Should It Be Illegal for Employers to Not Provide Reasonable Accommodations for Workers With Limitations Due to Pregnancy? (H.R. 2694)

What is H.R. 2694?

(Updated February 23, 2022)

This bill would prohibit employment practices that discriminate against making reasonable accommodations for job applicants or employees affected by pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions. 

It would be an unlawful employment practice to:

• Fail to make reasonable accommodations to known limitations of such job applicants or employees, unless the accommodation would impose an undue hardship on an entity’s business operation;

• Deny employment opportunities based on the need of the entity to make such reasonable accommodations to an applicant or employee;

• Require such job applicants or employees to accept an accommodation that they do not want, if such accommodation is unnecessary to perform the job;

• Require such employees to take paid or unpaid leave if another reasonable accommodation can be provided to their known limitations; or

• Take adverse action in terms, conditions, or privileges of employment against an employee requesting or using such reasonable accommodations.

Additionally, this bill would establish enforcement procedures and remedies under various statutes that cover different types of employees in relation to such unlawful employment practices. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) would provide examples of reasonable accommodations that would be provided to affected job applicants or employees unless the employer can demonstrate that doing so would impose an undue hardship. State immunity under the Eleventh Amendment to the Constitution would be prohibited for violations under this bill.

Argument in favor

Employers should make reasonable accommodations to help new mothers and pregnant women feel comfortable in the workplace, and those that decline to do so or refuse to hire such workers should face punishments.

Argument opposed

While much of this bill is bipartisan, the omission of a longstanding protection for religious organizations is problematic because it could force such groups to choose between actions that conflict with their faith and with federal law.

Impact

Pregnant workers; employers; and workplace regulators.

Cost of H.R. 2694

A CBO cost estimate is unavailable.

Additional Info

In-Depth: House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler (D-NY) introduced this bill to require employers to make reasonable accommodations for pregnant workers:

“As we celebrated Mother’s Day last weekend, it is imperative that we give all moms and moms-to-be the certainty that they can stay on the job no matter what. No woman should have to choose between a healthy pregnancy and a paycheck, especially when often a simple fix -- a bottle of water during a shift, an extra bathroom break, a chair -- will allow women to stay on the job and support their families throughout their pregnancy. The PWFA creates an affirmative duty for employers to provide pregnant workers a reasonable accommodation, unless the accommodation imposes an undue hardship on the employer. We know exactly what this language means, employers know just what to expect, and, most importantly, pregnant workers know they will be protected.”

Original cosponsor Rep. John Katko (R-NY) added:

“Under current law, women are not guaranteed reasonable accommodations to remain healthy and in the workforce during pregnancy. This bipartisan effort puts in place a uniform, fair and familiar framework for employers and will enable women to keep working safely and provide for their families throughout pregnancy.”

Committee Republicans noted in the bill’s committee report that while they support many of the bipartisan provisions in this bill, they are concerned by one omission:

“Committee Republicans strongly believe workplaces should be free of discrimination, and pregnant workers deserve protections against workplace discrimination. Committee Republicans have long supported workplace protections for pregnant workers, including those in the PDA and ADA. To address circumstances in which pregnant workers may not be receiving reasonable accommodations from employers, Committee Republicans support the provisions in  the Scott ANS as a compromise measure that includes sufficient clarity regarding the bill’s application to workers and employers. However, the omission of a protection for religious organizations, which is a longstanding part of the CRA -- the nation’s flagship civil rights law -- must be addressed so that religious organizations are not faced with a conflict between their faith and the requirements of federal law. Committee Republicans stand ready to continue to work with Committee Democrats to find a bipartisan agreement on this outstanding issue.”

This legislation passed the Education and Labor Committee on a mostly party-line vote of 29-17, and has the support of 241 bipartisan cosponsors including 223 Democrats and 18 Republicans.

Media:

• House Education and Labor Committee Report

• Cosponsoring Rep. Bobby Scott (D-VA) Press Release