EEOC Effectively Declares Pregnancy a "Disability" Requiring Reasonable Accommodation — Even When the Pregnant Employee Is Not Disabled

21 July 2014 Labor & Employment Law Perspectives Blog

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has recently declared that pregnancy alone, even without other underlying medical conditions, may require employer accommodations according to recent guidance released July 14, 2014. In a controversial decision splitting the commissioners 3-2, the EEOC broadcast a specific focus on pregnancy-related discrimination due to a continued uptick in charges and complaints over the past several years. With this in mind, employers should consider taking a closer look at pregnancy-related requests for accommodation before deciding on a course of action.

The EEOC’s Enforcement Guidance on Pregnancy Discrimination and Related Issues instructs employers to treat pregnant employees the same as non-pregnant employees “who are similar in their ability or inability to work.” This focus on abilities seems to strip away any distinction over the underlying cause. For example, an employer may provide temporary light duty accommodations to an employee that suffered a back strain on the job. While the back strain is not necessarily a disability, many employers accommodate the condition in order to keep the employee working and avoid workers’ compensation costs. At the same time, many of these same employers have historically not provided light duty to employees who have similar restrictions of a temporary nature that are not work-related: the incentive to avoid worker’s compensation costs with such accommodations does not exist. However, under the new EEOC guidance, an employer that offers such light duty accommodations is required to provide a pregnant employee with a similar light duty accommodation, despite the fact that the employee’s inabilities are related solely to their pregnancy and have no relation to the workplace and may not even qualify as a medical disability. In fact, the EEOC specifically states in the new guidance that light duty programs restricted to workers injured on the job violates the Pregnancy Discrimination Act.

The controversy over this new guidance stems from the fact that this very issue is now pending before the U.S. Supreme Court in Young v. United Parcel Service, which is an appeal from a federal appellate court decision which specifically disagreed with the EEOC’s position on this issue. Of course, the decision by the Supreme Court will ultimately trump the EEOC guidance, and may render it useless. Furthermore, the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act is currently pending in Congress, which would similarly address this very issue. Whatever the outcome of these pending matters, it is clear the EEOC is specifically focused on the subject and is taking non-legislative steps to impact the law regarding pregnant employees.

The take-away for employers is likely two-fold. First, employers should think long and hard, and reconsider all actions that may be taken, or not taken, if an employee situation involves pregnancy – the EEOC is certainly doing so. Second, if you have a light duty program that is limited to support only work-related injuries or conditions, you may need to re-consider this policy – at least for the near term if you want to stay out of the EEOC’s crosshairs.

To assist employers, the EEOC also released a Questions and Answers guide and a Fact Sheet alongside the new guidance. Employers may wish to consult with counsel to review accommodation and light duty policies in light of this new guidance while it is in effect.

This blog is made available by Foley & Lardner LLP (“Foley” or “the Firm”) for informational purposes only. It is not meant to convey the Firm’s legal position on behalf of any client, nor is it intended to convey specific legal advice. Any opinions expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect the views of Foley & Lardner LLP, its partners, or its clients. Accordingly, do not act upon this information without seeking counsel from a licensed attorney. This blog is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship. Communicating with Foley through this website by email, blog post, or otherwise, does not create an attorney-client relationship for any legal matter. Therefore, any communication or material you transmit to Foley through this blog, whether by email, blog post or any other manner, will not be treated as confidential or proprietary. The information on this blog is published “AS IS” and is not guaranteed to be complete, accurate, and or up-to-date. Foley makes no representations or warranties of any kind, express or implied, as to the operation or content of the site. Foley expressly disclaims all other guarantees, warranties, conditions and representations of any kind, either express or implied, whether arising under any statute, law, commercial use or otherwise, including implied warranties of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Foley or any of its partners, officers, employees, agents or affiliates be liable, directly or indirectly, under any theory of law (contract, tort, negligence or otherwise), to you or anyone else, for any claims, losses or damages, direct, indirect special, incidental, punitive or consequential, resulting from or occasioned by the creation, use of or reliance on this site (including information and other content) or any third party websites or the information, resources or material accessed through any such websites. In some jurisdictions, the contents of this blog may be considered Attorney Advertising. If applicable, please note that prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Photographs are for dramatization purposes only and may include models. Likenesses do not necessarily imply current client, partnership or employee status.

Related Services