The Pregnant Workers Fairness Act (PWFA) is still fairly new, and there are limited cases to guide HR in shaping policies and internal practices. The cases below, filed by the EEOC, offer insight into how the agency is approaching and reviewing allegations of PWFA violations.

Attendance policy

A case was just settled by the EEOC and Polaris Industries Inc. concerning the application of the PWFA and the company’s attendance policy.  In this case, which was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama, the EEOC alleged that the employer refused to excuse an employee’s absences for pregnancy-related conditions and medical appointments and applied their attendance policy point system on the situation as well as requiring her to work mandatory overtime despite her physician’s restrictions limiting her to working no more than 40 hours per week during her pregnancy.  Polaris stated that mandatory overtime is an essential condition of the job, even though the company had excess employees in her work line.  The case was resolved by consent decree for $55,000.  Polaris also agreed to update its policies to align with the PWFA's requirements and ensure its training and recordkeeping practices follow the law. The consent decree contains no admission of any wrongdoing by Polaris.

Breaks

In EEOC v. Urologic Specialists of Oklahoma, Inc., Case 4:24-cv-0452, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma, the EEOC sued a medical practice, alleging that it violated the PWFA and the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) when it did not allow a medical assistant to sit, take breaks, or work part-time as her physician stated was necessary to protect her health and safety.  The employee was in the final trimester of a high-risk pregnancy and had a note from her physician. Instead, the practice forced her to take unpaid leave and refused to guarantee that she would have breaks to express breast milk. When she refused to return to work without those guaranteed breaks, the employer terminated her employment.

Failure to accommodate after stillbirth

The EEOC filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida against Lago Mar.  The EEOC alleged the employer had failed to accommodate an employee who experienced a stillbirth. The employee had sent the employer a doctor’s note stating that she could not return to work for “approximately six (6) weeks to recuperate and to grieve.” However, a day after receiving the note, the employer terminated the employee’s employment without engaging in the interactive process.  The case settled for $92,080 in compensatory, non-wage damages and $7,920 damages in back pay, plus updating policies and practices among other things. 

Job modifications

The first case filed by the EEOC alleging violations of the PWFA was EEOC v. Wabash National Corporation, Case No. 5:24-cv-00148-BJB, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Kentucky.  In this case, Wabash allegedly denied a pregnant employee’s accommodation request to transfer to a role that did not require lying on her stomach. Instead, the company allegedly forced her to take unpaid leave or return to her position without any modifications. It failed to accommodate her even though it could have provided changes like those the company provided for non-pregnant workers with similar limitations. Because Wabash failed to make any modifications, the employee feared for the health of her pregnancy, and she was reassigned nearly eight months pregnant. Further, the company required her to provide medical documentation to support her request in violation of the PWFA per the EEOC. The case is ongoing.

Failure to provide leave

In EEOC v. Kurt Bluemel, Inc. filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland, the employer, a nursery, failed to provide a leave accommodation for an employee and failed to have an interactive process to determine any accommodation.  The lawsuit alleged that the employee had worked for the employer since 2017 and become pregnant in the spring of 2023. The suit alleged that because of her pregnancy, she eventually could no longer perform the duties, which included “moving potted plants and preparing plants to be loaded onto trucks.” Specifically, the suit alleged that “because of her pregnancy, she was experiencing fatigue, dizziness[,] and headaches while performing manual labor.”  The employee requested leave “due to her pregnancy-related physical inability to perform manual labor, for childbirth, and for anticipated recovery from childbirth” from August 2023 until January 2024. The employee allegedly invited the employer to provide feedback on the return date, but the employer did not respond or engage in the interactive process. She “stopped working” in September 2023 and gave birth weeks later. In December 2023, she tried to return to work, but the employer “told her that no work was available” before hiring additional laborers, the suit alleged. The suit settled by consent decree for $40,000 plus review of policies and practices.

As the law takes shape under the enforcement of the PWFA, HR takeaways are apparent.  First, there should always be an interactive process with the employee as to the employee’s request.  Leave is allowed under the PWFA for up to 40 weeks unpaid.  Next, the law covers a variety of situations from pregnancy situations to stillbirth to at minimum termination of pregnancy related to the health condition of the employee.  It is like the ADA but not the same but the approaches are similar.   Whenever a situation arises under the PWFA, make sure to take the situation seriously and discuss with legal counsel the best approaches under the law.

Source:  Law360 7/18/25, USA Herald 2/19/25, Marshall Dennehey 11/8/24, Ogletree 11/5/24, Law360 Wyatt 10/22/24, EEOC 9/10/24