Here at the Law Office of Vincent Miletti, Esq. and the home of the #UnusuallyMotivated movement, we take pride as a resilient and dependable legal services firm, providing such services in both a traditional and online, web-based environment. With mastered specialization in areas such as Employment and Labor Law, Intellectual Property (IP) (trademark, copyright, patent), Entertainment Law, and e-Commerce (Supply Chain, Distribution, Fulfillment, Standard Legal & Regulatory), we provide a range of legal services including, but not limited to traditional legal representation (litigation, mediation, arbitration, opinion letters and advisory), non-litigated business legal representation and legal counsel, and unique, online legal services such as smart forms, mobile training, legal marketing and development.

Still, we, here at Miletti Law®, feel obligated to enlighten, educate, and create awareness, free of charge, about how these issues and many others affect our unusually motivated® readers and/or their businesses. Accordingly, in order to achieve this goal, we have committed ourselves to creating authoritative, trustworthy & distinctive content, which looks to not only educate, but also deliver in a manner that only Miletti Law® can. Usually, this content is featured as videos posted on our YouTube Channel https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCtvUryqkkMAJLwrLu2BBt6w and blogs that are published on our website WWW.MILETTILAW.COM. With that, the ball is in your court and you have an effortless obligation to subscribe to the channel and sign up for the Newsletter on the website, which encompasses the best way to ensure that you stay in the loop and benefit from the knowledge bombs that we drop here!

To achieve our goal of keeping you informed, this blog is Part XVII and an update of our series on federal laws that apply to the issues of workplace harassment, discrimination, & retaliation in New York. In Part XVI, we provided you with an overview of “Pregnancy-Related Protections,” as provided for under the various federal laws. Accordingly, we now move the discussion forward with an overview of “Employer Obligation to Reasonably Accommodate Pregnancy” under applicable federal laws in this blog and part XVII of the series.

Employer Obligation to Reasonably Accommodate Pregnancy under Federal Laws Applicable to Workplace Harassment, Discrimination, & Retaliation in New York.

NOTE: As mentioned in the previous blog and Part XVI of the series, the information regarding employer obligation to provide pregnant employees with reasonable accommodations discussed in this short blog was current as of March 26, 2021.

Pregnancy Discrimination Act (PDA)

There are no specific provisions in which an employer is required to provide for maternity leave or accommodate an employee’s pregnancy or pregnancy-related physical impairments under the PDA. Instead, pursuant to Section 42 U.S.C. § 2000e(k), the PDA mandates the equal treatment of women affected by childbirth, pregnancy, or related medical conditions for all purposes of employment, including being provided with benefits under fringe benefit programs, just like others not affected, but similar in their inability or ability to work.

In 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court provided its verdict in the case “Young v. United Parcel Service, Inc., 575 U.S. 206 (2015)” concerning the question of accommodating pregnancy. Following the Supreme Court’s decision, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) provided guidelines concerning when employers should provide employees with accommodation under the PDA. Citing this case, the EEOC guidance requires a consideration of the following:

Establishment of a prima facie case of pregnancy discrimination – an employee is required to demonstrate the following to establish a prima facie case of pregnancy discrimination:

  • The employee is a member of a protected group.
  • The employee sought accommodation from the employer.
  • The employer failed to provide the employee with accommodation-and-
  • Other employees with a similar ability or inability to work were provided with accommodation.

Existence of significant burden on pregnant employees – employer policies that impose substantial burdens on pregnant employees may nonetheless violate the PDA, although they do not facially discriminate based on the pregnancy and are hard to support by a sufficiently strong justification.

Identification of similarly-situated employees – under the PDA, the employee is not required to point to an employee that is similar in all but the protected ways for the purposes of the prima facie case. For instance, if an employee identifies an employee whom the employer provided an accommodation sought by the pregnant employee or who was similar the inability or ability to work following an impairment (such as an employee with a lifting restriction), then such an employee could satisfy and establish their prima facie case.

Pregnant vs. non-pregnant employees – a significant burden on pregnant employees may result if an employer has a policy of failing to accommodate a large percentage of pregnant employees while providing accommodations to a large portion of non-pregnant employees with limitations.

Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)

As mentioned in our video and blog accessible through https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mn1SvvwPAwU and https://milettilaw.com/blog/f/does-being-pregnant-in-of-itself-qualify-as-a-disability, respectively, a pregnancy can qualify as a ‘disability’ if the pregnant employee suffers from certain serious pregnancy-related medical conditions and that are considered sufficiently severe. Under such scenarios, an employer is required by the ADA to attempt to provide the pregnant employee with reasonable accommodation. From the case mentioned above concerning an employee who compared her status with those of others who qualified as disabled under the ADA, the Supreme Court and the EEOC hold that especially where the employer has provided accommodations to other workers with other similar limitations in the past, an employer must have a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for not providing pregnant employees with an accommodation.

Following the EEOC’s guidance on this matter, courts have held that employer is obligated to provide a reasonable accommodation, similar to the one such an employer would provide or would have provided to other temporarily disabled employees, where a pregnant employee is covered by the ADA following illnesses, conditions, or complications arising from pregnancy.

In Part XVIII, we will move forward the discussion and provide you with an overview of “Religion-Related Protections,” as provided under federal laws applicable to workplace harassment, discrimination, & retaliation in New York.

Until then, stay tuned for more legal guidance, training, and counsel. In the interim, reach us with questions or comments on our website at the Contact Us page!

Always rising above the bar,

Isaac T.,

Legal Writer & Author.