Bill Overview
Title: Pregnant Workers Fairness Act
Description: This bill prohibits employment practices that discriminate against making reasonable accommodations for qualified employees affected by pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions. A qualified employee is an employee or applicant who, with or without reasonable accommodation, can perform the essential functions of the position, with specified exceptions. Specifically, the bill declares that it is an unlawful employment practice to fail to make reasonable accommodations to known limitations of such employees unless the accommodation would impose an undue hardship on an entity's business operation; require a qualified employee affected by such condition to accept an accommodation other than any reasonable accommodation arrived at through an interactive process; deny employment opportunities based on the need of the entity to make such reasonable accommodations to a qualified employee; require such employees to take paid or unpaid leave if another reasonable accommodation can be provided; or take adverse action in terms, conditions, or privileges of employment against a qualified employee requesting or using such reasonable accommodations. The bill sets forth enforcement procedures and remedies that cover different types of employees in relation to such unlawful employment practices. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission must provide examples of reasonable accommodations that shall be provided to affected employees unless the employer can demonstrate that doing so would impose an undue hardship. The bill prohibits state immunity under the Eleventh Amendment to the Constitution from an action for a violation of this bill.
Sponsors: Sen. Casey, Robert P., Jr. [D-PA]
Target Audience
Population: People affected by pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions globally
Estimated Size: 75000000
- The bill addresses employment discrimination against individuals affected by pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions.
- The bill applies to 'qualified employees,' which includes any employee or applicant who can perform essential job functions with reasonable accommodations.
- Pregnant individuals and those undergoing childbirth are a global population, affecting individuals in every country.
- Individuals who are pregnant or become pregnant at some point in their lives.
- The bill is likely to impact women primarily, as they are the ones who undergo pregnancy and childbirth.
Reasoning
- The primary target population for this policy is women of childbearing age, as they are the ones experiencing pregnancy and childbirth.
- The policy will also affect employers who need to implement accommodations, resulting in additional costs for businesses.
- Not everyone in the target population will require accommodations; those who do may experience significant improvements in workplace conditions and overall wellbeing.
- The budget constraints mean not all potential beneficiaries will receive accommodations immediately; prioritization may be necessary.
- Long-term benefits may be seen in reduced turnover and better employee satisfaction, leading to indirect benefits for employers.
Simulated Interviews
Software Engineer (New York, NY)
Age: 30 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I believe the policy is essential. Women like me shouldn't have to choose between health and career, especially during pregnancy.
- I'm looking forward to seeing how my company handles these accommodations.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 6 |
Marketing Manager (San Francisco, CA)
Age: 28 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 4.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Returning to work after having a baby is challenging. I'm hopeful this policy will support women better during this transition.
- I think all workplaces should accommodate new mothers to keep their jobs productive.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
Teacher (Dallas, TX)
Age: 35 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 18/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I think this policy could be a game-changer for working moms. Being a teacher, we often stand most of the day, and it can be tough when pregnant.
- It's nice to know there's a safeguard for those who choose to grow their families.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 7 |
Retail Worker (Chicago, IL)
Age: 32 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 2.5 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Accommodations like sitting stools and flexible hours could really help someone in my position.
- The policy seems fair and necessary to help women balance their health and work effectively.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
Research Scientist (Seattle, WA)
Age: 26 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 17/20
Statement of Opinion:
- While I'm not directly affected now, I see colleagues struggling. This policy can improve their quality of life significantly.
- It's important to create an inclusive work environment.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 8 |
Entrepreneur (Miami, FL)
Age: 41 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- While I support the policy, I am concerned about the costs and practicalities for small businesses like mine.
- Still, it's a step towards equality and support for working mothers.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
HR Manager (Atlanta, GA)
Age: 37 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 14/20
Statement of Opinion:
- As an HR manager, ensuring fair practices is essential. However, this policy might complicate internal processes.
- Overall, it's necessary for reducing discrimination based on pregnancy.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 8 |
Construction Supervisor (Houston, TX)
Age: 45 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 8.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Construction can be tough during pregnancy. This policy might help women like me have a smoother working experience.
- Accommodation might finally balance the gender scales in careers like mine.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
Retired Nurse (Philadelphia, PA)
Age: 60 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 9
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Having worked in healthcare, such policies could help reduce maternal health issues aggravated by work.
- It will be interesting to see how effective implementation is, given the budget limits.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 2 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 9 |
Corporate Executive (Boston, MA)
Age: 48 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Adopting these policies company-wide might redefine workplace culture.
- It is a challenge, but necessary for long-term employee satisfaction and retention.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 7 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $50000000 (Low: $35000000, High: $70000000)
Year 2: $30000000 (Low: $20000000, High: $50000000)
Year 3: $25000000 (Low: $15000000, High: $45000000)
Year 5: $12000000 (Low: $8000000, High: $24000000)
Year 10: $7000000 (Low: $4000000, High: $15000000)
Year 100: $1000000 (Low: $500000, High: $5000000)
Key Considerations
- Impact on EEOC's workload and staffing levels.
- Potential costs associated with new accommodation requirements in workplaces.
- Legal costs associated with prosecuting non-compliance.
- Change in workforce participation rates among pregnant workers.