aCCommoDaTIng prEgnanCY-rELaTED LImITaTIons
labor & Employment law Section
Chairs: Cynthia Sass – Law Offices of Cynthia Sass, P.A. & Jason Pill – Phelps & Dunbar, LLC
although pregnancy is
not a “disability” under
the aDa, the aDa still
impacts pregnancy-related
F
impairments and must
be considered when
ederal and state laws
protect employees during
and after pregnancy.
To understand the
protections, employers must
familiarize themselves with both
the Americans with Disabilities
Act (ADA) and the Pregnancy
Discrimination Act (PDA). In
recent years, Congress broadened
the ADA’s definition of disability,
extending protections to certain
pregnancy-related impairments
and therefore requiring employers
to accommodate them. The PDA,
too, protects employees during and
after pregnancy, but its reach is less
clear. The PDA does not explicitly
require employers to accommodate
employees because of pregnancy
or pregnancy-related limitations,
but it still may be interpreted
against employers that fail to
provide certain pregnancy-related
accommodations.
With the passage of the ADA
Amendments Act of 2008,
Congress expanded the definition
of “disability” under the ADA,
making it easier for individuals to
addressing workplace needs
of pregnant employees.
establish that they have a disability
that falls within the meaning of the
statute. As a result, while pregnancy
itself is not a disability within
the meaning of the ADA, some
pregnancy-related impairments
such as preeclampsia, gestational
diabetes, and pregnancy-related
sciatica, that were not previously
considered disabilities under the
ADA now appear to fall within the
ADA’s coverage, entitling employees
to a reasonable accommodation
(absent undue hardship).
But what about those pregnancy-
related limitations that do not
fall within the ADA’s expanded
definition of “disability”? Must
employers accommodate those
limitations under the PDA? The
answer is far from clear.
The PDA provides that “women
affected by pregnancy, childbirth,
or related medical conditions
shall be treated the same for all
employment-related purposes …
as other persons not so affected but
similar in their ability or inability
to work.” 42 U.S.C. § 2000e(k).
The Eleventh Circuit Court of
Appeals has interpreted this
provision as requiring employers to
provide employees with pregnancy-
related limitations the same
accommodations that it provides
employees with other types of
limitations. See Hicks v. City of
Tuscaloosa, 870 F.3d 1253, 1261
(11th Cir. 2017). For instance,
an employer who disciplines an
employee because of her lactation
schedule, but allows nonpregnant
employees to change their work
schedules for other temporary
medical conditions, may be found
in violation of the PDA.
Adding to the complex world
of pregnancy accommodation,
many state laws also prohibit
pregnancy-based discrimination.
Continued on page 43
ARe you ReCeIvIng HCBA’S emAILS?
HCBA regularly communicates with members via email. Stay in the know
by making sure your email is up-to-date in your member profile at hillsbar.com.
42
JAN - FEB 2019
|
HCBA LAWYER