Like Causes?

Install the App
TRY NOW

house Bill H.R. 2694

Should It Be Illegal for Employers to Not Provide Reasonable Accommodations for Workers With Limitations Due to Pregnancy?

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.

jimK's Opinion
···
09/17/2020
If pregnant women are capable of doing their job, why shouldn’t their needs be accommodated? It is an affront to common sense. If an employee who sprains their ankle cannot do their job as a kickboxer because they need a crutch for a couple of weeks - they either take leave or are laid if until they can do their job. If that employee can do their job sitting at a desk but needing a little extra time to get up the stairs or to get to and from the bathroom, they would be accommodated in most cases. Why shouldn’t pregnant women who may need more bathroom time or little more time getting here or there also be accommodated. Most would not need much of this anyway. No to prejudice against healthy women just because they are pregnant.
Like (63)
Follow
Share
larubia's Opinion
···
09/17/2020
This should already be part of the ADA. Most people can work through their pregnancies with none/minor accommodations. However, some pregnancies require changes to accommodate the mother & the unborn. Pro-Life people should all be on board!!!
Like (34)
Follow
Share
Sandra's Opinion
···
09/17/2020
YES....they should but.....they should also provide health care services with Birth Control as well.....then, alot of times, this would NOT be an issue....as usual, "employers" want to have it BOTH ways......NOT help you stay UN-pregnant and NOT help you if you get pregnant
Like (27)
Follow
Share

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.

Just.Dave's Opinion
···
09/16/2020
This doesn't require action from the federal government, and they should stay out of business. If no women want to work for a certain company because they refuse to make reasonable accommodations, then that's the company's choice. Don't like it? DON'T WORK THERE! If you, as a woman, work for an employer that refuses to make such accommodations for pregnant women, you're working for the wrong company, and you deserve better. Before you get pregnant, you should already know your employer's policy on pregnancy and you should always be paying into temporary disability insurance which will cover your maternity leave... because things happen at unexpected times... we're adults, right? We can take care of ourselves... at least, I don't want big brother involved in everything I do... stop this nanny state bullshit... ADDENDUM: My wife works for the DOD, and had a new hire earlier this year. She worked for my wife only four days before covid closures, and with her being pregnant and at risk they've been paying her to stay home for the remainder of her pregnancy... the local iron workers won't make reasonable accommodations? Still, others go above and beyond. @Kathie (S): Agreed; the religious debate is almost laughable. I don't know for certain, but perhaps the religion you ask about is the Mormon "church". They treat their women like baby factories, and they must stay home and raise their children... They're against abortion, but everything else you said, it sounds like them. @Larubia: Nope. Pro life AND for a smaller, weaker federal government. Yes, this bill is better than murdering babies, but so is just about everything else... Should we really pass bills based on that logic? "Trump wants to build his wall... well, its better than murdering babies... Lets do it!" Or "bill clinton signed the three strikes law, so people will be going to prison for life sentences over a joint... but its not murdering babies so... there's that." Excellent reasoning. Trump 2020! Hey, its better than murdering babies...
Like (15)
Follow
Share
Sneaky-Pete's Opinion
···
09/17/2020
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. SneakyPete
Like (9)
Follow
Share
Bob's Opinion
···
09/17/2020
Things like this should be managed by agreements between employees and employers and companies and consumers. The government is the most ineffective, corrupt, harmful, and dangerous entity one could give this kind of decision to.
Like (4)
Follow
Share

bill Progress


  • Not enacted
    The President has not signed this bill
  • The senate has not voted
  • The house Passed September 17th, 2020
    Roll Call Vote 329 Yea / 73 Nay
    IntroducedMay 14th, 2019

Log in or create an account to see how your Reps voted!

Bill Activity

  • Floor
    Ms. Foxx (NC) moved to recommit with instructions to the Committee on Education and Labor.
  • Floor
    The previous question was ordered pursuant to the rule.
  • Floor
    DEBATE - The House proceeded with one hour of debate on H.R. 2694.
  • Floor
    Rule provides for consideration of H.R. 2574, H.R. 2639, H.R. 2694 and H. Res. 908. Provides for one hour of debate on each measure. The previous question will be considered as ordered on each measure without intervening motions except for one motion to recommit with or without instructions on H.R. 2574, H.R. 2639, and H.R. 2694.
  • Floor
    Considered under the provisions of rule H. Res. 1107.
  • Floor
    Considered as unfinished business. (consideration: CR H4528-4529)
  • Floor
    Ms. Foxx (NC) moved to recommit with instructions to the Committee on Education and Labor. (text: CR H4524-4526)
  • Floor
    Considered under the provisions of rule H. Res. 1107. (consideration: CR H4508-4527)
  • IntroReferral
    Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
  • Floor
    Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
  • Floor
    On passage Passed by the Yeas and Nays: 329 - 73 (Roll no. 195).
  • Floor
    On motion to recommit with instructions Failed by the Yeas and Nays: 177 - 226 (Roll no. 194).
  • Floor
    UNFINISHED BUSINESS - The Chair announced that the unfinished business was on the Foxx (NC) motion to recommit H.R. 2694 with instructions, which was debated earlier and on which further proceedings had been postponed.
  • Floor
    Considered as unfinished business.
  • Floor
    POSTPONED PROCEEDINGS - At the conclusion of debate, the Chair put the question on the Foxx motion to recommit and by voice vote, announced that the noes had prevailed. Ms. Fox demanded the yeas and nays and the Chair postponed further proceedings until a time to be announced.
  • Floor
    The previous question was ordered without objection.
  • Floor
    DEBATE - The House proceeded with 10 minutes of debate on the Foxx motion to recommit with instructions. The instructions contained in the motion seek to require the bill to be reported back to the House with an amendment to strike all after the enacting clause and insert new text entitled the 'Pregnant Workers Fairness Act'. The new text includes an exemption for religious organizations.
  • Floor
    Rules Committee Resolution H. Res. 1107 Reported to House. Rule provides for consideration of H.R. 2574, H.R. 2639, H.R. 2694 and H. Res. 908. Provides for one hour of debate on each measure. The previous question will be considered as ordered on each measure without intervening motions except for one motion to recommit with or without instructions on H.R. 2574, H.R. 2639, and H.R. 2694.
  • Calendars
    Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 396.
  • Discharge
    Committee on the Judiciary discharged.
  • Discharge
    Committee on Oversight and Reform discharged.
  • Discharge
    Committee on House Administration discharged.
  • Committee
    Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Education and Labor. H. Rept. 116-494, Part I.
  • Committee
    Ordered to be Reported (Amended) by the Yeas and Nays: 29 - 17.
  • Committee
    Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
  • Committee
    Referred to the Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties.
  • IntroReferral
    Referred to the Committee on Education and Labor, and in addition to the Committees on House Administration, Oversight and Reform, and the Judiciary, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.

bill Progress


  • Not enacted
    The President has not signed this bill
  • The senate has not voted
  • The house Passed September 17th, 2020
    Roll Call Vote 329 Yea / 73 Nay
    IntroducedMay 14th, 2019

Log in or create an account to see how your Reps voted!
    If pregnant women are capable of doing their job, why shouldn’t their needs be accommodated? It is an affront to common sense. If an employee who sprains their ankle cannot do their job as a kickboxer because they need a crutch for a couple of weeks - they either take leave or are laid if until they can do their job. If that employee can do their job sitting at a desk but needing a little extra time to get up the stairs or to get to and from the bathroom, they would be accommodated in most cases. Why shouldn’t pregnant women who may need more bathroom time or little more time getting here or there also be accommodated. Most would not need much of this anyway. No to prejudice against healthy women just because they are pregnant.
    Like (63)
    Follow
    Share
    This doesn't require action from the federal government, and they should stay out of business. If no women want to work for a certain company because they refuse to make reasonable accommodations, then that's the company's choice. Don't like it? DON'T WORK THERE! If you, as a woman, work for an employer that refuses to make such accommodations for pregnant women, you're working for the wrong company, and you deserve better. Before you get pregnant, you should already know your employer's policy on pregnancy and you should always be paying into temporary disability insurance which will cover your maternity leave... because things happen at unexpected times... we're adults, right? We can take care of ourselves... at least, I don't want big brother involved in everything I do... stop this nanny state bullshit... ADDENDUM: My wife works for the DOD, and had a new hire earlier this year. She worked for my wife only four days before covid closures, and with her being pregnant and at risk they've been paying her to stay home for the remainder of her pregnancy... the local iron workers won't make reasonable accommodations? Still, others go above and beyond. @Kathie (S): Agreed; the religious debate is almost laughable. I don't know for certain, but perhaps the religion you ask about is the Mormon "church". They treat their women like baby factories, and they must stay home and raise their children... They're against abortion, but everything else you said, it sounds like them. @Larubia: Nope. Pro life AND for a smaller, weaker federal government. Yes, this bill is better than murdering babies, but so is just about everything else... Should we really pass bills based on that logic? "Trump wants to build his wall... well, its better than murdering babies... Lets do it!" Or "bill clinton signed the three strikes law, so people will be going to prison for life sentences over a joint... but its not murdering babies so... there's that." Excellent reasoning. Trump 2020! Hey, its better than murdering babies...
    Like (15)
    Follow
    Share
    This should already be part of the ADA. Most people can work through their pregnancies with none/minor accommodations. However, some pregnancies require changes to accommodate the mother & the unborn. Pro-Life people should all be on board!!!
    Like (34)
    Follow
    Share
    YES....they should but.....they should also provide health care services with Birth Control as well.....then, alot of times, this would NOT be an issue....as usual, "employers" want to have it BOTH ways......NOT help you stay UN-pregnant and NOT help you if you get pregnant
    Like (27)
    Follow
    Share
    Deja vu? Time machine back to pre-1964 before The Civil Rights Bill Title VII which prohibits discrimination based on sex, pregnancy, childbirth or medical issues.
    Like (27)
    Follow
    Share
    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.
    Like (17)
    Follow
    Share
    The key words here are reasonable accommodations. No one is asking for awards to be handed out or increases in pay; just the ability to continue to work while pregnant with some changes to protect the health and safety of both the woman and the fœtus. This should be absolutely incontrovertible for those who run around claiming to be pro-life! While pregnancy is in no way a disability, reasonable accommodation helps all involved and is generally low or no cost to the business. The business keeps an employee, the woman keeps her job and everyone is safer. It’s the decent thing to do. And for you commenting that she brought it on herself, no one gets pregnant in a vacuum. An alternative would be to dock the father’s wages to pay for accommodation or make up for her wages should she be forced to stay home. Finally, many pregnant women are not protected under the ADA or the PDA. Women working for businesses with fewer than 15 full time employees do not receive protection from these programs even if pregnancy was considered a disability.
    Like (16)
    Follow
    Share
    I understand that this could present a challenge for some smaller businesses, but it's only fair. There is no corresponding difficulty that men go through which would prevent them from doing their job, but I'm sure if there were it would be no question. Employers should want the best talent and work hard to keep it; find ways to make reasonable accommodations during pregnancy and these women will work better for the employer.
    Like (13)
    Follow
    Share
    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. SneakyPete
    Like (9)
    Follow
    Share
    Ummm ah I thought this was already covered by the Civil Rights Act? Have we been magically transported to 1963? And isn’t the question: Please explain why healthy pregnant women shouldn’t have reasonable accommodations during their pregnancies? Why should women be penalized for reproducing? It’s absurd. Men aren’t.
    Like (8)
    Follow
    Share
    Many women work because most households need 2 incomes. Accommodate women during the important part of their lives.
    Like (7)
    Follow
    Share
    Employers should make reasonable accommodations to help new mothers and pregnant women feel comfortable in the workplace, it’s the least that can be done especially given that we are not provided a mandatory paid maternity leave from employers or the federal government. If family and children are important to American values, then supporting women is the place to start.
    Like (6)
    Follow
    Share
    Representatives, ¶ We need you fully & actively support HR 2694 as introduce by Rep. Jerry Nadler. We clearly need Federal Legislation to compell employers to make reasonable accommodations to help pregnant women and new mothers feel comfortable in the workplace, and those employers that decline to do so or refuse to hire such workers should face punishments. ¶ The unfair treatment of pregnant and new mothers is surprisingly wide spread across industries. ¶ For some recent info and history of Discrimination due to Pregnancy see ¶ “If You’re Pregnant and Working, Know Your Rights” https://www.nytimes.com/article/pregnancy-discrimination-work.html ¶ Further, employers are failing to accommodate women under the pandemic. ¶ "Real Life Horror Stories From the World of Pandemic Motherhood" https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/06/opinion/mothers-discrimination-coronavirus.html?referringSource=articleShare ¶ ###
    Like (6)
    Follow
    Share
    Hell yes you should accommodate for ANY reasonable health request!
    Like (5)
    Follow
    Share
    Really? Women should be treated with so much more respect than they are now!
    Like (4)
    Follow
    Share
    Of course. The law requires that maternity be treated as any other illness in the workplace.
    Like (4)
    Follow
    Share
    I think that making allowances to accommodate the needs of pregnant employees would be a sound business practice for retention of employees! Employers are not being asked to make expensive changes to accommodate these temporary needs. If a male employee sustained a bad leg fracture and needed to be confined to a wheelchair in order to work there would be no question that he could leave for lunch 5 minutes early in order to get on the elevator before the rest of the employees crowded on! Ideally employers should put themselves in their employees shoes when considering their employees needs.
    Like (4)
    Follow
    Share
    Things like this should be managed by agreements between employees and employers and companies and consumers. The government is the most ineffective, corrupt, harmful, and dangerous entity one could give this kind of decision to.
    Like (4)
    Follow
    Share
    This is no brainer!!
    Like (4)
    Follow
    Share
    Women who want to start a family should NEVER be discriminated against!! Abortion is murder!!
    Like (4)
    Follow
    Share
    MORE