Page 1 of 1
The EEOC hasn’t been shy about launching litigation against employers that haven’t met their accommodation obligations since the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act took full effect. A review of the agency’s PWFA enforcement actions since its final rule took effect in June 2024 reveals that the EEOC will not tolerate forced leaves of absence, ignored interactive process obligations, rigid attendance policies, and flatly denied basic accommodations. By familiarizing yourself with the top five enforcement trends uncovered through a thorough review of the EEOC’s litigation activity, you can shape your PWFA compliance strategy to meet the moment.
General Overview of the PWFA
The Pregnant Worker’s Fairness Act (PWFA), which took effect in June 2023, implemented a new requirement for covered employers to provide reasonable accommodations for a qualified employee’s known limitations due to pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions, unless such an accommodation would cause the employer undue hardship.
The EEOC released a final rule in June 2024 that sets forth definitions and parameters for the PWFA. For a comprehensive recap, you can read a detailed FAQs about the PWFA here.
NOTE: Final Rule Remains in Effect Despite Controversy
EEOC Commissioner Andrea Lucas has publicly disagreed with the rule’s requirement that employers accommodate applicants and workers who need time off or other workplace modifications for an abortion procedure. That left many to predict that a portion of or the entire rule would immediately be rescinded when the EEOC gained a quorum. But while the EEOC has had a quorum since October 2025, the final rule remains in effect as of the date of this publication. At least one court has decided not to wait for the EEOC and taken the position on its own that the EEOC overstepped its authority by requiring employers to accommodate elective abortions that are not medically necessary. Regardless of whether other courts join this view or even if the EEOC strikes down portions of or the entire rule, the PWFA itself will remain in effect, and employers will want to check with their FP counsel to determine the extent of their obligations.
The EEOC’s Top 5 PWFA Enforcement Efforts and What They Demonstrate
Here is a review of the top five enforcement positions taken by the EEOC with respect to pregnancy accommodations, along with guidance for employers to ensure compliance.
1. Leaves of Absence or Light Duty Cannot be Forced When Other Reasonable Accommodations Exist
The EEOC has taken action against several employers who have allegedly forced leaves of absence on employees who could have otherwise been provided another reasonable accommodation which would have allowed the employee to continue to work. For example, In EEOC v. Urologic Specialists of Oklahoma, Inc., the agency negotiated a $90,000 settlement with an employer that it alleged denied reasonable accommodations to a medical assistant at its Tulsa facility during the final trimester of her high-risk pregnancy. Rather than allow her to sit, take short breaks, or work part-time, as recommended by her doctor to protect her health and safety, the EEOC alleged that the medical practice forced her to take unpaid leave in violation of the PWFA.
The EEOC has also taken issue with employers placing pregnant employees on light duty or in positions wherein their earning potential could be reduced. In December 2025, the EEOC sued a Minnesota employer that purportedly removed a pregnant individual from the workplace, placed her on an involuntary leave of absence, and ultimately placed her in a light duty job that reduced her earning potential when she could have continued to work in her position with reasonable accommodations. That lawsuit is pending.
However, situations where an employee requests light duty but is denied that accommodation are also on the EEOC’s radar. The EEOC recently sued an employer that allegedly failed to accommodate a pregnant employee’s 20-pound lifting restriction, for example.
2. The Interactive Process Continues to Play an Important Role
Employers should not assume that they can just grant any accommodation they prefer for qualified employees. The EEOC has brought action against employers who have forced a plaintiff to accept an accommodation without first engaging in the interactive process. For example, in EEOC v. Wabash Nat’l Corp., the EEOC sued a Kentucky employer that allegedly denied a pregnant employee’s accommodation request to transfer to a role that did not require lying on her stomach.
3. Strict Attendance Policies Present Risk Under the PWFA
In one of its most recent actions, the EEOC just sued Florida employer BestBet Jacksonville, Inc., for enforcing a strict attendance policy against a pregnant employee. The March 31 lawsuit alleges the employer advised the company that she had a high-risk pregnancy and related medical conditions that required her to take some time off work. The employer allegedly responded by telling her that she could not return to work because the company had a strict policy: “if an employee misses more than two weeks and they do not qualify for leave under the Family Medical Leave Act, they must resign.” The EEOC indicated in its complaint that this employer allegedly had a practice of denying all accommodation requests brought by qualified employees unless those individuals qualified for leave under the FMLA. The EEOC interpreted this approach as the employer “maintaining a blanket policy prohibiting reasonable accommodations under the PWFA.”
This is not the only action the EEOC has brought against employers who have enforced attendance policies against employees who had allegedly known limitations of pregnancy or related conditions. Last year, the EEOC settled a case against an Alabama employer for $55,000 after the agency alleged it enforced attendance points against an employee who needed time off for pregnancy-related medical appointments and conditions.
4. Reasonable Accommodations for Qualified Employees Remain High Priority
The EEOC’s enforcement efforts demonstrate that it will take action against employers that fail to reasonably accommodate employees. This includes employers that don’t provide employees with a suitable space to pump breastmilk, don’t provide ready access to water, and don’t provide pregnant employees the ability to sit, take breaks, work light duty, or work part-time.
While these types of accommodations are explicitly listed in the EEOC’s final rule, the agency has also pursued action against employers for denying accommodations that are not specifically enumerated there. In September 2025, for example, the EEOC filed suit against an employer after a pregnant employee’s provider recommended that she limit her driving time to address pain she was experiencing in her back and legs. She requested either shorter commutes and/or transitioning to virtual admissions for the remainder of her pregnancy. Although assignments were available within the requested radius, the employer allegedly failed to reasonably accommodate the employee and she was forced to resign.
5. Leave As An Accommodation May Be Appropriate In Some Situations
In September 2024, the EEOC brought an action against a Florida-based employer after it allegedly terminated a worker after she had a stillbirth and requested a six-week leave of absence. The EEOC argued that the employer intentionally discriminated against her pregnancy-related medical condition in violation of the PWFA, and ultimately settled the case.
Key Takeaways for Employers
Does your company currently use forms created more than three years ago that asks for information about an applicant or an employee’s family medical history?
Do your supervisors and managers know that if they are “friended” by an employee on a social media site and they see medical information relating to the individual or the individual’s family member, they have violated a federal law and subjected the company to liability?
Has your company failed to update Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA), Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), workers’ compensation, no-harassment, and other policies and procedures to comply with the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (GINA)?
If you answered yes to any of these questions, you should review the impact of GINA so your company does not become the next GINA “headline.”
What Is GINA?
The Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (GINA) has been an active federal law for five years now. However, many employers still know little about the law. Enacted in 2008, GINA generally prohibits employers from engaging in three types of conduct:
Most attribute GINA’s enactment and requirements as a response to a trend in which employers sought to rely on genetic information in an attempt to screen out potentially unhealthy employees to help control their surging health care costs.
Inadvertent Collection Of Genetic Information
Many employers today pay little attention to GINA on the mistaken assumption that they do not collect genetic information. But there are three very common situations in which an employer can unknowingly collect genetic information.
First, employers regularly request medical documentation to support a potentially disabled employee’s request for a reasonable accommodation.
Second, employers regularly request medical documentation to support an employee’s request for leave under FMLA.
Third, many employers require a medical examination upon hire and, as a result, receive medical information in that context.
In each of these situations, the employer might acquire genetic information (without intentionally requesting it) and would violate GINA as a result of doing so. Fortunately, GINA provides a “safe harbor” that can protect an employer in such situations.
How To Avoid Noncompliance
When an employer requests medical information, it must warn the provider not to provide genetic information. When the employer makes such a warning, the “safe harbor” provision provides that any receipt of genetic information in response to their request will be deemed unintentional and not in violation of GINA.
As a result, it is imperative that employers include this specific warning any time that they request health-related information from a health care provider or an employee.
Of course, an employer could also obtain genetic information in a less formal situation. For example, a supervisor could obtain genetic information about an employee during a casual conversation, through email, or through social media. As long as the supervisor does not ask follow-up questions and does not take any employment-related action based on the accidentally acquired info, this information would be deemed unintentional. However, the use or disclosure of the accidentally acquired information would still violate GINA.
Does Your Wellness Program Violate GINA?
The federal regulations also make clear that an employer does not violate GINA if the employer requests genetic information as part of a “voluntary wellness program.”
For such a program to be deemed voluntary, the employer must show that:
Another reason that employers may be less knowledgeable about GINA (as compared to other federal laws) is that relatively few lawsuits have be filed since the law was enacted. According to EEOC statistics, there were just 280 charges of GINA-related discrimination filed in 2012, or around 0.3% of the overall charge filings for that year. However, the number of filed, GINA-related charges has increased by nearly 40% since the first year an individual could file under the statute.
Moreover, recent activity by the EEOC suggests that it would be best if employers begin reviewing their procedures now and taking the necessary steps to ensure they are GINA compliant.
Unknowing or unintentional violations of GINA are perhaps the most worrisome type of violations since they are the most likely to occur. This is particularly true for employers that rely on dated, pre-GINA human resources documents (including employment applications) or employment policies.
Employers should update existing nondiscrimination and anti-harassment policies and handbooks so that discrimination/harassment on the basis of genetic information is clearly prohibited. Similarly, employers should also update their Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA) and Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) forms to include the requisite “safe harbor” language that warns employees and health care providers not to provide genetic information.
Employers also should ensure that an employee’s medical information is maintained separately from the employee’s personnel file, as required by the law.
For further information on GINA and its impact on your business or for assistance on insuring your company is GINA compliant, please do not hesitate to contact our office.