Pregnant Workers Fairness Act

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Madam Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 1107, I call up the bill (H.R. 2694) to eliminate discrimination and promote women's health and economic security by ensuring reasonable workplace accommodations for workers whose ability to perform the functions of a job are limited by pregnancy, childbirth, or a related medical condition, and ask for its immediate consideration.

The Clerk read the title of the bill.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. 2694, the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I might consume.

Madam Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 2694, the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act. No one should have to choose between financial security and a healthy pregnancy. Unfortunately, our pregnancy antidiscrimination laws urgently need to be updated to provide reasonable accommodations for workers.

Current Federal law does not clearly guarantee pregnant workers' rights to reasonable accommodations in the workplace, such as water, seating, bathroom breaks, and lifting restrictions. These basic protections are critical to protecting pregnant workers from the tragic consequences of unsafe working conditions, and they are particularly important today, as early evidence suggests that pregnancy leads to elevated risk of severe illness from COVID-19.

In 2015, the Supreme Court allowed pregnant workers to bring claims for reasonable accommodations under the Pregnancy Discrimination Act in the landmark case of Young v. UPS. However, that decision set an unreasonably high standard for pregnancy discrimination. Under the Young standard, workers must prove that the accommodations they were denied were provided to other workers who were similar in their inability to work.

This standard is onerous, in part, because it assumes that workers can access their coworkers' personal health information and establish a comparable group of workers. It also creates a perverse legal framework in which companies that treat all of their workers poorly can treat their pregnant workers poorly as well.

Since the Young decision, courts have ruled against pregnant workers seeking accommodations most of the time.

In the absence of Federal action, nearly three dozen States and localities have filled the void by establishing their own protections for pregnant workers. This patchwork approach is bad for workers who are frequently left without strong protections and bad for multistate employers who have to comply with different States' workplace standards.

The Pregnant Workers Fairness Act is a bipartisan proposal that will finally establish clear, nationwide protections that guarantee pregnant workers the basic rights to reasonable accommodations.

It will also grant victims of pregnancy discrimination the same remedies as victims of discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin under Federal civil rights laws. Similar to the Americans with Disabilities Act, employers are not required to make accommodations if it imposes an undue hardship on the employer's business.

This legislation has broad support across the political spectrum and across our communities. Labor unions, civil rights groups, and the business community, including the Chamber of Commerce, have all endorsed this proposal.

Madam Speaker, I include in the Record a letter led by the nonprofit A Better Balance and over 200 worker advocacy organizations calling for Congress to pass the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act. September 14, 2020. Re Pregnant Workers Fairness Act.

Dear Member of Congress: As organizations committed to promoting the health and economic security of our nation's families, we urge you to support the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act, a crucial maternal and infant health measure. This bipartisan legislation promotes healthy pregnancies and economic security for pregnant women and their families and strengthens the economy.

In the last few decades, there has been a dramatic demographic shift in the workforce. Not only do women now make up almost half of the workforce, but there are more pregnant workers than ever before and they are working later into their pregnancies. The simple reality is that some of these women--especially those in physically demanding jobs-- will have a medical need for a temporary job-related accommodation in order to maintain a healthy pregnancy. Yet, too often, instead of providing a pregnant worker with an accommodation, her employer will fire her or push her onto unpaid leave, depriving her of a paycheck and health insurance at a time when she needs them most.

Additionally, pregnancy discrimination affects women across race and ethnicity, but women of color and immigrants may be at particular risk. Latinas, Black women and immigrant women are more likely to hold certain inflexible and physically demanding jobs that can present specific challenges for pregnant workers, such as cashiers, home health aides, food service workers, and cleaners, making reasonable accommodations on the job even more important, and loss of wages and health insurance due to pregnancy discrimination especially challenging. American families and the American economy depend on women's income: we cannot afford to force pregnant women out of work.

In 2015, in Young v. United Parcel Service, the Supreme Court held that a failure to make accommodations for pregnant workers with medical needs will sometimes violate the Pregnancy Discrimination Act of 1978 (PDA). Yet, even after Young, pregnant workers are still not getting the accommodations they need to stay safe and healthy on the job and employers lack clarity as to their obligations under the law. The Pregnant Workers Fairness Act will provide a clear, predictable rule: employers must provide reasonable accommodations for limitations arising out of pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions, unless this would pose an undue hardship.

The Pregnant Workers Fairness Act is modeled after the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and offers employers and employees a familiar reasonable accommodation framework to follow. Under the ADA, workers with disabilities enjoy clear statutory protections and need not prove how other employees are treated in order to obtain necessary accommodations. Pregnant workers deserve the same clarity and streamlined process and should not have to ascertain how their employer treats others in order to understand their own accommodation rights, as the Supreme Court's ruling currently requires.

Evidence from states and cities that have adopted laws similar to the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act suggests that providing this clarity reduces lawsuits and, most importantly, helps ensure that women can obtain necessary reasonable accommodations in a timely manner, which keeps pregnant women healthy and earning an income when they need it most. No woman should have to choose between providing for her family and maintaining a healthy pregnancy, and the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act would ensure that all women working for covered employers would be protected.

The need for the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act is recognized across ideological and partisan lines. Thirty states and D.C. have adopted pregnant worker fairness measures with broad, and often unanimous, bipartisan support. Twenty-five of those laws have passed within the last seven years. These states include: Alaska, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Maine, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Nebraska, New Mexico, Nevada, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oregon, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, West Virginia, Vermont, Virginia, and Washington. Lawmakers have concluded that accommodating pregnant workers who need it is a measured approach grounded in family values and basic fairness.

The Pregnant Workers Fairness Act is necessary because it promotes long-term economic security and workplace fairness. When accommodations allow pregnant women to continue to work, they can maintain income and seniority, while forced leave sets new mothers back with lost wages and missed advancement opportunities. When pregnant women are fired, not only do they and their families lose critical income, but they must fight extra hard to re-enter a job market that is especially brutal on the unemployed and on pregnant women.

The Pregnant Workers Fairness Act is vital because it supports healthy pregnancies. The choice between risking a job and risking the health of a pregnancy is one no one should have to make. Women who cannot perform some aspects of their usual duties without risking their own health or the health of their pregnancy, but whose families cannot afford to lose their income, may continue working under dangerous conditions. There are health consequences to pushing women out of the workforce as well. Stress from job loss can increase the risk of having a premature baby and/or a baby with low birth weight. In addition, women who are not forced to use their leave during pregnancy may have more leave available to take following childbirth, which in turn facilitates breastfeeding, bonding with and caring for a new child, and recovering from childbirth.

For all of these reasons, we urge you to support the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act.

We also welcome the opportunity to provide you with additional information. Sincerely,

A Better Balance, American Civil Liberties Union, National Partnership for Women & Families, National Women's Law Center, 1,000 Days, 9to5, 9to5 California, 9to5 Colorado, 9to5 Georgia, 9to5 Wisconsin, Advocates for Youth, AFL- CIO, African American Ministers In Action, Alianza Nacional de Campesinas, All-Options, American Association of University Women (AAUW), American Association of University Women, Indianapolis (AAUW), American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees (AFSCME), American Federation of Teachers, Asian Pacific American Labor Alliance, Association of Asian Pacific Community, Health Organizations (AAPCHO), Association of Maternal & Child Health Programs, Association of Women's Health, Obstetric and Neonatal Nurses.

Black Mamas Matter Alliance, Breastfeeding Mother, Building Pathways, California Breastfeeding Coalition, California Women's Law Center, California Work & Family Coalition, Casa de Esperanza: National Latin@ Network, for Healthy Families and Communities, Center for American Progress, Center for Parental Leave Leadership, Center for Public Policy Priorities, Center for Reproductive Rights, Centro de Trabajadores Unidos (United Workers Center), Child Care Law Center, Child Welfare League of America, Chinese Progressive Association (San Francisco), Church World Service, Citizen Action of NY, CLASP, Clearinghouse on Women's Issues, Closing the Women's Health Gap, Coalition on Human Needs, Coalition of Labor Union Women, Coalition of Labor Union Women, Philadelphia Chapter, Communications Workers of America (CWA), Congregation of Our Lady of the Good Shepherd, U.S. Provinces.

DC Jobs with Justice, Disability Rights Education and Defense Fund (DREDF), Disciples Center for Public Witness, Economic Policy Institute, EMC Strategies, Equal Pay Today, Equal Rights Advocates, Family Equality, Family Values@ Work, Farmworker Justice, Feminist Majority Foundation, Friends Committee on National Legislation, Futures Without Violence, Gender Justice, Grassroots Maternal and Child Health, Leadership Initiative, Hadassah, The Women's Zionist Organization of America, Inc., Healthy and Free Tennessee, Healthy Mothers/Healthy Babies Coalition of Georgia, Healthy Work Campaign, Center for Social Epidemiology, HER Development, Hoosier Action, Illuminate Colorado, In Our Own Voice: National Black Women's Reproductive Justice Agenda, Indiana AFL-CIO.

Indiana Breastfeeding Coalition, Indiana Catholic Conference, Indiana Chapter of Unite Here Local 23. Indiana Coalition Against Domestic Violence, Indiana Friends Committee on Legislation, Indiana Institute for Working Families, Indiana Statewide Independent Living Council, Indianapolis Urban League, Indy Chamber, Interfaith Worker Justice, International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace & Agricultural Implement Workers of America (UAW), Jewish Women International Jobs With Justice, Justice for Migrant Women, Kansas Breastfeeding Coalition, Inc., Kentucky Equal Justice Center, KWH Law Center for Social Justice and Change, Labor Council for Latin American Advancement (LCLAA), Labor Project, LatinoJustice PRLDEF, Legal Aid at Work, Legal Momentum, The Women's Legal Defense and Education Fund, Legal Voice, Louisiana Partnership for Children and Families.

Main Street Alliance, Maine Women's Lobby, Majaica, LLC , Make the Road New York, MANA, A National Latina Organization March of Dimes, Marion County Commission on Youth, Inc. Massachusetts Coalition for Occupational Safety & Health, Metro-Detroit Chapter of the Coalition of Labor Union Women (CLUW), Michigan Immigrant Rights Center MOBB United for Social Change, MomsRising, Monroe County NOW, MS Black Women's Roundtable, Mujeres Unidas y Activas, NAACP, NARAL Pro-Choice America, NARAL Pro-Choice Colorado, National Advocacy Center of the Sisters of the Good Shepherd, National Advocates for Pregnant Women, National Asian Pacific American Women's Forum (NAPAWF), National Center for Law and Economic Justice, National Center for Lesbian Rights, National Center for Transgender Equality, National Coalition Against Domestic Violence, National Consumers League.

National Council for Occupational Safety and Health (COSH), National Council of Jewish Women, National Council of Jewish Women--California, National Domestic Workers Alliance, National Education Association, National Employment Law Project, National Employment Lawyers Association, National Health Law Program, National Immigration Law Center, National Network to End Domestic Violence, National Organization for Women, National Partnership for Women and Families, National Resource Center on Domestic Violence, National WIC Association, NC National Organization for Women (NC NOW), Nebraska Appleseed, NETWORK Lobby for Catholic Social Justice, New Working Majority, NJ Citizen Action; NJ Time to Care Coalition, North Carolina Justice Center, Oxfam America, PA NOW, Parent Voices CA, Path Ways PA, PhilaPOSH.

Planned Parenthood Federation of America, Prevent Child Abuse NC, Physicians for Reproductive Health, Poligon Education Fund, PowHer New York, Pride at Work, Public Citizen, Quetzal, Restaurant Opportunities Centers United, RESULTS, RICLUW, San Francisco CLUW Chapter, Service Employees International Union, SEIU 32BJ, Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United States (SIECUS), SisterReach, Shriver Center on Poverty Law, Silver in the City (Indianapolis, IN), Solutions for Breastfeeding, Southern CA Coalition for Occupational Safety & Health, Southwest Pennsylvania National Organization for Women, Southwest Women's Law Center, TASH, Technology Concepts Group International, LLC, The Greenlining Institute.

The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, The Little Timmy Project, The Ohio Women's Public Policy Network, The Zonta Club of Greater Queens, TIME'S UP Now, Ujima Inc: The National Center on Violence Against Women in the Black Community, Ultra Violet, UnidosUS, United Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers of America, United Food and Commercial Workers, International Union (UFCW), United Food and Commercial Workers Local 227, Union for Reform Judaism, United for Respect, United State of Women, United States Breastfeeding Committee, United Steelworkers, United Way of Kentucky, University of Illinois at Chicago, School of Public Health, Division of Environmental & Occupational Health Sciences, Vision y Compromiso, Voices for Children in Nebraska, Voices for Progress, Warehouse Worker Resource Center, Western Center on Law and Poverty.

William E. Morris Institute for Justice, Arizona, Women4Change, Women's Achievement Network and Development Alliance, Women & Girls Foundation, Women Employed, Women of Reform Judaism, Women's Center for Education and Career Advancement, Women's Employment Rights Clinic Golden Gate University, Women's Foundation of California, Women's Fund of Greater Chattanooga, Women's Fund of Rhode Island, Women's Law Project, Women's March, Women's Rights and Empowerment Network, Work Equity, Workers' Center of Central New York, Worker Justice Center of New York, Worksafe, Workplace Fairness, YWCA Greater Cincinnati, YWCA Mahoning Valley, YWCA McLean County, YWCA New Hampshire, YWCA Northwestern Illinois, YWCA of Van Wert County, YWCA USA, ZERO TO THREE.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Madam Speaker, I want to thank Mr. Nadler and Mr. Katko for their leadership on this legislation.

I urge my colleagues to support the bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. FOXX of North Carolina. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 2694, the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act.

House Republicans have long supported protections in Federal law for all workers, but especially pregnant workers, and we believe employers should provide reasonable accommodations for pregnant workers, empowering them to achieve their highest potential.

I speak not only as a concerned Congresswoman on this issue but also as a mother and a grandmother. Discrimination of any type should not be tolerated, and no one should ever be denied an opportunity because of unlawful discrimination.

However, there are already important protections under Federal law to prevent workplace discrimination, including Federal laws that rightfully protect pregnant workers.

Take the Pregnancy Discrimination Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act, for example. These Federal laws ensure workers are not being unlawfully discriminated against and receive reasonable accommodations related to pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions.

My Republican colleagues and I agree with the underlying goal of H.R. 2694. That is why Republican Members on the Education and Labor Committee negotiated in good faith with Chairman Scott to make important and necessary improvements to the bill, and I thank Chairman Scott for his willingness to do so.

H.R. 2694, as introduced, did not require a pregnant worker, in order to be eligible for an accommodation, to be able to perform the essential functions of the job with a reasonable accommodation. This is a sensible provision now included in the bill with additional language that a temporary limitation, which prevents performance of an essential function, may qualify for a reasonable accommodation.

Further, a definition of ``known limitations'' related to pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions was also initially excluded, but the bill now includes such a definition and a requirement that employees communicate the known limitation to the employer. This provision will help workers and their employers understand their rights and responsibilities more clearly.

Additionally, the original version of H.R. 2694 appeared to allow employees a unilateral veto over offered accommodations, but the bill now clarifies that reasonable accommodations will typically be determined through a balance and interactive dialogue between workers and employers, similar to the process implemented under the ADA.

The bill also now includes a provision ensuring that if an employer makes a good faith effort to determine a reasonable accommodation through the interactive process with the employee, the employer is not liable for damages.

Finally, H.R. 2694, as introduced, did not limit its application to employers with 15 or more employees, as do title VII of the Civil Rights Act and the ADA. The bill now includes a 15-employee threshold.

These bipartisan changes were considered and incorporated in the bill passed out of the committee in January. Unfortunately, despite the necessary improvements made to the original bill, an important issue remains unresolved. Namely, the legislation before us today does not currently include a longstanding provision from the Civil Rights Act that protects religious organizations from being forced to make employment decisions that conflict with their faith.

To address this omission, Republicans offered an amendment to include this narrow but longstanding provision when the bill was considered by the committee. The Civil Rights Act protection, which already exists under current law, ensures religious organizations are not forced to make employment decisions that conflict with their faith. Unfortunately, committee Democrats defeated this amendment on a party- line vote.

The purpose of America's nondiscrimination laws, and the agencies enforcing them, is to give all Americans equal opportunities to succeed. That being said, overzealous government intervention often causes more harm than good. In the case of H.R. 2694, by failing to include a longstanding Civil Rights Act provision, we are doing just that. As it is currently written, H.R. 2694 will create legal risks for religious organizations and their religiously backed employment decisions.

Last year, a Democrat-invited witness at the committee hearing on H.R. 2694 highlighted Kentucky's recently enacted pregnancy accommodation law as a template for Congress to follow.

Madam Speaker, I would like to read that again. Last year, a Democrat-invited witness at the committee hearing on H.R. 2694 highlighted Kentucky's recently enacted pregnancy accommodation law as a template for Congress to follow. Kentucky's law includes a religious organization protection very similar to the one found in the Civil Rights Act and incorporated in the Republican-sponsored amendment.

At least 16 States and the District of Columbia in their pregnancy discrimination or pregnancy accommodation laws also include a provision similar to the Civil Rights Act religious organization protection. Even if certain Members believe including such a provision in H.R. 2694 is somehow unnecessary, it would do no harm to include the protection and, in doing so, address the concerns I have raised. I remain perplexed why Chairman Nadler and Chairman Scott continue to oppose the current law protection.

The First Amendment guarantees all Americans the freedom of religion, and for over 240 years, Supreme Court decisions and laws written by Congress have maintained strong protections for religious liberty. H.R. 2694 should do so as well.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler), the sponsor of this legislation and the chairman of the Judiciary Committee.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Katko), the lead Republican sponsor of the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, section 702 is not repealed by this law, and according to the Congressional Research Service, which studied this issue, all in all, State statutes providing for pregnancy accommodation generally incorporate generalized longstanding religious exemptions. In most cases, exemptions allow religious institutions to favor coreligionists. States typically do not enact separate or specialized religious exemptions for pregnancy accommodation laws.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Bonamici), the chair of the Subcommittee on Civil Rights and Human Services.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Adams), the chair of the Subcommittee on Workforce Protections.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Wild), a member of the Committee on Education and Labor.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Madam Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Wild).

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. Schrier), a distinguished member of the Education and Labor Committee.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Madam Speaker, can you advise how much time is remaining on each side?

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro), the chair of the Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services, Education and Related Agencies.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Madam Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from Connecticut.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Georgia (Mrs. McBath), a distinguished member of the Committee on Education and Labor.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Carolyn B. Maloney), the chair of the Committee on Oversight and Reform.

Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding and for his leadership.

Madam Speaker, I rise in support of this bill. As a member of the New York City Council, I became the first woman in history to give birth while in office as a council member. There had been many men who had become fathers, but I was the first woman. So I know firsthand how physically draining and stressful it is to work while pregnant.

Some of the only good news coming out of the COVID-19 lockdown is that there has been a dramatic drop in the number of premature births.

In Denmark, the rate of babies born preterm dropped by 90 percent during the lockdown. So the accommodations in this bill can keep mothers and babies safe. It is strongly pro-family.

This bill is an incredible step in the right direction. Once we ratify the Equal Rights Amendment, we will have an anchor in the Constitution to pass even more robust protections for women and families.

I urge a strong ``yes.'' It is long overdue.

Ms. FOXX of North Carolina. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Wasserman Schultz).

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act, a bipartisan proposal that finally secures clear protections for pregnant workers.

In the year 2020, Federal protections for pregnant workers are stuck in the 1950s.

Current law does not explicitly guarantee all pregnant workers the right to reasonable accommodations so they can work without jeopardizing their pregnancies. Reasonable accommodations like a glass of water or a place to sit. These are sensible and, quite frankly, simple requests.

I was pregnant with my twins and then again with my youngest daughter when I served in the State legislature. While there were obstacles, I could ask for accommodations and did so without fear, but it was still a struggle to secure them, even for a State legislator.

Unfortunately, this is the case for many pregnant workers.

We know that COVID-19 has only exacerbated health inequalities for women, especially women of color. In fact, the most common low-paid jobs for women, like nurses and home health aides, are on the pandemic front lines.

Pregnant women across this country are literally putting their lives on the line. Yet, too often, instead of providing a pregnant worker with an accommodation routinely given to other workers, her employer will fire her, depriving her of a paycheck and health insurance at a time when she needs them most.

Pregnant workers must never have to choose between maintaining a healthy pregnancy and losing their jobs, especially now when both their health and economic security are crucial.

The demand for the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act even stretches across religious, ideological and party lines.

Madam Speaker, I include in the Record a letter on behalf of faith- based organizations in support of this vital legislation. September 11, 2020.

Dear Representative: On behalf of the undersigned religious and faith-based organizations representing a diversity of faith traditions and communities across the nation, we write today in support of healthy workplace environments and conditions for pregnant workers. We urge you to pass the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act (H.R. 2694). People of faith across the ideological spectrum understand that prioritizing the health and safety of pregnant workers should not be a partisan issue. The Pregnant Workers Fairness Act would ensure that pregnant workers can continue safely working to support their families during a pregnancy. The bill requires employers to make the same sort of accommodations for pregnant workers as are already in place for workers with disabilities.

Our faith traditions affirm the dignity of pregnant individuals and the moral imperative of ensuring their safety. We also affirm the dignity of work and the obligation to treat workers justly. It is immoral for an employer to force a worker to choose between a healthy pregnancy and earning a living. By passing the bipartisan Pregnant Workers Fairness Act (H.R. 2694), Congress will ensure that workers who arc pregnant will be treated fairly in the workforce and can continue earning income to support themselves and their families. Efforts to distract from the central goal of ensuring pregnant workers can maintain their health and the health of their pregnancies by inserting unnecessary, harmful, and politically divisive language into this bill undermines our obligation to protect pregnant workers across our country.

While many pregnant individuals continue working throughout their pregnancies without incident, there are instances when minor accommodations are necessary at the workplace to ensure the safety of the expecting mother and the baby. All too often, requests for simple workplace accommodations like a stool to sit, a water bottle, or a bathroom break are denied. Within the COVID-19 context, such critical accommodations might include proper protective equipment, telework, or staggered work schedules that offer employees commute times which avoid crowded public transportation and increased exposure. Currently, pregnant workers may continue to work without necessary accommodations because they fear losing their jobs and need the income, thus endangering their health or the health of their pregnancy. Without these protections, it is not uncommon for pregnant workers to be let go or forced out onto unpaid leave for requesting accommodations. Many others must quit their job to avoid risking the health of their pregnancy.

Passing the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act is a moral and economic imperative; two-thirds of women who had their first child between 2006 and 2008 worked during pregnancy, and 88 percent of these first-time mothers worked into their last trimester. Keeping these women healthy and in the workforce is paramount to family economic security. Nearly 25 million mothers with children under 18 are in the workforce, making up nearly 1 in 6 of all workers. And about 3 in 4 mothers in the workforce are working full time. Millions of families rely on their earnings. In 2017, 41 percent of mothers were the sole or primary breadwinners in their families, while 23.2 percent of mothers were co-breadwinners. Whole families suffer when pregnant workers are forced out of a job.

The undersigned religious and faith-based groups are united in support of the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act. We strongly urge you to vote for the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act, and to vote against any motion to recommit that may be offered. Sincerely, the undersigned:

Ameinu, Arizona Jews for Justice, Aytzim: Ecological Judaism, Bend the Arc: Jewish Action, Catholic Labor Network, Church World Service, Columban Center for Advocacy and Outreach, Congregation of Our Lady of Charity of the Good Shepherd, U.S. Provinces, Faith Action Network, Faith Action Network--Washington State, Franciscan Action Network, Friends Committee on National Legislation, Keshet, Jewish Alliance for Law and Social Action.

Jewish Family & Children's Service of Greater Boston, Jewish Women International, Justice Revival, National Advocacy Center of the Sisters of the Good Shepherd, National Council of Churches, National Council of Jewish Women, Network of Jewish Human Service Agencies, NETWORK Lobby for Catholic Social Justice, Pax Christi USA, T'ruah: The Rabbinic Call for Human Rights, United Church of Christ, Justice and Witness Ministries, Union for Reform Judaism, Uri L'Tzedek, Women of Reform Judaism.

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. People of faith and across the ideological spectrum recognize that prioritizing the health and safety of pregnant workers should not be a partisan issue.

It is past time for workplaces to accommodate our families and protect pregnant workers. They are the ones who keep our economy and communities running.

I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this long overdue legislation.

Ms. FOXX of North Carolina. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Michigan (Ms. Tlaib).

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Neguse).

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I include in the Record a letter in support of the legislation from the National WIC Association, that is Women, Infants, and Children Association, in favor of the legislation, and another letter from the ACLU, the American Civil Liberties Union. National WIC Association Letter in Support of H.R. 2694, Pregnant Workers Fairness Act

On behalf of the National WIC Association, the 12,000 WIC state and local service provider agencies we represent, and the over six million mothers, babies, and young children our members serve, we enthusiastically support passage of the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act (H.R. 2694). The accommodations established by this bill are urgently needed to assure healthy pregnancies for working mothers served by WIC.

WIC providers serve approximately half of all babies born in the United States with nutrition support and counseling throughout pregnancy, the postpartum period, and early childhood. WIC's nutrition intervention has successfully supported positive birth outcomes by reducing preterm birth and other complications that can lead to lifelong health conditions and significant healthcare costs. Nutrition-- including adequate hydration--is vital for the health of a pregnancy, but additional protections are needed to address the factors that influence pregnancy and birth outcomes beyond nutrition.

This bill wisely extends the workplace accommodations framework--first developed in the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)--to ensure that employers are taking reasonable steps to minimize risks to employees' pregnancies. Simple modifications to the workplace such as a stool to sit on, relief from heavy lifting, or a water bottle to carry can contribute to the health of the pregnancy without taking drastic action that inhibits the pregnant worker's economic security, such as unpaid leave or termination. This balanced and effective approach, already familiar to employers from the ADA context, will work in tandem with other medical and nutrition precautions to ensure positive birth outcomes and healthy infants.

Women now constitute the majority of the American workforce. Three-quarters of working women are expected to be both pregnant and employed during their adult lives. Without a clear legal standard, pregnant workers may be forced to choose between keeping a roof over their head, putting food on the table, and the health of their pregnancy. This burden is even more acute for the approximately twenty percent of working woment--a total of 15.2 million women--who live in households that earn less than 185 percent of the federal poverty line, which is the income threshold for WIC participation. Of these 15.2 million women, 59 percent (approximately nine million) are working part-time.

No pregnant worker should have to choose between the health of their pregnancy and their livelihood. As direct-service providers that support almost two million pregnant and postpartum women, the WIC community strongly supports efforts that advance sensible policy to safeguard the health of pregnancies. The Pregnant Workers Fairness Act is a thoughtful solution that will complement WIC's tireless efforts to support expectant mothers as they seek a healthy start for their babies. We urge swift passage of this critical legislation. Sincerely, Rev. Douglas Greenaway, President & CEO, National WIC Association. ____ September 11, 2020. Re Vote YES for the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act (H.R. 2694).

Dear Members of Congress: On behalf of the American Civil Liberties Union, and our more than 8 million members, supporters, and activists, we write to express our support for H.R. 2694, the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act. This critical legislation would combat an all-too-common form of pregnancy discrimination while also providing employers much- needed clarity on their obligations under the law. We urge all members of the House of Representatives to vote in favor of this measured, bipartisan, and long-overdue legislation and to oppose the motion to recommit.

The ACLU has long fought to advance women's equality and opportunity by challenging laws and policies that discriminate against women in the workplace and by dismantling the stereotypes that constrain women's full engagement and participation at work. Although the Pregnancy Discrimination Act has played a critical role over the past 40 years in securing women's place in the workforce, too many women continue to be marginalized at work because of their decision to become pregnant and have children. This kind of discriminatory treatment has become most obvious when pregnant workers--predominantly women in physically demanding or male-dominated jobs, low-wage workers, and women of color--request temporary accommodations to address a medical need and instead are terminated or placed on unpaid leave, causing devastating economic harm. The Pregnant Workers Fairness Act would address this problem by requiring employers with fifteen or more employees to provide reasonable and temporary accommodations to pregnant workers if doing so would not impose an undue hardship on the business.

Pregnancy Discrimination, the PDA, and Young v. UPS, Inc.

Pregnancy and childbirth are often locus points for discrimination against women in the workforce. Policies excluding or forcing the discharge of pregnant women from the workplace were common in the 1970s and reflected the stereotype that a woman's primary or sole duties were to be a homemaker and raise children. The adoption of the Pregnancy Discrimination Act (PDA) in 1978, an amendment to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, established that discrimination because of ``pregnancy, childbirth, and related medical conditions'' was a form of discrimination ``because of sex.'' It was intended to dismantle the stereotype, and the policies based on it, that viewed pregnant women's labor force participation as contingent, temporary, and dispensable without regard to their individual capacity to do the job in question.

The PDA also required employers to treat pregnant workers the same as other temporarily disabled workers because Congress recognized that working women contributed to their families' economic stability and should not have to choose between a career and continuing a pregnancy. Despite the PDA, pregnancy discrimination persists, and for many years courts routinely ruled against workers who brought pregnancy accommodation cases where they alleged discrimination when an employer provided a job modification to an employee temporarily unable to work but failed to do the same for a pregnant worker.

In Young v United Parcel Service, Inc., the Supreme Court granted certiorari to resolve a split in the Circuits and for the first time addressed the PDA's application in the context of an employee who needed an accommodation due to pregnancy. The Court concluded that the statute's mandate applied with equal force in these circumstances and articulated a modified analysis for failure-to-accommodate cases. The Court also offered a new pretext analysis that plaintiffs may rely on when litigating claims under the PDA's second clause. Since Young, the reflexive approval of employer policies favoring workers with occupational injuries has largely disappeared. However, the bright-line deference to employer policies, and the overbroad reading of such policies as ``pregnancy- blind,'' has been replaced, in many instances, with an unduly demanding standard for plaintiffs in making a showing of differential treatment--even at the initial pleading stage, prior to having the benefit of discovery. This trend undermines Young's intent of demanding that employers justify failures to accommodate pregnancy. Instead, they impose unwarranted--and often insurmountable--burdens of proof on pregnant workers that increasingly confer ``least favored nation'' status on the protected trait of pregnancy. The stories of clients the ACLU has represented--both as direct counsel and as lead amicus--illustrate the harm:

Lochren v. Suffolk County: Sandra Lochren and five other police officers sued the Suffolk County Police Department (SCPD) for refusing to temporarily reassign pregnant officers to deskwork and other non-patrol jobs, even though it did so for officers injured on the job. But for those officers who opted to keep working patrol,

SCPD also failed to provide bulletproof vests or gun belts that would fit pregnant officers. Their only safe option was to go on unpaid long before their due dates.

Cole v. SavaSeniorCare: When Jaimie Cole, a certified nursing assistant, was in her third trimester, she developed a high risk of preeclampsia, a condition that can lead to preterm labor or even death. Her doctor advised her not to do any heavy lifting. Cole's job required her to regularly help patients in and out of bed and assist with bathing, so she asked for a temporary light duty assignment. Instead, her employer sent her home without pay for the rest of her pregnancy.

Myers v. Hope Healthcare Center: Asia Myers, a certified nursing assistant, experienced complications early in her pregnancy and was told by her doctor that she could continue to work, but should not do any lifting on the job. Although her employer had a history of providing light duty to workers with temporary lifting restrictions, Myers was told not to return to work until her restrictions were lifted. She was out of work for over a month with no income or health insurance coverage.

Hicks v. City of Tuscaloosa: Stephanie Hicks, a narcotics investigator with the Tuscaloosa Police Department in Alabama, wanted to breastfeed her new baby, but her bulletproof vest was restrictive, painful, and prone to causing infection in her breasts. She asked for a desk job but her employer refused, even though it routinely granted desk jobs to officers unable to fulfill all of their patrol duties. Instead, it offered her an ill-fitting vest that put her at risk.

Legg v. Ulster County: Corrections Officer Ann Marie Legg was denied light duty during her pregnancy, even though Ulster County gave such assignments to guards injured on the job. In her third trimester, Legg had to intervene in a fight, prompting her to go on leave rather than face future risks.

Allen v. AT&T Mobility: Cynthia Allen lost her job because she accumulated too many ``points'' under AT&T Mobility's punitive attendance policy due to pregnancy-related symptoms such as nausea. The policy makes accommodation for late arrivals, early departures, and absences due to thirteen enumerated reasons, some medical and some not, but none due to pregnancy and pregnancy-related symptoms.

Durham v. Rural/Metro Corp.: Michelle Durham was an EMT in Alabama whose job often required her to lift patients on stretchers into an ambulance. When she became pregnant, her health care provider imposed a restriction on heavy lifting. Durham asked Rural/Metro for a temporary modified duty assignment during her pregnancy, but was rejected, despite the company's policy of giving such assignments to others. She was told her only option was to take unpaid leave.

It is indisputable that Young was an important step forward to combat pregnancy discrimination. Yet, too many pregnant workers continue to face insurmountable obstacles in HR offices, where employers misunderstand their obligations under the PDA, and in courtrooms across the country, where judges use Young to hinder access to needed accommodations. Despite the clear mandates of the PDA, the current legal landscape leaves exposed and unprotected those pregnant workers who want to continue working while maintaining a healthy pregnancy.

Similarly, many pregnant workers have not found protection or recourse under the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 because absent complications, pregnancy is not considered a disability that substantially limits a major life activity. This legal reality means that many of the symptoms of a normal pregnancy that can disrupt a worker's ability to do her job such as extreme fatigue, morning sickness, or limitations on her mobility are not entitled to accommodation. Moreover, many pregnant workers seek accommodation precisely because they wish to avoid the conditions that might disable them or endanger their pregnancy. Yet because the ADA is so expansive with respect to other conditions that qualify as disabilities, the population of non-pregnant workers entitled to reasonable accommodation is exponentially larger than when the PDA was enacted more than 40 years ago. Accordingly, without such express entitlement to accommodation, pregnant workers face an untenable ``least favored nation'' status in the workplace.

The simple solution to this no-win situation is the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act. This legislation, modeled after the ADA and using a framework familiar to most employers, takes a thoughtful and measured approach to balancing the needs of working people and employers by requiring businesses with fifteen or more employees to provide workers with temporary, reasonable accommodation for known limitations related to pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions if doing so would not place an undue hardship on business. It also prohibits employers from forcing a pregnant employee to take a leave of absence if a reasonable accommodation can be provided; prevents employers from denying job opportunities to an applicant or employee because of the individual's need for a reasonable accommodation; prevents an employer from forcing an applicant or employee to accept a specific accommodation; and prohibits retaliation against individuals who seek to use PWFA to protect their rights.

At a time when women constitute nearly 60 percent of the workforce and contribute significantly to their families' economic well-being, passage of PWFA is a dire necessity. When a pregnant worker is forced to quit, coerced into taking unpaid leave, or fired because her employer refuses to provide a temporary job modification, the economic impact can be severe; if she is the sole or primary breadwinner for her children, as nearly half of working women are, her entire family will be without an income when they most need it. She further may be denied unemployment benefits because she is considered to have left her job voluntarily. She may have few if any additional resources on which to rely. PWFA ensures that women would not face such devastating consequences. Instead, it treats pregnancy for what it is--a normal condition of employment.

PWFA promotes women's health. Accommodations make a 'difference in physically demanding jobs (requiring long hours, standing, lifting heavy objects, etc.) where the risk of preterm delivery and low birth weight are significant. The failure to provide accommodations can be linked to miscarriages and premature babies who suffer from a variety of ailments. This bill would be an important contribution in the fight to improve maternal health and mortality.

There is also a strong business case for PWFA. Providing pregnant employees with reasonable accommodations increases worker productivity, retention, and morale, and reduces health care costs associated with pregnancy complications. PWFA can also reduce litigation costs by providing greater clarity regarding an employer's legal obligations to pregnant workers. In fact, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce stated that PWFA would establish ``clear guidelines and a balanced process that works for employers and employees alike.'' Additionally, a group of leading private sector employers expressed their support for PWFA and noted ``women's labor force participation is critical to the strength of our companies, the growth of our economy and the financial security of most modern families.''

Finally, 30 states across the political and ideological spectrum have recognized the benefits of providing reasonable accommodations to pregnant workers. Congress should ensure that all pregnant workers, not just some, have the protections they need.

It is time for Congress to act and pass the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act. Sincerely, Ronald Newman,

National Political Director. Gillian Thomas,

Senior Staff Attorney. Vania Leveille,

Senior Legislative Counsel.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Madam Speaker, as I am sure each person in this Chamber can agree, it is simply unacceptable that many pregnant workers have to choose between their paycheck and a healthy pregnancy because they cannot access reasonable accommodations to continue working safely.

As my colleagues have pointed out, most accommodations, which can include water, seating, and more frequent restroom breaks, are not complex or costly. Yet without these simple accommodations, health risks to pregnant workers can be significant and potentially tragic.

The COVID-19 pandemic poses increased risks for pregnant workers at a time when pregnant women comprise 62 percent of frontline workers, including more than 75 percent of healthcare workers.

Passing the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act today, we can take a strong bipartisan step to guarantee that all pregnant workers have access to basic workplace protections.

Madam Speaker, once again, I urge my colleagues to support the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act, and I yield back the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Madam Speaker, first, let me just restate what I said about the Congressional Research Service that found that States typically do not enact separate or specialized religious exemptions for pregnancy accommodation laws.

Madam Speaker, this MTR would jeopardize women's health and risk their pregnancies in order to provide a religious exemption for employers, to exempt them from the requirement to provide just basic and reasonable accommodations for the workforce. Exactly who would want them to deny these basic accommodations?

First, it is unnecessary. The Pregnant Workers Fairness Act already exempts small private employers, including religious employers, with fewer than 15 employees. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, 80 percent of religious organizations have fewer than 10 employees.

Second, the underlying bill does not in any way amend or change the underlying exemptions in title VII of the Civil Rights Act or Americans with Disabilities Act or any other bill. It doesn't affect the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. But it would, if it is specified in this bill, give the employer the idea that they could deny reasonable accommodations if they for some religious reason don't agree with the pregnancy: women who are pregnant and divorced, women pregnant out of wedlock, pregnant in a same-sex relationship.

What, you don't have to give them a water break?

This amendment is unnecessary. The other exemptions are there for legitimate religious reasons, and this overbroad amendment would just cause mischief.

Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Wild).

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source