The House Just Voted for Additional Protections for Pregnant Workers. What That Means for You

Pregnancy shouldn’t be an issue in job interviews, assignments, promotions, or day-to-day work. But it is, and sometimes women don’t have the protection that they think they do. For instance, if an employee’s doctor says she should be on light duty due to the pregnancy, the business only has to provide this if it does so for disabled employees. It can make it difficult for a pregnant employee to get the help she needs.

The House just passed new legislation, the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act, with a bipartisan vote of 329 to 73. The legislation has to go to the Senate and then the president for it to become law, but if it does, it would make a significant change to the protections pregnant women receive in the workplace.

Here are the essential provisions of the bill.

To keep reading, click here: The House Just Voted for Additional Protections for Pregnant Workers. What That Means for You

Related Posts

4 thoughts on “The House Just Voted for Additional Protections for Pregnant Workers. What That Means for You

  1. I’m not 100% clear how this is different than what is already on the books? We already can’t discriminate against women who are pregnant, have to offer them accommodations if we do so for other individuals with a “disability”, cannot consider pregnancy when taking employment actions, etc.

    So are the main differences that we have to accommodate someone who is pregnant (if it’s not a hardship) even if we cannot do so for someone with a disability and adding pregnancy to Title VII?

  2. Since when does pregnancy or any disability make the person who is working in a private sector job, have the right to non-termination as if they were working in a governement job. Let me clarify, please. In a government job, low performance on the job doesn’t effect anything, ypur job position and pay is guaranteed, no matter how well or how poorly you do your job.
    We already make accomodations for persons hired, dispite whatever disablity. Why should we make them exempt from performing their job at the level requested? That sounds like discrimination in another form. All workers should be able to perform at the level performance required for the job at the skill level expected. If the job accomodates your disability so you can do the job, then you need to do the job effectively.

    1. Neither government nor private-sector employees are protected from termination if they cannot perform their jobs. Anti-discrimination laws only require accommodations that still allow the employee to perform the essential functions of their position. If there is no accommodation that can do so, without creating an unreasonable hardship for the employer, the employee simply cannot be accommodated.

Comments are closed.