The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) has filed numerous lawsuits recently against employers who have denied reasonable accommodations to pregnant workers. In 2025, the EEOC brought forth seven lawsuits in violation of the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act (PWFA). Enforcement of the PWFA has skyrocketed since the PWFA’s adoption in 2023.
Understanding the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act
The PWFA is critical to federal employment law. The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the Pregnancy Discrimination Act (PDA), laws which addressed pregnancy accommodation issues prior to the passage of the PWFA, never explicitly covered pregnancy-related limitations.
The PWFA requires covered employers to provide reasonable accommodations to qualified employees with known limitations related to pregnancy, childbirth, or similar conditions, unless it causes “undue hardship” (same definition as in ADA).
A “qualified employee” is the actual employee affected by pregnancy (not a spouse, for example), who is unable to perform essential workplace functions because of pregnancy. In 2023, the EEOC introduced the PWFA to establish more comprehensive guidance on pregnancy-related limitations in the workplace. Since then, the EEOC has aggressively pursued employers who have violated this law.
What Violates the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act (PWFA)?
The PWFA prohibits covered employers from:
- Failing to provide reasonable accommodations for pregnancy-related limitations
- Forcing employees to accept different accommodations than those arrived at through the interactive process
- Denying employment opportunities based on the need for reasonable accommodations
- Requiring employees to take paid or unpaid leave when reasonable accommodation would allow them to continue working
- Retaliating against employees for requesting or using pregnancy-related accommodations
- Interfering with, restraining, or denying the exercise of PWFA rights
Failures to Accommodate
In 2025, the EEOC pursued court actions against employers for failures to accommodate pregnancy discrimination:
- In EEOC v. Polaris Industries, Inc., Case No. 5:24-cv-1305 (N.D. Ala. 2024), Polaris Industries refused to excuse a pregnant employee’s absences, required mandatory overtime despite medical restrictions, and assessed attendance points. The company entered into a consent decree requiring payment of $55,000 and implementation of PWFA training.
- In EEOC v. Smithfield Fresh Meats Corp., Case No. 7:25-cv-01419 (E.D. N.C. 2025), the company told a pregnant worker that their company did not provide pregnancy accommodations, forced them to take unpaid leave, and eventually terminated them.
- In EEOC v. Urologic Specialists of Oklahoma, , Case 4:24-cv-0452, (N.D. Okl. 2025), Urologic Specialists of Oklahoma denied physician-recommended accommodations during an employee’s high-risk pregnancy, forced her to take unpaid leave, and terminated her when she declined to return without lactation breaks.
- In EEOC v. Option Care Health, Inc., Case No. 1:25-cv-12817 (D. Mass 2025), Option Care Health mischaracterized an infusion nurse’s accommodation request for driving limitations for her pregnancy as a leave request, leading to her resignation.
These cases indicate that employers cannot categorically deny pregnancy accommodations, mis-categorize requests, or force pregnant workers to take unpaid leave.
Lactation Accommodations are Protected
The EEOC has made clear that lactation breaks are protected reasonable accommodations under the PWFA. In one case, Security Assurance Management not only denied an employee’s lactation break requests but then penalized her for calling out when she couldn’t pump at work. See EEOC v. Security Assurance Management, Inc., Case No. 1:25-cv-00181-RC. In another, GAT Airline Ground Support harassed and ultimately terminated a lactating mother for taking the very breaks the company had authorized. See Weaver v. Gat Airline Ground Support, Inc., Case No. 2:2023cv00869 (W.D. Pa. 2024). These enforcement actions send a strong message: employers must provide lactation accommodations or face claims for discrimination or retaliation against employees who need such accommodations.
Postpartum Recovery Under the PWFA
Pregnancy loss is one of the most devastating experiences a worker can face, yet some employers have shown callous disregard for employees recovering from such trauma. Lago Mar Properties terminated a cook after she requested six weeks off to recover from a stillbirth. See EEOC v. Lago Mar, No. 24-cv-61812 (S.D. Fla. 2024). The EEOC’s enforcement resulted in a consent decree requiring the company to pay $100,000 and implement comprehensive anti-discrimination policies, including PWFA training and accommodation procedures. This case establishes that postpartum recovery—including recovery from pregnancy loss—is a protected medical condition requiring accommodation.
Early Resolution Through Conciliation
Most recently, at least two PWFA violations never reached the courtroom because the EEOC secured relief through pre-litigation conciliation. For example,
- Brandt Info Services paid $100,000 after terminating a pregnant worker who requested 2.5 months of unpaid leave. EEOC v. Brandt (Conciliation).
- Health and Behavior Dimensions paid $35,000 after firing an employee on the same day she requested pregnancy accommodations. EEOC v. Health and Behavior Dimensions, Inc. (Conciliation)
In both cases, as part of the resolution, the companies also committed to implementing PWFA-compliant policies, training programs, and monitoring requirements.
Concerns about Pregnancy Discrimination?
If you are a Florida worker who believes your employer denied you accommodations or discriminated against you because of your pregnancy, consult experienced employment lawyers at Sass Law Firm. Sass Law Firm has over 35 years of experience protecting Tampa Bay workers in pregnancy discrimination cases and employment disputes.