse workers were denied minor and reasonable accommodations, like less taxing workloads and shortened work shifts. These were pregnant workers.

As a result, several women suffered miscarriages, some of which happened while they were still on the warehouse floor.

I, along with Congresswoman DeLauro and 97 of my colleagues, wrote to the Education and Labor Committee to urge the 115th Congress to take decisive action and consider the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act.

I also participated in the Education and Labor Committee's subcommittee hearing on this bill last Congress.

Many pregnant workers are being forced to choose between maintaining a healthy pregnancy and losing their jobs at a time when both their healthcare and their economic security are crucial.

The Pregnant Workers Fairness Act will ensure that pregnant workers get accommodations when they need them without facing discrimination or retaliation in the workplace by putting in place a clear, explicit pregnancy accommodation framework similar to the accommodation standard that has been in place for decades for workers with disabilities.

I urge passage of this bill. I include in the Record the Better Balance report on the need for this law in spite of inaction by the State and the need for the 14th Amendment to be invoked. About eight States are included here.

May 13, 2021.

A Better Balance Legal Analysis of State Actor Pregnancy-Related Gender

Discrimination

Decades after Congress passed the Pregnancy Discrimination

Act (``PDA''), pregnant workers continue to face pernicious

and unconstitutional gender discrimination at the hands of

their employers, including state actors.

Evidence of persistent discrimination by state actors

against pregnant workers in need of accommodation warrants--

and indeed demands--Congress's exercise of its Section 5

power under the Fourteenth Amendment to remedy and deter

violations of equal protection.

In the 21st century, sex discrimination against pregnant

workers often takes the form of reliance on insidious gender

role stereotyping concerning women's place in the home and in

the workplace. Too often, such stereotypes--such as, that

motherhood and employment are irreconcilable--force pregnant

women ``to choose between having a child and having a job.''

Stereotyping surrounding pregnancy and motherhood is

pervasive, and biases can be intentional, implicit,

unconscious, or structural. For instance, a study published

in June 2020 surveying pregnant women who work in physically

demanding jobs found that 63 percent of women surveyed

worried about facing negative stereotypes related to their

pregnancy, and many avoided asking for accommodations,

sensing instead that they needed to overexert themselves

physically in order to avoid stereotyping. As a result, the

study's authors recommended ``creat[ing] better social

support for utilizing pregnancy accommodation.'' Those

pregnant women who are let go or pushed out for needing

accommodation face a double burden based on stereotyping:

After losing critical income at the very moment their growing

family needs it most, they must then fight to re-enter a job

market that assumes new mothers are less competent and

committed than fathers and their childless peers.

As the Supreme Court has repeatedly reaffirmed, such sex

role stereotyping is a problem of constitutional magnitude.

Indeed, the constitutional right to be free of invidious sex

stereotyping ``at the faultline between work and family'' is

now well-established For instance, in Nevada Department of

Human Resources v. Hibbs, the Court rejected the ``sex-role

stereotype'' that ``women's family duties trump those of the

workplace. Craig v. Boren, the Court rejected ``outdated

misconceptions concerning the role of females in the home

rather than in the 'marketplace and world of ideas.' '' And,

in Califano v. Westcott, the Court rejected ``the baggage of

sexual stereotypes that presumes the father has the primary

responsibility to provide a home and its essentials, while

the mother is the center of home and family life.''

Yet state employers continue to participate in and foster

unconstitutional sex discrimination, including gender-role

stereotyping, by failing to provide reasonable accommodations

to allow pregnant women to be both mothers and wage earners.

The problem is pervasive. To offer just a handful of

examples:

In Alabama, Devyn Williams, a correctional officer trainee,

informed her employer, the Alabama Department of Corrections,

that she was pregnant. Corrections officials immediately

began to discuss how to terminate Williams, with one deputy

commissioner commenting in an email, ``Let me guess, we have

to pay this person [Williams] through the entire

pregnancy[?]''. At officials' urging, Williams provided a

doctor's note recommending she be excused from the state's

monthly physical training session due to her pregnancy. Upon

receipt of the note, one corrections official emailed the

others, ``[t]his [doctor's note] will give us grounds to

separate [Plaintiff] from service.'' The state promptly fired

Williams. In one sense, Williams was lucky: Alabama officials

had the poor judgment to document their animus. Their emails

made explicit the unconstitutional sex stereotypes motivating

their refusal to accommodate. Employers do not always put the

animus underlying their failures to accommodate in

discoverable emails. The PDA has failed to root out such

intentional yet ``subtle [forms of] discrimination that [are]

difficult to detect on a case-by-case basis,'' thanks in part

to a proof structure that demands onerous and lengthy

litigation. (Williams was still litigating her case nearly

five years after she requested accommodation.)

In Oklahoma, Clarisa Borchert, a childcare attendant,

informed her employer, a state university child care center,

that she was pregnant. When Borchert's doctor recommended a

20-pound lifting restriction--which Borchert believed would

allow her to continue to care for infants--the state told her

that she would not be permitted to work ``with restrictions

of any kind.'' The gender-based animus underlying the state's

blanket refusal to accommodate Borchert's pregnancy was

revealed by the ``daily disparaging comments'' made by

Borchert's boss and other employees about her pregnancy. For

instance, in response to Borchert's ``severe and ongoing

nausea and vomiting caused by her pregnancy,'' her boss told

her to ``get over it'' and accused her of feigning illness,

telling Borchert that she ``wasn't

really sick.'' Soon thereafter, the state issued Borchert a

Separation Notice.

In New York, Lakia Jackson, a nurse technician, informed

her employer, a state university, that she was pregnant.

Jackson repeatedly requested assistance changing patients,

which her state employer denied because, in the words of her

supervisors, the university ``does not accommodate pregnant

women.'' As a result of the strain of changing one patient,

Jackson had to be rushed to the emergency room and ``nearly

[went] into pre-term labor.'' In defense of its refusal to

accommodate Jackson's pregnancy, her state employer invoked a

common sex stereotype about pregnant women: that she was

simply ``using her pregnancy as an excuse for not doing her

work.'' The state terminated her shortly thereafter.

In Tennessee, Amber Burnett, a veterinary assistant,

informed her employer, a state university, that she was

pregnant. When Burnett alerted her employer that she could

still work but that her physician had advised minimal or no

contact with diseased animals placed in isolation, her

employer told her that ``she should begin looking for another

job.'' Shortly thereafter, the state terminated her. In

justifying the termination, the state claimed concern for the

potential for harm to Burnett's pregnancy--a rationale that

the Supreme Court recognized decades ago is rooted in

impermissible sex discrimination.

In North Carolina, Lauren Burch, a special agent, informed

her employer, the state alcohol enforcement agency, that she

was pregnant. On her doctor's advice, Burch requested light

duty status to avoid ``situations that would put her at risk

for physical altercations.'' Her state employer approved the

request but assigned her to a worksite that ``required a

daily, six-hour round-trip commute'' (for which she was

provided ``no work credit for travel time'' and was forced to

use ``her personal vehicle at her own expense''). The state

refused to grant her an assignment with a shorter commute--

despite Burch's doctor's recommendation that she travel no

more than 1.5 hours--and pushed her onto unpaid leave.

In Illinois, Tracy Atteberry, a police officer, informed

her employer, the Illinois State Police, that she was

pregnant. Upon the advice of her doctor, she requested light

duty, which the state denied, despite providing light duty to

other non-pregnant employees with medical needs. Instead, the

state forced Atteberry to use up her personal time prior to

giving birth to her child.

In Oregon, Maricruz Caravantes, a caregiver, informed her

employer, a state agency, that she had a high-risk pregnancy.

Upon the advice of her doctor, Caravantes requested--and was

denied--assistance with lifting patients, causing her to

``seriously injure[]'' her back.

In Kansas, Deanna Porter, a psychiatric aide, informed her

employer, a state hospital, that she was pregnant. When

Porter's doctor advised that she avoid lifting more than 40

pounds, the state refused to allow Porter to work with the

lifting restriction in place and sent her home. Shortly

thereafter, she was terminated.

Due to a combination of gaps in the law and narrow judicial

interpretations, Congress's efforts through the PDA to

eradicate ``the pervasive presumption that women are mothers

first, and workers second'' have ``proved ineffective for a

number of reasons.'' First, as described in A Better

Balance's report, ``Long Overdue,'' two-thirds of women lose

their PDA pregnancy accommodation claims in court. A high

percentage of these losses can be traced to courts' rejection

of pregnant workers' comparators or to workers' inability to

find a comparator, under the Supreme Court's Young framework.

The Young standard also has done little to create clarity in

the law, sowing confusion among lower courts, juries, and

litigants alike. As A Better Balance co-president Dina Bakst

testified earlier this year:

[R]ecent decisions further illustrate how steep a barrier

Young and its comparator standard have erected to proving

pregnancy discrimination in court. Workers, especially low-

wage workers--and particularly women of color--typically do

not have access to their coworkers' personnel files and do

not otherwise know how they are being treated. Often, this

information is rightly confidential, which means a pregnant

worker would be unable to find the information needed to show

they are entitled to an accommodation.

Second, litigating accommodation cases under the PDA has

proven so onerous and timeconsuming as to be wholly

ineffective in the lives of real women. As noted above, Devyn

Williams was still litigating her accommodation case nearly

five years after she requested accommodation. Such delay has

devastating consequences for pregnant workers who need

accommodation promptly, not five years later. As our co-

president testified:

Most pregnant workers do not have the resources, time, or

desire to engage in timeconsuming and stressful litigation to

attempt to obtain such information. They want, and need, to

be able to receive an accommodation promptly, so they can

continue earning income while maintaining a healthy

pregnancy.

Finally, even when pregnant workers win their PDA

accommodation cases, it is because they are lucky enough to

find the perfect comparator or, like Devyn Williams, to have

a state employer foolish enough to document their gender

animus in a ``smoking gun'' email--the kinds of evidence

courts have deemed necessary to prevail under the PDA. The

many pregnant women who lack such evidence--but who

nevertheless are denied the accommodations they need due to

their state employers' animus and stereotypes--do not bring

suit at all, a reality A Better Balance often hears from

workers on its legal helpline. If a standard is so onerous as

to prevent workers from seeking justice, that means current

law offers no adequate remedy for a pernicious,

unconstitutional form of discrimination.

The PDA's failure to combat states' record of

unconstitutional gender discrimination demands further action

by Congress. Where, as here, ``Congress ha[s] already tried

unsuccessfully'' to remedy violations of equal protection and

such ``previous legislative attempts ha[ve] failed,'' then

``added prophylactic measures'' are justified and, indeed,

imperative. The Pregnant Workers Fairness Act (PWFA) is just

such a measure.

The PWFA is narrow, tailored, and targeted to combat gender

discrimination, including invalid sex role stereotypes about

the place of ``mothers or mothers-to-be'' in the work sphere.

By requiring reasonable accommodation of pregnant workers

only where doing so would not cause employers undue hardship,

the PWFA is carefully crafted to deter and quickly remedy

unconstitutional sex discrimination in the hiring, retention,

and promotion of young (potentially-pregnant) women and soon-

to-become mothers. Moreover reasonable accommodations for

pregnancy are inherently time-limited, and the vast majority

of accommodations pregnant workers need, like the right to

carry a water bottle or sit on a stool at a retail counter,

are low-cost or no-cost. The minimal (or non-existent)

economic cost of a pregnancy accommodation is one reason

major industry groups, such as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce,

champion the PWFA.

We urge Congress to pass this much-needed legislation:

Mr. Speaker, Sunday, we celebrated Mother's Day. Today, we act to protect mothers-to-be.

Every pregnant worker deserves the opportunity to support their family without risking the health of their pregnancy. Yet, pregnant workers, especially those in low-wage and physically demanding jobs, are often forced to choose between their health and a paycheck.

The Pregnant Workers Fairness Act will correct these flaws in our system to ensure that pregnant women are treated fairly in the workplace.

Women carried the brunt of losses during the pandemic, losing a net 5.4 million jobs. We need to make it easier for them to get back to work, and that must include pregnant women.

I am proud that my home State of New Mexico passed legislation to protect pregnant workers, with bipartisan support, last year. It is time for Congress to do the same.

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a letter from the ACLU in support of the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act.

May 11, 2021.

Re Vote YES for the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act (H.R.

1065).

Dear Members of Congress: On behalf of the American Civil

Liberties Union, and our more than 1.8 million members,

supporters, and activists, we write to express our support

for H.R. 1065, the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act. This

critical legislation would combat an all-too-common form of

pregnancy discrimination while also providing employers much-

needed clarity on their obligations under the law. We urge

all members of the House of Representatives to vote in favor

of this measured, bipartisan, and longoverdue legislation.

The ACLU has long fought to advance women's equality and

opportunity by challenging laws and policies that

discriminate against women in the workplace and by

dismantling the stereotypes that constrain women's full

engagement and participation at work. Although the Pregnancy

Discrimination Act has played a critical role over the past

40 years in securing women's place in the workforce, too many

women continue to be marginalized at work because of their

decision to become pregnant and have children. This kind of

discriminatory treatment has become most obvious when

pregnant workers--predominantly women in physically demanding

or male-dominated jobs, low-wage workers, and women of

color--request temporary accommodations to address a medical

need and instead are terminated or placed on unpaid leave,

causing devastating economic harm. The Pregnant Workers

Fairness Act would respond to this problem by requiring

employers with fifteen or more employees to provide

reasonable and temporary accommodations to pregnant workers

if doing so would not impose an undue hardship on the

business.

Pregnancy Discrimination, the PDA, and Young v. UPS, Inc.

Pregnancy and childbirth are often locus points for

discrimination against women in the workforce. Policies

excluding or forcing the discharge of pregnant women from the

workplace were common in the 1970s and reflected the

stereotype that a woman's primary or sole duties were to be a

homemaker and raise children. The adoption of the Pregnancy

Discrimination Act (PDA) in 1978, an amendment to Title VII

of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, established that

discrimination because of ``pregnancy, childbirth, and

related medical conditions'' was a form of discrimination

``because of sex.'' It was intended to dismantle the

stereotype, and the policies based on it, that viewed

pregnant women's labor force participation as contingent,

temporary, and dispensable without regard to their individual

capacity to do the job in question.

The PDA also required employers to treat pregnant workers

the same as other temporarily disabled workers because

Congress recognized that working women contributed to their

families' economic stability and should not have to choose

between a career and continuing a pregnancy. Despite the PDA,

pregnancy discrimination persists, and for many years courts

routinely ruled against workers who brought pregnancy

accommodation cases where they alleged discrimination when an

employer provided a job modification to an employee

temporarily unable to work but failed to do the same for a

pregnant worker.

In Young v. United Parcel Service, Inc., the Supreme Court

granted certiorari to resolve a split in the Circuits and for

the first time addressed the PDA's application in the context

of an employee who needed an accommodation due to pregnancy.

The Court concluded that the statute's mandate applied with

equal force in these circumstances and articulated a modified

analysis for failure-to-accommodate cases. The Court also

offered a new pretext analysis that plaintiffs may rely on

when litigating claims under the PDA's second clause. Since

Young, the reflexive approval of employer policies favoring

workers with occupational injuries has largely disappeared.

However, the bright-line deference to employer policies, and

the overbroad reading of such policies as ``pregnancy-

blind,'' has been replaced, in many instances, with an unduly

demanding standard for plaintiffs in making a showing of

differential treatment--even at the initial pleading stage,

prior to having the benefit of discovery. This trend

undermines Young's intent of demanding that employers justify

failures to accommodate pregnancy. Instead, they impose

unwarranted--and often insurmountable--burdens of proof on

pregnant workers that increasingly confer ``least favored

nation'' status on the protected trait of pregnancy. The

stories of clients the ACLU has represented--both as direct

counsel and as lead amicus--illustrate the harm:

Lochren v. Suffolk County: Sandra Lochren and five other

police officers sued the Suffolk County Police Department

(SCPD) for refusing to temporarily reassign pregnant officers

to deskwork and other non-patrol jobs, even though it did so

for officers injured on the job. But for those officers who

opted to keep working patrol, SCPD also failed to provide

bulletproof vests or gun belts that would fit

pregnant officers. Their only safe option was to go on

unpaid leave long before their due dates.

Cole v. SavaSeniorCare: When Jaimie Cole, a certified

nursing assistant, was in her third trimester, she developed

a high risk of preeclampsia, a condition that can lead to

preterm labor or even death. Her doctor advised her not to do

any heavy lifting. Cole's

job required her to regularly help patients in and out of bed

and assist with bathing, so she asked for a temporary light

duty assignment. Instead, her employer sent her home without

pay for the rest of her pregnancy.

Myers v. Hope Healthcare Center: Asia Myers, a certified

nursing assistant, experienced complications early in her

pregnancy and was told by her doctor that she could continue

to work, but should not do any lifting on the job. Although

her employer had a history of providing light duty to workers

with temporary lifting restrictions, Myers was told not to

return to work until her restrictions were lifted. She was

out of work for over a month with no income or health

insurance coverage.

Hicks v. City of Tuscaloosa: Stephanie Hicks, a narcotics

investigator with the Tuscaloosa Police Department in

Alabama, wanted to breastfeed her new baby, but her

bulletproof vest was restrictive, painful, and prone to

causing infection in her breasts. She asked for a desk job

but her employer refused, even though it routinely granted

desk jobs to officers unable to fulfill all of their patrol

duties. Instead, it offered her an ill-fitting vest that put

her at risk.

Legg v. Ulster County: Corrections Officer Ann Marie Legg

was denied light duty during her pregnancy, even though

Ulster County gave such assignments to guards injured on the

job. In her third trimester, Legg had to intervene in a

fight, prompting her to go on leave rather than face future

risks.

Allen v. AT&T Mobility: Cynthia Allen lost her job because

she accumulated too many ``points'' under AT&T Mobility's

punitive attendance policy due to pregnancy-related symptoms

such as nausea. The policy makes accommodation for late

arrivals, early departures, and absences due to thirteen

enumerated reasons, some medical and some not, but none due

to pregnancy and pregnancy-related symptoms.

Durham v. Rural/ Metro Corp: Michelle Durham was an EMT in

Alabama whose job often required her to lift patients on

stretchers into an ambulance. When she became pregnant, her

health care provider imposed a restriction on heavy lifting.

Durham asked Rural/Metro for a temporary modified duty

assignment during her pregnancy, but was rejected, despite

the company's policy of giving such assignments to others.

She was told her only option was to take unpaid leave.

Why Congress Should Pass the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act

It is indisputable that Young was an important step forward

to combat pregnancy discrimination. Yet, too many pregnant

workers continue to face insurmountable obstacles in HR

offices, where employers misunderstand their obligations

under the PDA, and in courtrooms across the country, where

judges use Young to hinder access to needed accommodations.

Despite the clear mandates of the PDA, the current legal

landscape leaves exposed and unprotected those pregnant

workers who want to continue working while maintaining a

healthy pregnancy.

Similarly, many pregnant workers have not found protection

or recourse under the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990

because absent complications, pregnancy is not considered a

disability that substantially limits a major life activity.

This legal reality means that many of the symptoms of a

normal pregnancy that can disrupt a worker's ability to do

her job--such as extreme fatigue, morning sickness, or

limitations on her mobility--are not entitled to

accommodation. Moreover, many pregnant workers seek

accommodation precisely because they wish to avoid the

conditions that might disable them or endanger their

pregnancy. Yet because the ADA is so expansive with respect

to other conditions that qualify as disabilities, the

population of non-pregnant workers entitled to reasonable

accommodation is exponentially larger than when the PDA was

enacted more than 40 years ago. Accordingly, without such

express entitlement to accommodation, pregnant workers face

an untenable ``least favored nation'' status in the

workplace.

The simple solution to this no-win situation is the

Pregnant Workers Fairness Act. This legislation, modeled

after the ADA and using a framework familiar to most

employers, takes a thoughtful and measured approach to

balancing the needs of working people and employers by

requiring businesses with fifteen or more employees to

provide workers with temporary, reasonable accommodation for

known limitations related to pregnancy, childbirth, or

related medical conditions if doing so would not place an

undue hardship on business. It also prohibits employers from

forcing a pregnant employee to take a leave of absence if a

reasonable accommodation can be provided; prevents employers

from denying job opportunities to an applicant or employee

because of the individual's need for a reasonable

accommodation; prevents an employer from forcing an applicant

or employee to accept a specific accommodation; and prohibits

retaliation against individuals who seek to use PWFA to

protect their rights.

At a time when women constitute nearly 60 percent of the

workforce and contribute significantly to their families'

economic well-being, passage of PWFA is a dire necessity.

When a pregnant worker is forced to quit, coerced into taking

unpaid leave, or fired because her employer refuses to

provide a temporary job modification, the economic impact can

be severe; if she is the sole or primary breadwinner for her

children, as nearly half of working women are, her entire

family will be without an income when they most need it. She

further may be denied unemployment benefits because she is

considered to have left her job voluntarily. She may have few

if any additional resources on which to rely. PWFA ensures

that women would not face such devastating consequences.

Instead, it treats pregnancy for what it is--a normal

condition of employment.

PWFA promotes women's health. Accommodations make a

difference in physically demanding jobs (requiring long

hours, standing, lifting heavy objects, etc.) where the risk

of preterm delivery and low birth weight are significant. The

failure to provide accommodations can be linked to

miscarriages and premature babies who suffer from a variety

of ailments. This bill would be an important contribution in

the fight to improve maternal health and mortality.

There is also a strong business case for PWFA. Providing

pregnant employees with reasonable accommodations increases

worker productivity, retention, and morale, and reduces

health care costs associated with pregnancy complications.

PWFA can also reduce litigation costs by providing greater

clarity regarding an employer's legal obligations to pregnant

workers. In fact, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce stated that

PWFA would establish ``clear guidelines and a balanced

process that works for employers and employees alike.''

Additionally, a group of leading private sector employers

expressed their support for PWFA and noted ``women's labor

force participation is critical to the strength of our

companies, the growth of our economy and the financial

security of most modern families.''

Finally, 30 states across the political and ideological

spectrum have recognized the benefits of providing reasonable

accommodations to pregnant workers. Congress should ensure

that all pregnant workers, not just some, have the

protections they need.

It is time for Congress to act and pass the Pregnant

Workers Fairness Act.

Sincerely,

Ronald Newman,

National Political Director.

Gillian Thomas,

Senior Staff Attorney.

Vania Leveille,

Senior Legislative Counsel.