[Congressional Record Volume 166, Number 161 (Thursday, September 17, 2020)]
[House]
[Pages H4508-H4527]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                     PREGNANT WORKERS FAIRNESS ACT

  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.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Ms. Spanberger). Pursuant to House 
Resolution 1107, the amendment in the nature of a substitute 
recommended by the Committee on Education and Labor, printed in the 
bill, is adopted and the bill, as amended, is considered read.
  The text of the bill, as amended, is as follows:

                               H.R. 2694

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Pregnant Workers Fairness 
     Act''.

     SEC. 2. NONDISCRIMINATION WITH REGARD TO REASONABLE 
                   ACCOMMODATIONS RELATED TO PREGNANCY.

       It shall be an unlawful employment practice for a covered 
     entity to--
       (1) not make reasonable accommodations to the known 
     limitations related to the pregnancy, childbirth, or related 
     medical conditions of a qualified employee, unless such 
     covered entity can demonstrate that the accommodation would 
     impose an undue hardship on the operation of the business of 
     such covered entity;
       (2) require a qualified employee affected by pregnancy, 
     childbirth, or related medical conditions to accept an 
     accommodation other than any reasonable accommodation arrived 
     at through the interactive process referred to in section 
     5(7);
       (3) deny employment opportunities to a qualified employee 
     if such denial is based on the need of the covered entity to 
     make reasonable accommodations to the known limitations 
     related to the pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical 
     conditions of a qualified employee;
       (4) require a qualified employee to take leave, whether 
     paid or unpaid, if another reasonable accommodation can be 
     provided to the known limitations related to the pregnancy, 
     childbirth, or related medical conditions of a qualified 
     employee; or
       (5) take adverse action in terms, conditions, or privileges 
     of employment against a qualified employee on account of the 
     employee requesting or using a reasonable accommodation to 
     the known limitations related to the pregnancy, childbirth, 
     or related medical conditions of the employee.

     SEC. 3. REMEDIES AND ENFORCEMENT.

       (a) Employees Covered by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act 
     of 1964.--
       (1) In general.--The powers, remedies, and procedures 
     provided in sections 705, 706, 707, 709, 710, and 711 of the 
     Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. 2000e-4 et seq.) to the 
     Commission, the Attorney General, or any person alleging a 
     violation of title VII of such Act (42 U.S.C. 2000e et seq.) 
     shall be the powers, remedies, and procedures this Act 
     provides to the Commission, the Attorney General, or any 
     person, respectively, alleging an unlawful employment 
     practice in violation of this Act against an employee 
     described in section 5(3)(A) except as provided in paragraphs 
     (2) and (3) of this subsection.
       (2) Costs and fees.--The powers, remedies, and procedures 
     provided in subsections (b) and (c) of section 722 of the 
     Revised Statutes (42 U.S.C. 1988) shall be the powers, 
     remedies, and procedures this Act provides to the Commission, 
     the Attorney General, or any person alleging such practice.
       (3) Damages.--The powers, remedies, and procedures provided 
     in section 1977A of the Revised Statutes (42 U.S.C. 1981a), 
     including the limitations contained in subsection (b)(3) of 
     such section 1977A, shall be the powers, remedies, and 
     procedures this Act provides to the Commission, the Attorney 
     General, or any person alleging such practice (not an 
     employment practice specifically excluded from coverage under 
     section 1977A(a)(1) of the Revised Statutes).
       (b) Employees Covered by Congressional Accountability Act 
     of 1995.--
       (1) In general.--The powers, remedies, and procedures 
     provided in the Congressional Accountability Act of 1995 (2 
     U.S.C. 1301 et seq.) to the Board (as defined in section 101 
     of such Act (2 U.S.C. 1301)) or any person alleging a 
     violation of section 201(a)(1) of such Act (2 U.S.C. 
     1311(a)(1)) shall be the powers, remedies, and procedures 
     this Act provides to the Board or any person, respectively, 
     alleging an unlawful employment practice in violation of this 
     Act against an employee described in section 5(3)(B), except 
     as provided in paragraphs (2) and (3) of this subsection.
       (2) Costs and fees.--The powers, remedies, and procedures 
     provided in subsections (b) and (c) of section 722 of the 
     Revised Statutes (42 U.S.C. 1988) shall be the powers, 
     remedies, and procedures this Act provides to the Board or 
     any person alleging such practice.
       (3) Damages.--The powers, remedies, and procedures provided 
     in section 1977A of the Revised Statutes (42 U.S.C. 1981a), 
     including the limitations contained in subsection (b)(3) of 
     such section 1977A, shall be the powers, remedies, and 
     procedures this Act provides to the Board or any person 
     alleging such practice (not an employment practice 
     specifically excluded from coverage under section 1977A(a)(1) 
     of the Revised Statutes).
       (4) Other applicable provisions.--With respect to a claim 
     alleging a practice described in paragraph (1), title III of 
     the Congressional Accountability Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1381 
     et seq.) shall apply in the same manner as such title applies 
     with respect to a claim alleging a violation of section 
     201(a)(1) of such Act (2 U.S.C. 1311(a)(1)).
       (c) Employees Covered by Chapter 5 of Title 3, United 
     States Code.--
       (1) In general.--The powers, remedies, and procedures 
     provided in chapter 5 of title 3, United States Code, to the 
     President, the Commission, the Merit Systems Protection 
     Board, or any person alleging a violation of section 
     411(a)(1) of such title shall be the powers, remedies, and 
     procedures this Act provides to the President, the 
     Commission, the Board, or any person, respectively, alleging 
     an unlawful employment practice in violation of this Act 
     against an employee described in section 5(3)(C), except as 
     provided in paragraphs (2) and (3) of this subsection.
       (2) Costs and fees.--The powers, remedies, and procedures 
     provided in subsections (b) and (c) of section 722 of the 
     Revised Statutes (42 U.S.C. 1988) shall be the powers, 
     remedies, and procedures this Act provides to the President, 
     the Commission, the Board, or any person alleging such 
     practice.
       (3) Damages.--The powers, remedies, and procedures provided 
     in section 1977A of the Revised Statutes (42 U.S.C. 1981a), 
     including the limitations contained in subsection (b)(3) of 
     such section 1977A, shall be the powers, remedies, and 
     procedures this Act provides to the President, the 
     Commission, the Board, or any person alleging such practice 
     (not an employment practice specifically excluded from 
     coverage under section 1977A(a)(1) of the Revised Statutes).
       (d) Employees Covered by Government Employee Rights Act of 
     1991.--
       (1) In general.--The powers, remedies, and procedures 
     provided in sections 302 and 304 of the Government Employee 
     Rights Act of 1991 (42 U.S.C. 2000e-16b; 2000e-16c) to the 
     Commission or any person alleging a violation of section 
     302(a)(1) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 2000e-16b(a)(1)) shall be 
     the powers, remedies, and procedures

[[Page H4509]]

     this Act provides to the Commission or any person, 
     respectively, alleging an unlawful employment practice in 
     violation of this Act against an employee described in 
     section 5(3)(D), except as provided in paragraphs (2) and (3) 
     of this subsection.
       (2) Costs and fees.--The powers, remedies, and procedures 
     provided in subsections (b) and (c) of section 722 of the 
     Revised Statutes (42 U.S.C. 1988) shall be the powers, 
     remedies, and procedures this Act provides to the Commission 
     or any person alleging such practice.
       (3) Damages.--The powers, remedies, and procedures provided 
     in section 1977A of the Revised Statutes (42 U.S.C. 1981a), 
     including the limitations contained in subsection (b)(3) of 
     such section 1977A, shall be the powers, remedies, and 
     procedures this Act provides to the Commission or any person 
     alleging such practice (not an employment practice 
     specifically excluded from coverage under section 1977A(a)(1) 
     of the Revised Statutes).
       (e) Employees Covered by Section 717 of the Civil Rights 
     Act of 1964.--
       (1) In general.--The powers, remedies, and procedures 
     provided in section 717 of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 
     U.S.C. 2000e-16) to the Commission, the Attorney General, the 
     Librarian of Congress, or any person alleging a violation of 
     that section shall be the powers, remedies, and procedures 
     this Act provides to the Commission, the Attorney General, 
     the Librarian of Congress, or any person, respectively, 
     alleging an unlawful employment practice in violation of this 
     Act against an employee described in section 5(3)(E), except 
     as provided in paragraphs (2) and (3) of this subsection.
       (2) Costs and fees.--The powers, remedies, and procedures 
     provided in subsections (b) and (c) of section 722 of the 
     Revised Statutes (42 U.S.C. 1988) shall be the powers, 
     remedies, and procedures this Act provides to the Commission, 
     the Attorney General, the Librarian of Congress, or any 
     person alleging such practice.
       (3) Damages.--The powers, remedies, and procedures provided 
     in section 1977A of the Revised Statutes (42 U.S.C. 1981a), 
     including the limitations contained in subsection (b)(3) of 
     such section 1977A, shall be the powers, remedies, and 
     procedures this Act provides to the Commission, the Attorney 
     General, the Librarian of Congress, or any person alleging 
     such practice (not an employment practice specifically 
     excluded from coverage under section 1977A(a)(1) of the 
     Revised Statutes).
       (f) Prohibition Against Retaliation.--
       (1) In general.--No person shall discriminate against any 
     employee because such employee has opposed any act or 
     practice made unlawful by this Act or because such employee 
     made a charge, testified, assisted, or participated in any 
     manner in an investigation, proceeding, or hearing under this 
     Act.
       (2) Prohibition against coercion.--It shall be unlawful to 
     coerce, intimidate, threaten, or interfere with any 
     individual in the exercise or enjoyment of, or on account of 
     such individual having exercised or enjoyed, or on account of 
     such individual having aided or encouraged any other 
     individual in the exercise or enjoyment of, any right granted 
     or protected by this Act.
       (3) Remedy.--The remedies and procedures otherwise provided 
     for under this section shall be available to aggrieved 
     individuals with respect to violations of this subsection.
       (g) Limitation.--Notwithstanding subsections (a)(3), 
     (b)(3), (c)(3), (d)(3), and (e)(3), if an unlawful employment 
     practice involves the provision of a reasonable accommodation 
     pursuant to this Act or regulations implementing this Act, 
     damages may not be awarded under section 1977A of the Revised 
     Statutes (42 U.S.C. 1981a) if the covered entity demonstrates 
     good faith efforts, in consultation with the employee with 
     known limitations related to pregnancy, childbirth, or 
     related medical conditions who has informed the covered 
     entity that accommodation is needed, to identify and make a 
     reasonable accommodation that would provide such employee 
     with an equally effective opportunity and would not cause an 
     undue hardship on the operation of the covered entity.

     SEC. 4. RULEMAKING.

       Not later than 2 years after the date of enactment of this 
     Act, the Commission shall issue regulations in an accessible 
     format in accordance with subchapter II of chapter 5 of title 
     5, United States Code, to carry out this Act. Such 
     regulations shall provide examples of reasonable 
     accommodations addressing known limitations related to 
     pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions.

     SEC. 5. DEFINITIONS.

       As used in this Act--
       (1) the term ``Commission'' means the Equal Employment 
     Opportunity Commission;
       (2) the term ``covered entity''--
       (A) has the meaning given the term ``respondent'' in 
     section 701(n) of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. 
     2000e(n)); and
       (B) includes--
       (i) an employer, which means a person engaged in industry 
     affecting commerce who has 15 or more employees as defined in 
     section 701(b) of title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 
     (42 U.S.C. 2000e(b));
       (ii) an employing office, as defined in section 101 of the 
     Congressional Accountability Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1301) and 
     section 411(c) of title 3, United States Code;
       (iii) an entity employing a State employee described in 
     section 304(a) of the Government Employee Rights Act of 1991 
     (42 U.S.C. 2000e-16c(a)); and
       (iv) an entity to which section 717(a) of the Civil Rights 
     Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. 2000e-16(a)) applies;
       (3) the term ``employee'' means--
       (A) an employee (including an applicant), as defined in 
     section 701(f) of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. 
     2000e(f));
       (B) a covered employee (including an applicant), as defined 
     in section 101 of the Congressional Accountability Act of 
     1995 (2 U.S.C. 1301);
       (C) a covered employee (including an applicant), as defined 
     in section 411(c) of title 3, United States Code;
       (D) a State employee (including an applicant) described in 
     section 304(a) of the Government Employee Rights Act of 1991 
     (42 U.S.C. 2000e-16c(a)); or
       (E) an employee (including an applicant) to which section 
     717(a) of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. 2000e-
     16(a)) applies;
       (4) the term ``person'' has the meaning given such term in 
     section 701(a) of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. 
     2000e(a));
       (5) the term ``known limitation'' means physical or mental 
     condition related to, affected by, or arising out of 
     pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions that the 
     employee or employee's representative has communicated to the 
     employer whether or not such condition meets the definition 
     of disability specified in section 3 of the Americans with 
     Disabilities Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 12102);
       (6) the term ``qualified employee'' means an employee or 
     applicant who, with or without reasonable accommodation, can 
     perform the essential functions of the employment position, 
     except that an employee or applicant shall be considered 
     qualified if--
       (A) any inability to perform an essential function is for a 
     temporary period;
       (B) the essential function could be performed in the near 
     future; and
       (C) the inability to perform the essential function can be 
     reasonably accommodated; and
       (7) the terms ``reasonable accommodation'' and ``undue 
     hardship'' have the meanings given such terms in section 101 
     of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 
     12111) and shall be construed as such terms are construed 
     under such Act and as set forth in the regulations required 
     by this Act, including with regard to the interactive process 
     that will typically be used to determine an appropriate 
     reasonable accommodation.

     SEC. 6. WAIVER OF STATE IMMUNITY.

       A State shall not be immune under the 11th Amendment to the 
     Constitution from an action in a Federal or State court of 
     competent jurisdiction for a violation of this Act. In any 
     action against a State for a violation of this Act, remedies 
     (including remedies both at law and in equity) are available 
     for such a violation to the same extent as such remedies are 
     available for such a violation in an action against any 
     public or private entity other than a State.

     SEC. 7. RELATIONSHIP TO OTHER LAWS.

       Nothing in this Act shall be construed to invalidate or 
     limit the powers, remedies, and procedures under any Federal 
     law or law of any State or political subdivision of any State 
     or jurisdiction that provides greater or equal protection for 
     individuals affected by pregnancy, childbirth, or related 
     medical conditions.

     SEC. 8. SEVERABILITY.

       If any provision of this Act or the application of that 
     provision to particular persons or circumstances is held 
     invalid or found to be unconstitutional, the remainder of 
     this Act and the application of that provision to other 
     persons or circumstances shall not be affected.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The bill shall be debatable for one hour 
equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member 
of the Committee on Education and Labor.
  The gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott) and the gentlewoman from 
North Carolina (Ms. Foxx) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Virginia.


                             General Leave

  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that 
all Members have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their 
remarks and insert extraneous material on H.R. 2694, the Pregnant 
Workers Fairness Act.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Virginia?
  There was no objection.
  

                              {time}  1100

  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

[[Page H4510]]

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

[[Page H4511]]

     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.
  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

[[Page H4512]]

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.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  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.
  Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, pregnancy is not a disability, but 
sometimes pregnant workers need an easy fix, such as a stool or an 
extra bathroom break, to stay on the job.
  These accommodations are short in duration and typically cost very 
little to provide, but they can mean the difference between keeping 
your job or putting your pregnancy at risk. But for as long as women 
have been in the workforce, instead of being accommodated, they have 
been fired or forced out on leave when they become pregnant.
  These policies have become even more pronounced during the COVID-19 
pandemic. We have seen a wave of employers firing pregnant workers 
rather than finding ways for them to safely return to work.
  These policies, as they too often do, are falling disproportionately 
on women of color and low-wage, hourly workers who suddenly find 
themselves without a paycheck, without health insurance, and pregnant 
in the middle of a global pandemic.
  The bipartisan Pregnant Workers Fairness Act will fix how pregnancy 
accommodation is treated under the Pregnancy Discrimination Act.
  Courts have said that employers must provide an accommodation to a 
pregnant employee if they accommodate nonpregnant employees similar in 
their inability or ability to work. That means pregnant workers must 
have perfect knowledge of the medical and employment histories of every 
other employee in their workplace, which is nearly impossible.
  In fact, a recent study by A Better Balance found that in over two-
thirds of cases, courts denied an accommodation because pregnant 
workers could not meet this test.
  I include in the Record a letter in support of this bill from A 
Better Balance.

                                               September 11, 2020.
     Re The Pregnant Workers Fairness Act (H.R. 2694).
       Dear Representative: On behalf of A Better Balance, I write 
     to express our strong support for the Pregnant Workers 
     Fairness Act (``PWFA''; H.R. 2694). This legislation will 
     ensure pregnant workers, particularly low-income workers and 
     women of color, are not forced to choose between their 
     paycheck and a healthy pregnancy. The bill will require 
     employers to provide reasonable accommodations for pregnant 
     workers unless doing so would impose an undue hardship on the 
     employer, similar to the accommodation standard already in 
     place for workers with disabilities.
       Nearly forty-two years after the passage of the Pregnancy 
     Discrimination Act, pregnant workers still face rampant 
     discrimination on the job and treatment as second-class 
     citizens, as I explained in detail in my Congressional 
     testimony before the House Education & Labor Civil Rights and 
     Human Services Subcommittee in October 2019 as well as A 
     Better Balance's May 2019 report, Long Overdue. We urge you 
     to support healthy pregnancies, protect pregnant workers' 
     livelihoods, and end the systemic devaluation of women of 
     color and vote YES on the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act and 
     NO on any Motion to Recommit in connection with this 
     legislation.
       A Better Balance is a national non-profit legal 
     organization that advocates for women and families so they 
     can care for themselves and their loved ones without 
     sacrificing their financial security. Since our founding, we 
     have seen day in and day out the injustices that pregnant 
     workers continue to face because they need modest, temporary 
     pregnancy accommodations and have led the movement at the 
     federal, state, and local level to ensure pregnant workers 
     can receive the accommodations they need to remain healthy 
     and working. As I wrote in my 2012 Op-Ed in The New York 
     Times ``Pregnant and Pushed Out of Job,'' which sparked the 
     PWFA's introduction in Congress, ``For many women, a choice 
     between working under unhealthy conditions and not working is 
     no choice at all.''
       Through our free, national legal helpline, we have spoken 
     with hundreds of pregnant workers, disproportionately women 
     of color, who have been fired or forced out for needing 
     accommodations, often stripping them of their health 
     insurance when they need it most, driving them into poverty, 
     and at times, even homelessness. Other women we have assisted 
     were denied accommodations but needed to keep working to 
     support themselves and their families and faced devastating 
     health consequences, including miscarriage, preterm birth, 
     birth complications, and other maternal health effects.
       In the past few months alone, we have heard from women 
     across the country who continue to face termination or are 
     forced out for needing pregnancy accommodations. A retail 
     store employee from Missouri who is pregnant and due in 
     November 2020 called us after she was forced to quit her job 
     because her employer refused to let her carry a water bottle 
     on the retail floor even though she was experiencing severe 
     dehydration due to hot temperatures in the store this summer. 
     A massage therapist from Pennsylvania called us in June 2020 
     requesting to return to work on a part-time basis on the 
     advice of her OB-GYN after experiencing cramping in her 
     uterus. Her employer responded that they would not 
     accommodate her and cut off all communication with her after 
     that, forcing her out of work just three months before she 
     was due to give birth. A nurse we spoke with from 
     Pennsylvania who was six months pregnant requested to avoid 
     assignment to the COVID-19 unit. Though her hospital was not 
     overwhelmed by the pandemic, had many empty beds, and other 
     workers were being sent home, her employer refused her 
     request and made heartless comments mocking her need for 
     accommodation. She decided not to jeopardize her health and 
     lost pay for missing those shifts as a result. She also 
     worried about being called to the COVID unit shift 
     constantly.
       Without the law on their side, these women had little legal 
     recourse because they lived in a state without a state-level 
     pregnant workers fairness law. On the other hand, when a 
     pregnant worker in upstate New York--where a state pregnancy 
     accommodation is already in place--requested to telecommute 
     in June 2020 due to underlying health issues, she was quickly 
     able to engage her employer in a good faith interactive 
     process and her employer approved her request, allowing her 
     to stay attached to the workforce and maintain a healthy 
     pregnancy amidst the pandemic. The COVID-19 pandemic has 
     certainly shone a spotlight on the critical need for clarity 
     around pregnancy accommodations but let us be clear: the need 
     for this law preceded our current public health crisis and 
     will remain in place beyond the pandemic.


 Current Federal Law is Failing Pregnant Workers: The Pregnant Workers 
                      Fairness Act is the Solution

       Gaps in federal law mean many pregnant workers in need of 
     accommodation are without legal protection in non-PWFA 
     states. As we explained in our report Long Overdue, ``While 
     the P[regnancy] D[iscrimination] A[ct] bans pregnancy 
     discrimination, it requires employers to make accommodations 
     only if they accommodate other workers, or

[[Page H4513]]

     if an employee unearths evidence of discrimination. The 
     Americans with Disabilities Act requires employers to provide 
     reasonable accommodations to workers with disabilities, which 
     can include some pregnancy-related disabilities. However, 
     pregnancy itself is not a disability, leaving a gap wherein 
     many employers are in no way obligated to accommodate 
     pregnant workers in need of immediate relief to stay healthy 
     and on the job.''
       Original analysis we conducted for Long Overdue found that 
     even though the 2015 Supreme Court Young v. UPS case set a 
     new legal standard for evaluating pregnancy accommodation 
     cases under the Pregnancy Discrimination Act, in over two-
     thirds of cases decided since Young employers were permitted 
     to deny pregnancy workers accommodations under the Pregnancy 
     Discrimination Act. That statistic, as devastating as it is, 
     does not account for the vast majority of pregnant workers 
     who do not have the resources to vindicate their rights in 
     court. Beyond being resource strapped, most pregnant workers 
     we hear from do not have the desire to engage in time-
     consuming and stressful litigation. They want to be able to 
     receive an accommodation so they can continue working at the 
     jobs they care about while maintaining a healthy pregnancy.


  The Pregnant Workers Fairness Act is a Critical Economic Security, 
              Maternal Health, and Racial Justice Measure

       Pregnant workers that are fired or pushed out for needing 
     accommodations face significant economic hardship. In 
     addition to losing their livelihood, many of these workers 
     lose their health benefits at a time when they need them 
     most, forcing them to switch providers, delay medical care, 
     and/or face staggering health care costs associated with 
     pregnancy and childbirth. We worked with one woman who was 
     eight months pregnant and whose hours were cut after she 
     needed an accommodation which meant she also lost her 
     health insurance. As a result, she asked her doctor if 
     they could induce her labor early so that she would not be 
     left facing exorbitant medical bills. In the long term, 
     being pushed out for needing pregnancy accommodations also 
     exacerbates the gender wage gap, as it means losing out on 
     many types of benefits such as 401K and retirement 
     contributions, social security contributions, pensions, as 
     well as opportunities for promotion and growth.
       Most pregnant workers may not need accommodations. However, 
     for those who do, reasonable accommodations can avert 
     significant health risks. For instance, in a Health Impact 
     Assessment of state level pregnant workers fairness 
     legislation, the Louisville, Kentucky Department of Public 
     Health and Wellness concluded, ``Accommodating pregnant 
     workers, upon their request, is critical for reducing poor 
     health outcomes . . . Improving birth outcomes makes a 
     sustainable impact for a lifetime of better health.'' The 
     report noted that those poor health outcomes can include 
     miscarriage, preterm birth, low birth weight, preeclampsia (a 
     serious condition and leading cause of maternal mortality), 
     among other issues. According to the March of Dimes, in the 
     U.S., nearly 1 in 10 babies are born pre-term and the preterm 
     birth rate among Black women is nearly fifty percent higher 
     than it is for all other women. Preterm birth/low birthweight 
     is a leading cause of infant mortality in America. The 
     Pregnant Workers Fairness Act is a key measure to reduce poor 
     maternal and infant health outcomes.
       Pregnancy accommodations are one of myriad solutions needed 
     to address the Black maternal health crisis. Systemic racism 
     has led to the shameful reality that Black women in this 
     country are three to four times likelier to die from 
     pregnancy-related causes than white women, and Black babies 
     are more than two times as likely to die in the first year of 
     life than white babies. At the same time, we know Black women 
     also face devastating health consequences when they are 
     unable to obtain needed pregnancy accommodations to maintain 
     their health and the health of their pregnancies. When Tasha 
     Murell, a Black woman who worked at a warehouse in Tennessee, 
     received a doctor's note saying she needed a lifting 
     restriction and complained of extreme stomach pain, she was 
     forced to continue lifting on the job. One day, she told a 
     supervisor she was in pain and asked to leave early. Her 
     manager said no. Tragically, she had a miscarriage the next 
     day. Tasha was not alone. Three more of her co-workers, also 
     Black, miscarried after supervisors dismissed their requests 
     for reprieve from heavy lifting. As Cherisse Scott, CEO of 
     Memphis-based Sister Reach, explained ``It doesn't surprise 
     me that this is the culture of that workplace. I think it's 
     important to look at the fact that since we arrived here in 
     chains, we [African-American women] were regarded as 
     producers to fuel a labor force that couldn't care less for 
     us. . .'' The Pregnant Workers Fairness Act will ensure 
     pregnant workers and their health are valued and that Black 
     mothers, especially, are not treated as expendable on the 
     job.


  The Pregnant Workers Fairness Act is a Bipartisan Bill That Has the 
           Support of This Country's Largest Business Groups

       The Pregnant Workers Fairness Act is not a partisan bill. 
     Not only does it have strong bipartisan support in Congress, 
     but thirty states and five cities including Tennessee, 
     Kentucky, South Carolina, West Virginia, Illinois, Nebraska, 
     and Utah already have laws requiring employers to provide 
     accommodations for pregnant employees. All of the laws passed 
     in recent years are highly similar to the federal 
     legislation, and all passed with bipartisan, and often 
     unanimous, support. Many, including Tennessee's and 
     Kentucky's, were championed by Republican legislators.
       Pregnant workers are a vital part of our economy. Three-
     quarters of women will be both pregnant and employed at some 
     point during their lives. Ensuring pregnant workers can 
     remain healthy and attached to the workforce is an issue of 
     critical importance, especially as this country faces an 
     unprecedented economic crisis. That is why leading business 
     groups like the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Society for Human 
     Resources Management, many major corporations, and local 
     chambers around the country including, Greater Louisville 
     Inc., one of Kentucky's leading chambers of commerce, support 
     this measure. The PWFA will provide much needed clarity in 
     the law which will lead to informal and upfront resolutions 
     between employers and employees and help prevent problems 
     before they start. Furthermore, accommodations are short term 
     and low cost. The Pregnant Workers Fairness Act will help 
     employers retain valuable employees and reduce high turnover 
     and training costs. The reasonable accommodation framework is 
     also borrowed from the American with Disabilities framework 
     so employers are already familiar with the standard. 
     Furthermore, keeping pregnant workers employed saves 
     taxpayers money in the form of unemployment insurance and 
     other public benefits.


   The Pregnant Workers Fairness Act Uses a Familiar Framework That 
 Provides Key Protections to Pregnant Workers and Clarity to Employers

       The Pregnant Workers Fairness Act has several key 
     provisions that will address the inequality pregnant workers 
     continue to face at work. Employers, including private 
     employers with fifteen or more employees, will be required to 
     provide reasonable accommodations to qualified employees 
     absent undue hardship on the employer. Both the term 
     ``reasonable accommodation'' and ``undue hardship'' have the 
     same definition as outlined in the American with Disabilities 
     Act. Similar to the Americans with Disabilities Act, 
     employers and employees must engage in an interactive process 
     in order to determine an appropriate accommodation. In order 
     to prevent employers from pushing pregnant employees out on 
     leave when they need an accommodation, the bill specifies 
     that an employer cannot require a pregnant employee to take 
     leave if another reasonable accommodation can be provided. 
     The bill also includes clear anti-retaliation language such 
     that employers cannot punish pregnant workers for requesting 
     or using an accommodation. This is critical as many pregnant 
     workers often do not ask for accommodations because they are 
     afraid they will face repercussions for requesting or needing 
     an accommodation.
       Critically, the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act is also very 
     clear that a pregnant worker need not have a disability as 
     defined by the Americans with Disabilities Act in order to 
     merit accommodations under the law. Rather, the bill 
     indicates that pregnant workers with ``known limitations 
     related to pregnancy, childbirth, and related medical 
     conditions'' are entitled to reasonable accommodations. 
     ``Known limitations'' is defined as a ``physical or mental 
     condition related to, affected by, or arising out of 
     pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions that the 
     employee or employee's representative has communicated to the 
     employer whether or not such condition meets the definition 
     of disability'' as set forth in the Americans with 
     Disabilities Act. This addresses two of the challenges the 
     Americans with Disabilities Act has presented for pregnant 
     workers: first, because pregnancy is not itself a disability 
     under current disability law, a pregnant worker who has no 
     complications but seeks an accommodation in order to avoid a 
     complication, will not be able to get an accommodation under 
     the Americans with Disabilities Act. Second, even though 
     Congress expanded the Americans with Disabilities Act in 
     2008, courts have interpreted the ADA Amendments Act in a way 
     that did little to expand coverage even for those pregnant 
     workers with serious health complications. As one court 
     concluded in 2018, ``Although the 2008 amendments broadened 
     the ADA's definition of disability, these changes only have 
     had a modest impact when applied to pregnancy-related 
     conditions.''
       Now, more than ever, the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act is 
     an urgent maternal health, racial justice, and economic 
     security measure to keep pregnant workers healthy and earning 
     a paycheck. We cannot delay justice and fairness for pregnant 
     workers any longer. For the sake of this country's pregnant 
     workers and our nation's families, we implore Congress to put 
     aside its many differences and pass this legislation with a 
     strong bipartisan vote. We ask every Member of Congress to 
     vote YES on the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act. It is long 
     overdue.
           Sincerely,

                                                   Dina Bakst,

                                        Co-Founder & Co-President,
                                                 A Better Balance.

[[Page H4514]]

  

  Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, that is why the Pregnant Workers Fairness 
Act moves away from proving discrimination and creates an affirmative 
right to accommodation. Using the framework and language of the 
Americans with Disabilities Act, the bill requires employers to provide 
reasonable accommodations to pregnant workers, as long as the 
accommodation does not impose an undue hardship on the employer.
  Courts know exactly how to interpret that language. Employers know 
exactly what their responsibilities will be. But most importantly, 
women will have the certainty they can safely stay on the job.
  That is why over 200 organizations have endorsed the legislation and 
why 30 States have passed pregnancy accommodations laws similar to the 
PWFA.
  Providing reasonable accommodations to pregnant workers helps 
businesses, workers, and families. Passing this bill is long overdue.
  I thank Mr. Katko for working with his Conference on this bill and 
Chairman Scott, Chairwoman Bonamici, Eunice Ikene, and the committee 
staff for shepherding the bill to the floor today.
  I urge a ``yes'' vote.
  Ms. FOXX of North Carolina. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of 
my time.
  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.
  Mr. KATKO. Madam Speaker, I am a Republican, and I rise in strong 
support of the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act.
  I was proud to join Chairman Nadler and Representatives Herrera 
Beutler, McBath, and Scott in introducing this bill.
  Simply put, no mother-to-be or mother in this country should have to 
choose between being a parent and keeping her job.
  Unfortunately, current Federal law lacks adequate protections to 
ensure pregnant workers are able to remain healthy in the workplace. 
With 30 States having already passed laws to provide these protections, 
the need and support for a Federal standard is clear.
  This bipartisan bill provides pregnant workers with an affirmative 
right to reasonable accommodations in the workplace, while creating a 
clear and navigable standard for employees to follow.
  These accommodations, as simple as providing an employee with extra 
restroom breaks or a stool to sit on, should not be controversial.
  The arguments against this bill made by some Members of my own party 
are based on inaccuracies and wrongfully detract from the importance of 
this commonsense policy.
  Reflecting the widespread support for this legislation, the bill has 
received numerous endorsements from the business community, as well as 
over 180 women's health, labor, and civil rights organizations.
  Madam Speaker, I include in the Record a letter of support from a 
coalition of business groups, including the Chamber of Commerce, the 
Society for Human Resource Management, and the National Retail 
Federation.
                                               September 14, 2020.
       To Members of the U.S. House of Representatives: We urge 
     Congress to pass the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act (H.R. 
     2694). This bill would provide pregnant employees with 
     important workplace protections while also making sure 
     employers have clear and flexible options to ensure pregnant 
     employees can remain at work for as long as they wish to do 
     so.
       The Pregnant Workers Fairness Act (PWFA), as passed by the 
     House Education and Labor Committee, is a balanced approach 
     that clarifies an employer's obligation to accommodate the 
     known limitations of employees and job applicants that 
     accompany pregnancy. The PWFA uses an interactive, reasonable 
     accommodation process similar to the Americans with 
     Disabilities Act and specifies a pregnant employee may take 
     leave only after the employer and employee have exhausted the 
     possibility of other reasonable accommodations.
       This bipartisan bill is a strong reminder that through good 
     faith negotiations, legislative solutions to important 
     workplace questions and problems can be found. We believe 
     that Congress should pass the PWFA with no changes.
           Sincerely,
     H.R. Policy Association,
     International Franchise Association,
     National Retail Federation,
     Retail Industry Leaders Association,
     Society for Human Resource Management,
     U.S. Chamber of Commerce.
  Mr. KATKO. Madam Speaker, an excerpt from that says that this 
bipartisan bill is a strong reminder that through good faith 
negotiations, legislative solutions to important workplace questions 
and problems can be found.
  It is high time for our Nation to provide women in the workforce with 
the basic rights and respect they deserve. I strongly urge my 
colleagues to support passage of this important legislation.

                              {time}  1115

  Ms. FOXX of North Carolina. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time 
as I may consume.
  Madam Speaker, at the sole subcommittee hearing on H.R. 2694 and at 
the committee markup, Democrat members encouraged the committee to 
follow the examples of States that had enacted pregnancy accommodation 
laws. However, the majority of these States have laws that are 
different from H.R. 2694 because they do include important protections 
for religious organizations.
  At least 16 States and the District of Columbia have pregnancy 
discrimination or pregnancy accommodations laws that include a 
religious organization protection similar to section 702 of the Civil 
Rights Act. The States include Arkansas, Hawaii, Iowa, Maine, Nebraska, 
New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, 
Utah, Wisconsin, and Wyoming. It is a broad range of States in the 
country.
  Our attitude is the States can do this, and we already have very, 
very good protections at the Federal level. Unless we are going to 
follow the example of the States and include this very important 
section 702 of the Civil Rights Act, then maybe we should leave this up 
to the States. We should be following their example and put that 
provision in this bill.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  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.
  Ms. BONAMICI. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 2694, 
the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act.
  As a mom and a policymaker, I know how important it is to protect the 
economic security of pregnant workers and working families; yet 41 
years after the passage of the Pregnancy Discrimination Act, Federal 
law falls short of guaranteeing that all pregnant workers have 
reasonable workplace accommodations to protect their health and the 
health of their baby.
  Reasonable accommodations can range from providing seating, water, 
and light duty to excusing pregnant workers from tasks that involve 
dangerous substances. But when pregnant workers do not have access to 
the accommodations they need, they are at risk of losing their job, 
being denied a promotion, or not being hired in the first place.
  Unfortunately, pregnant workers suffer workplace discrimination at 
alarming rates. According to a survey from the National Partnership for 
Women and Families, more than 60 percent of the women have experienced 
pregnancy discrimination on the job. Women of color are overrepresented 
in low-wage, physically demanding jobs and are, therefore, 
disproportionately harmed by a lack of access to reasonable 
accommodation.
  Last year, I chaired an Education and Labor Committee hearing on 
pregnancy discrimination. We heard very

[[Page H4515]]

compelling testimony demonstrating that far too many pregnant workers 
are denied access to reasonable workplace accommodations despite the 
existing Federal law providing for equal treatment on the job.
  Now my home State of Oregon is helping to lead the way by passing 
bipartisan legislation that requires reasonable accommodations for 
pregnant workers. The new law has protected pregnant women and also 
provided certainty to the business community. But we need to make sure 
that all pregnant workers, regardless of where they live, can access 
the protections they need to stay safe and healthy in the workplace.
  The bipartisan Pregnant Workers Fairness Act is our opportunity to 
address pregnancy discrimination and protect the health, well-being, 
and economic security of pregnant and parenting workers and their 
families. By clarifying the right of pregnant workers to fair treatment 
in the workplace, we will finally guarantee that pregnant workers get 
the accommodations they need without facing fear of discrimination or 
retaliation.
  Madam Speaker, I thank Chairman Scott and Chairman Nadler for their 
leadership. I urge my colleagues to support this bipartisan bill.
  Madam Speaker, I include in the Record a letter from the National 
Women's Law Center in support of this legislation.
                                               September 11, 2020.
       Dear Member of Congress: On behalf of the National Women's 
     Law Center, we urge you to pass the Pregnant Workers Fairness 
     Act (H.R. 2694) and vote no on any motion to recommit. The 
     National Women's Law Center (``the Center'') has worked for 
     over 45 years to advance and protect women's equality and 
     opportunity--and since its founding has fought for the rights 
     of pregnant women in the workplace. For the last eight years, 
     the Center has been a leader in advocating for the Pregnant 
     Workers Fairness Act, and for pregnancy accommodation 
     protections in states across the country. The Pregnant 
     Workers Fairness Act would clarify the law for employers and 
     employees alike, requiring employers to make reasonable 
     accommodations for limitations arising out of pregnancy, 
     childbirth, and related medical conditions, just as they 
     already do for disabilities. Providing accommodations ensures 
     that women can work safely while pregnant instead of being 
     pushed out of work at a time when their families need their 
     income the most.
       Even before the COVID-19 pandemic, pregnant workers were 
     all too often denied medically needed accommodations--
     including simple accommodations like a stool to sit on during 
     a long shift or a bottle of water at a workstation. As the 
     United States enters the sixth month of COVID-19 lockdown, 
     the need for clarity regarding employers' obligations to 
     provide accommodations for pregnant workers has only 
     increased. Across the country, as new information emerges 
     about the risks COVID-19 poses during pregnancy, pregnant 
     workers are urgently seeking, and far too often being denied, 
     accommodations like proper personal protective equipment, 
     telework, moving to a less crowded work area or changing 
     start times so as not to risk riding public transit during 
     peak hours. The Pregnant Workers Fairness Act uses an 
     already-familiar framework modeled on the Americans with 
     Disabilities Act (ADA) to ensure that when such a request is 
     made, employers and employees can engage in an interactive 
     process to determine whether the employee's pregnancy related 
     limitations can be reasonably accommodated without an undue 
     hardship to the employer. This will help ensure that 
     employees are not forced to choose between a paycheck and a 
     healthy pregnancy.
       The Pregnant Workers Fairness Act will close gaps and 
     clarify ambiguities in the law that have left too many 
     pregnant workers unprotected for too long. The Pregnancy 
     Discrimination Act (PDA), passed in 1978, guarantees the 
     right not to be treated adversely at work because of 
     pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions, and the 
     right to be treated at least as well as other employees ``not 
     so affected but similar in their ability or inability to 
     work.'' Unfortunately, many courts interpreted the PDA 
     narrowly and allowed employers to refuse to accommodate 
     workers with medical needs arising out of pregnancy, even 
     when they routinely accommodated other physical limitations. 
     In Young v. UPS, the Supreme Court held that when an employer 
     accommodates workers who are similar to pregnant workers in 
     their ability to work, it cannot refuse to accommodate 
     pregnant workers who need it simply because it ``is more 
     expensive or less convenient'' to accommodate pregnant women 
     too. The Young decision was an important victory for pregnant 
     workers, but the standard it set out still left many 
     important questions unanswered and created uncertainty for 
     employers and employees about when exactly the PDA requires 
     pregnancy accommodations. In addition, the Americans with 
     Disabilities Act (ADA) requires employers to make reasonable 
     accommodations for employees with disabilities. However, 
     courts have consistently held that pregnancy is not a 
     disability. The Pregnant Workers Fairness Act would fill the 
     holes left in these protections with a common-ground and 
     commonsense approach that ensures pregnant workers are 
     accommodated when the accommodations they need are reasonable 
     and do not pose an undue hardship to employers.
       Accommodating pregnant workers is not only good for working 
     women and families, it is good for business. Moreover, today, 
     women make up about half the workforce. More women are 
     continuing to work while they are pregnant, through later 
     stages of pregnancy. For example, 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. When employers accommodate 
     pregnant workers, businesses reap the benefits of avoiding 
     the costs of turnover and keeping experienced employees on 
     the job. And since pregnancy is temporary, pregnancy 
     accommodations are, by definition, short-term; many of these 
     accommodations are low and no cost.
       The time is now to pass the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act. 
     Thirty states and the District of Columbia have enacted 
     provisions explicitly granting pregnant employees the right 
     to accommodations at work, from Massachusetts, New York, and 
     California, to South Carolina, Utah, Nebraska, West Virginia 
     and Tennessee. Millions of pregnant workers have benefited 
     from these protections, but a pregnant employee's ability to 
     work safely should not depend on where she lives.
       We strongly urge you to support pregnant workers by voting 
     for the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act and rejecting any 
     motion to recommit. If you have any questions, please contact 
     me.
           Sincerely,
     Emily J. Martin,
       Vice President for Education & Workplace Justice, National 
     Women's Law Center.
  Ms. FOXX of North Carolina. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time 
as I may consume.
  Madam Speaker, at the Rules Committee hearing on H.R. 2694 earlier 
this week, the bill's sponsor, Chairman Nadler, said it is not 
necessary to incorporate into H.R. 2694 the Civil Rights Act's 
provision that protects religious organizations. He stated that because 
H.R. 2694 does not repeal this provision, it will still be effective if 
H.R. 2694 becomes law.
  Color me skeptical; I strongly disagree. H.R. 2694 will create legal 
jeopardy for religious organizations, as I have previously stated.
  But for the sake of argument, let's assume the provision is 
superfluous. What would be the harm in including the Civil Rights Act 
provision in H.R. 2694? At worst, the provision will be duplicative 
with the Civil Rights Act, causing no harm to workers or employers.
  Let's remember that the Americans with Disability Act of 1990, better 
known as the ADA, includes a religious organization protection similar 
to the one in the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The ADA provision has 
caused no harm.
  My conclusion is that the key sponsors of H.R. 2694 are saying the 
quiet part out loud in their opposition to the religious organization 
protection in the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
  At the Rules Committee hearing this week, Chairman Scott said the 
religious organization protection should not be included in H.R. 2694 
because it is overinclusive and would provide too much protection. Is 
the chairman saying that the existing Civil Rights Act protection for 
religious organizations should also be repealed? Again, this is a 
provision that has been in law for 55 years.
  As I have stated previously, the longstanding Civil Rights Act 
religious organization protection should be added to H.R. 2694. At 
worst, it would do no harm, and, at best, it will prevent a religious 
organization from being required to violate its faith.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  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.
  Ms. ADAMS. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding and for 
his incredible support as chair of the Education and Labor Committee.
  Madam Speaker, over 40 years ago, after the Pregnancy Discrimination 
Act provided civil rights protections to pregnant people, it is 
shameful that we still must address this issue today.
  Every year, roughly 250,000 people in America are denied basic 
accommodations to continue their work once pregnant; and when these 
simple temporary

[[Page H4516]]

adjustments in their work activities are denied, many face being fired 
or are forced to take unpaid leave simply to protect their health and 
the health of their pregnancy.
  This discrimination can take many forms, but its impacts can be 
deadly. And, of course, these burdens fall disproportionately on people 
and women of color who are overrepresented in low-wage jobs that are 
physically demanding, lack adequate workforce protections, or both. 
This is also one of the key reasons why I founded the Black Maternal 
Health Caucus with Congresswoman Lauren Underwood last year.
  I am pleased that the House is taking up the Pregnant Workers 
Fairness Act today, which will create a clear set of rules for 
employers to follow that requires them to provide accommodations for 
pregnant workers to continue to work and support their families.
  So today we are sending the message that nowhere in America--nowhere 
in America--should you have to worry about the health of your pregnancy 
because your employer won't accommodate you. Today we will tell 
millions of Americans that pregnancy won't prevent them from taking 
their dreams as far as they can take them.
  Madam Speaker, I include in the Record a letter from the Maternal 
Health Coalition, a group of public health professionals, clinicians, 
and maternal health organizations outlining their support for this 
legislation.
                                               September 11, 2020.
     Re Support the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act.
       Dear Representative: As organizations dedicated to ending 
     racial injustice and systemic racism, including dismantling 
     the racism that contributes to this country's Black maternal 
     health crisis, we write in strong support of the Pregnant 
     Workers Fairness Act (H.R. 2694). Congress must do all it can 
     to end the prejudice Black pregnant workers and pregnant 
     workers of color continue to face in the workplace. This 
     includes making sure when pregnant workers voice a need for 
     reasonable accommodations that those needs are met rather 
     than penalized and that the workplace is an environment where 
     pregnant workers of color do not fear asking for 
     accommodations.
       The Black Maternal Health crisis remains frighteningly 
     persistent and requires immediate attention and multi-faceted 
     solutions. Black women experience maternal mortality rates 
     three to four times higher than white women. The 
     circumstances surrounding this alarming statistic can often 
     be attributed to a lack of access to care, including due to 
     inflexible workplaces, and deep biases in racial 
     understanding. Various social determinants such as health, 
     education, and economic status drastically influence the 
     outcomes of pregnancy for Black women leading to severe 
     pregnancy-related complications. As the Black Mamas Matter 
     Alliance has pointed out ``Health is determined in part by 
     our access to social and economic opportunities, the 
     resources and supports that are available in the places where 
     we live, and the safety of our workplaces . . . however, 
     disparities in these conditions of daily life give some 
     people better opportunities to be healthy than others.'' 
     Black pregnant workers along with Latinx and immigrant women 
     are disproportionately likely to work in physically demanding 
     jobs that may lead to workers needing modest accommodations 
     to ensure a healthy pregnancy. Too often, however, those 
     requests are refused or ignored, forcing pregnant workers of 
     color to disproportionately contend with unsafe working 
     conditions.
       Black mothers have among the highest labor force 
     participation rates in the country and 80 percent of Black 
     mothers are their family's primary breadwinner,'' Yet, 
     historically, Black women have been exploited in the 
     workplace, and that exploitation continues to this day. 
     Though Black women only comprise 14.3 percent of the 
     population, nearly thirty percent of pregnancy discrimination 
     complaints are filed by Black women.'' This is because of the 
     multiple forms of discrimination Black workers and other 
     workers of color too often face in the workplace. As scholar 
     Nina Banks has noted, ``The legacy of black women's 
     employment in industries that lack worker protections has 
     continued today since black women are concentrated in low-
     paying, inflexible service occupations ...'' Black women in 
     low wage jobs working during pregnancy face little support 
     from employers when safeguards do not address pregnancy 
     related accommodations. Faced with the threat of termination, 
     loss of health insurance, or other benefits, Black pregnant 
     people are often forced to keep working which can compromise 
     their health and the health of their pregnancy.
       The Pregnant Workers Fairness Act will positively impact 
     Black women's health and economic security. When Black 
     pregnant people must continue working without accommodations, 
     they risk miscarriage, excessive bleeding, and other 
     devastating health consequences. Black women have the highest 
     incidence of preterm birth and yet we know that workplace 
     accommodations such as reducing heavy lifting, bending, or 
     excessive standing can help prevent preterm birth, the 
     leading cause of infant mortality in this country.
       Black women are also at higher risk of preeclampsia, which 
     is one of the leading causes of maternal mortality. We are 
     still learning about how to prevent this dangerous medical 
     condition, yet we know that simply allowing workers to take 
     bathroom breaks can prevent urinary tract infections which 
     are ``strongly associated with preeclampsia.'' Similarly, 
     ensuring pregnant workers can drink a sufficient amount of 
     water can also help pregnant workers maintain their blood 
     pressure, which is critically important since hypertensive 
     disorders (high blood pressure) are also a leading cause of 
     maternal morbidity and mortality. By putting a national 
     pregnancy accommodation standard in place, the Pregnant 
     Workers Fairness Act has the potential to improve some of the 
     most serious health consequences Black pregnant people 
     experience. Furthermore, the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act 
     will help remove one of the many barriers Black pregnant 
     people face at work by ensuring they are afforded immediate 
     relief under the law, and not thrown into financial dire 
     straits for needing pregnancy accommodations.
       Congress has the opportunity to pass legislation to support 
     rather than subjugate Black pregnant workers and workers of 
     color. We urge every member of the House of Representatives 
     to support the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act and by 
     extension, the health and economic wellbeing of Black 
     pregnant workers and pregnant workers of color.
       Thank you for your time and attention.
           Sincerely,
       Black Mamas Matter Alliance, A Better Balance, American 
     Civil Liberties Union, American College of Nurse-Midwives, 
     Association of Maternal & Child Health Programs, Association 
     of Women's Health, Obstetric and Neonatal Nurses, California 
     WIC Association, California Breastfeeding Coalition, 
     Children's HealthWatch, Center for American Progress, Center 
     for Reproductive Rights, Community Catalyst, Families USA, 
     Healthy Mothers, Healthy Babies Coalition of Georgia, Healthy 
     Women, Human Rights Watch, In Our Own Voice: National Black 
     Women's Reproductive Justice Agenda, Majaica, LLC, March for 
     Moms, March of Dimes, National Asian Pacific American Women's 
     Forum (NAPAWF), National Black Nurses Association, National 
     Birth Equity Collaborative, National Institute for 
     Reproductive Health, National Network of Abortion Funds.
       National Partnership for Women & Families, National Women's 
     Health Network, National Women's Law Center, Nurse-Family 
     Partnership, Nutrition First--WIC Association of Washington 
     State, National WIC Association, Ohio Black Maternal Health 
     Caucus, Pennsylvania WIC Association, Perinatal Health Equity 
     Foundation, Physicians for Reproductive Health, Planned 
     Parenthood Federation of America, Raising Women's Voices for 
     the Health Care We Need, Shriver Center on Poverty Law, 
     SisterLove Inc., Sister Reach, Society for Maternal-Fetal 
     Medicine, Tara Hansen Foundation, The Afiya Center, URGE: 
     Unite for Reproductive & Gender Equity, U.S. Breastfeeding 
     Committee, WIC Association of NYS, Inc., Wisconsin WIC 
     Association, YWCA of Greater Atlanta, ZERO TO THREE.
  Ms. FOXX of North Carolina. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of 
my time.
  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.
  Ms. WILD. Madam Speaker, I include in the Record a letter from 
business leaders in support of the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act. These 
businesses range from Patagonia to Chobani to Mastercard to Johnson & 
Johnson.
                                               September 15, 2020.
       Dear Members of Congress: 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. The private sector and our nation's elected leaders 
     must work together to ensure that working women and families 
     have the protections and opportunities they need to 
     participate fully and equally in the workplace. Twenty 
     leading companies from across states and industries have come 
     together in support of pregnant workers and their families by 
     calling on Congress to pass H.R. 2694, the bipartisan 
     Pregnant Workers Fairness Act, without delay.
       More than 40 years ago, Congress passed the Pregnancy 
     Discrimination Act of 1978, which made it illegal to 
     discriminate against most working people on the basis of 
     pregnancy, childbirth or related medical conditions. Since 
     that time, 30 states and the District of Columbia now require 
     certain employers to provide accommodations to pregnant 
     employees at work. It's now time to clarify and strengthen 
     existing federal protections for pregnant workers by passing 
     the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act. This bill would ensure 
     that pregnant workers who need reasonable accommodations can 
     receive them and continue to do their jobs.
       As a business community, we strive to create more equitable 
     workplaces and better

[[Page H4517]]

     support pregnant workers and their families every day. We 
     urge the passage of the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act as an 
     important advancement toward ensuring the health, safety and 
     productivity of our modern workforce--and the workforce of 
     tomorrow.
       Signed:
       Adobe, San Jose, California; Amalgamated Bank, New York, 
     New York; BASF Corporation, Florham Park, New Jersey; 
     Care.com, Inc., Waltham, Massachusetts; Chobani, Norwich, New 
     York; Cigna Corp., Bloomfield, Connecticut; Expedia Group, 
     Seattle, Washington; Facebook, Menlo Park, California; Gap 
     Inc., San Francisco, California; H&M USA, New York, New York; 
     ICM Partners, Los Angeles, California; Johnson & Johnson, New 
     Brunswick, New Jersey; L'Oreal USA, New York, New York; Levi 
     Strauss & Co., San Francisco, California; Mastercard, 
     Purchase, New York; Microsoft Corporation, Redmond, 
     Washington; Navient, LLC., Wilmington, Delaware; Patagonia, 
     Ventura, California; PayPal, San Jose, California; Postmates, 
     San Francisco, California; Salesforce, San Francisco, 
     California; Spotify, New York, New York; Square, Inc., San 
     Francisco, California; U.S. Women's Chamber of Commerce, 
     Washington, District of Columbia.
       The Sustainable Food Policy Alliance:
       Danone North America PBC, White Plains, New York; Mars, 
     Incorporated, McLean, Virginia; Nestle USA, Arlington, 
     Virginia; Unilever United States, Englewood Cliffs, New 
     Jersey.
  Ms. WILD. Madam Speaker, as a former lawyer who worked long hours 
during two pregnancies, it is outrageous to me that, in 2020, 100 years 
after women finally secured the power to vote, current law does not 
explicitly guarantee every pregnant worker the right to a reasonable 
accommodation at work.
  I had the luxury of a desk and chair and an office door that closed--
not all workers do.
  Currently, in order to get an accommodation, a pregnant worker must 
show that other nonpregnant employees are similarly accommodated. It is 
beyond absurd. Because the challenges of pregnancy are so unique, it is 
often difficult to find comparable nonpregnant workers who received 
similar accommodations.
  Fatigue, vomiting, back pain, and frequent urination are more than 
just nuisances; these are symptoms that can make it impossible to work 
without accommodation. And that is without mentioning the more serious 
conditions related to pregnancy.
  The Pregnant Workers Fairness Act secures for women basic rights to 
earn a living without jeopardizing their health or the baby's.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Ms. Torres Small of New Mexico). The time of 
the gentlewoman has expired.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Madam Speaker, I yield an additional 30 
seconds to the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Wild).
  Ms. WILD. Madam Speaker, it protects workers with known limitations 
related to childbirth, because it is time that we recognize that mental 
health conditions like postpartum depression are real and tangible 
medical conditions.
  Madam Speaker, I thank leadership, the ACLU, and the Chamber of 
Commerce for endorsing this bill. I urge a ``yes'' vote.
  Ms. FOXX of North Carolina. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of 
my time.
  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.
  Ms. SCHRIER. Madam Speaker, I had a high-risk pregnancy, complicated 
by both advanced maternal age and 24 years of type 1 diabetes. I worked 
until 2 days before my C-section, and I am so grateful that my employer 
allowed for minor accommodations which allowed me to continue to work.
  Women are half of our workforce, and 75 percent of those women will 
become pregnant at some point. Supporting women during their 
pregnancies is just as important as prenatal care, immunizations, 
affordable childcare, and public education. We can do that by passing 
this bill, as well as supporting programs like WIC that help new and 
expectant parents to provide the proper nutrition and developmental 
supports to their babies.
  We all benefit from healthy pregnancy outcomes.
  It costs us all when a baby is born prematurely and requires months 
in intensive care.
  It costs us all when a fetus is exposed to toxins in utero because we 
couldn't protect the mother from an unhealthy environment and that 
child then suffers a lifetime of damage that will require public 
support.
  It costs us all when half of our workforce may lose or leave their 
jobs because pregnant women and mothers are not welcomed or supported 
in the workplace.
  Madam Speaker, I include in the Record a letter from over 40 public 
health organizations, clinicians, and maternal health providers who 
support this bill.
                                               September 14, 2020.
     Re Support the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act.
       Dear Representative: The undersigned public health 
     professionals, health care clinicians, and maternal health 
     organizations dedicated to the health and well-being of 
     mothers, infants, and families enthusiastically support the 
     Pregnant Workers Fairness Act (H.R. 2694). Modeled after the 
     Americans with Disabilities Act, the bill would require 
     employers to provide reasonable, temporary workplace 
     accommodations to pregnant workers as long as the 
     accommodation does not impose an undue hardship on the 
     employer. This bill is critically important because no one 
     should have to choose between having a healthy pregnancy and 
     a paycheck.
       Three-quarters of women will be pregnant and employed at 
     some point in their lives. Most pregnant workers can expect a 
     routine pregnancy and healthy birth. However, health care 
     professionals have consistently recommended that some 
     pregnant individuals make adjustments in their work 
     activities to sustain a healthy pregnancy and prevent adverse 
     pregnancy outcomes, including preterm birth or miscarriage. 
     These medically necessary workplace accommodations can 
     include allowing additional bathroom breaks, opportunities to 
     stay hydrated, lifting restrictions, or access to a chair or 
     stool to decrease time spent standing.
       Unfortunately, too many pregnant workers, particularly 
     pregnant people of color, face barriers to incorporating even 
     these small changes to their workdays. Workplace 
     accommodations help safeguard a healthy pregnancy or prevent 
     harm to a higher-risk pregnancy. Across the country, pregnant 
     workers continue to be denied simple, no-cost or low-cost, 
     temporary adjustments in their work settings or activities 
     and instead risk being fired or forced to take unpaid leave 
     to preserve the health of their pregnancy. Low-wage pregnant 
     workers in physically demanding jobs, which are 
     disproportionately occupied by people of color, feel the 
     impact most acutely. This impossible choice forces many 
     pregnant workers to continue working without accommodations, 
     putting women and their pregnancies at risk of long-lasting 
     and severe health consequences.
       The Pregnant Workers Fairness Act is a measured approach to 
     a serious problem. As public health professionals, health 
     care clinicians, and maternal health organizations, we 
     understand the importance of reasonable workplace 
     accommodations to ensure that pregnant persons can continue 
     to provide for their families and have safe and healthy 
     pregnancies. We collectively urge swift passage of the 
     Pregnant Workers Fairness Act.
           Sincerely,
       1,000 Days; American College of Nurse-Midwives; American 
     College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists; Association of 
     Maternal & Child Health Programs; Association of Women's 
     Health, Obstetric and Neonatal Nurses; Black Mamas Matter 
     Alliance; California Breastfeeding Coalition; California WIC 
     Association; Center for Reproductive Rights; Children's 
     HealthWatch.
       Families USA; Healthy Mothers, Healthy Babies Coalition of 
     Georgia; HealthyWomen; Human Rights Watch; In Our Own Voice: 
     National Black Women's Reproductive Justice Agenda; Majaica, 
     LLC; March for Moms; March of Dimes; National Black Nurses 
     Association; National Birth Equity Collaborative; National 
     Institute for Reproductive Health.
       National Network of Abortion Funds; National WIC 
     Association; National Women's Health Network; Nutrition 
     First--WIC Association of Washington State; Pennsylvania WIC 
     Association; Perinatal Health Equity Foundation; Physicians 
     for Reproductive Health; Planned Parenthood Federation of 
     America; Raising Women's Voices for the Health Care We Need; 
     Shriver Center on Poverty Law.
       SisterReach; Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine; Tara 
     Hansen Foundation; The Afiya Center; URGE: Unite for 
     Reproductive & Gender Equity; U.S. Breastfeeding Committee; 
     WIC Association of NYS, Inc.; Wisconsin WIC Association; YWCA 
     of Greater Atlanta; ZERO TO THREE.
  Ms. SCHRIER. Madam Speaker, the bipartisan Pregnant Workers Fairness 
Act simply ensures that reasonable accommodations are made to help 
pregnant women work safely, and, in turn, the economy is stronger, 
family outcomes are better, and children can start life strong and 
healthy. Everyone wins.

                              {time}  1130

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

[[Page H4518]]

  

  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Madam Speaker, can you advise how much time is 
remaining on each side?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Virginia has 15 minutes 
remaining, and the gentlewoman from North Carolina has 18\1/2\ minutes 
remaining.
  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.
  Ms. DeLAURO. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of the bill, and I 
submit for the Record this letter from the National Partnership for 
Women & Families, a nonprofit, nonpartisan advocacy organization 
committed to improving the lives of women and families by achieving 
equity for all women.
                                               September 15, 2020.
       The National Partnership for Women & Families is a non-
     profit, non-partisan advocacy organization committed to 
     improving the lives of women and families by achieving equity 
     for all women. Since our creation as the Women's Legal 
     Defense Fund in 1971, we have fought for every significant 
     advance for equal opportunity in the workplace, including the 
     Pregnancy Discrimination Act of 1978 and the Family and 
     Medical Leave Act of 1993 (FMLA). We write today in strong 
     support for H.R. 2694, the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act. 
     This bipartisan legislation will support pregnant workers on 
     the job, improving women's and families' economic security 
     and promoting healthier pregnancies.
       More than 40 years ago, Congress passed the Pregnancy 
     Discrimination Act of 1978, outlawing discrimination on the 
     basis of pregnancy, childbirth or related medical conditions. 
     Yet pregnancy discrimination is still widespread and impacts 
     pregnant workers across industry, race, ethnicity and 
     jurisdiction. Nearly 31,000 pregnancy discrimination charges 
     were filed with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity 
     Commission (EEOC) and state-level fair employment practice 
     agencies between 2010 and 2015, and the reality of pregnancy 
     discrimination is likely much worse than illustrated by EEOC 
     charges. As a result of this discrimination, too many women 
     must choose between their paychecks and a healthy pregnancy. 
     That's not a choice anyone should have to make.
       The Pregnant Workers Fairness Act would create a clear 
     policy standard requiring employers to provide reasonable 
     accommodations to pregnant workers. Support for a law like 
     the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act is nearly universal and 
     bipartisan. Eighty-nine perfect of voters favor this bill, 
     including 69 percent of voters who strongly favor it. Just 
     this Congress, twenty-eight leading private sector employers 
     endorsed the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act in an open letter 
     to Congress.
       More than 85 percent of women will become mothers at some 
     point in their working lives. And sometimes, an accommodation 
     is needed in order for a pregnant worker to continue 
     performing their job. Those accommodations are often small 
     changes to their work environment such as additional bathroom 
     breaks, a stool to sit on or the ability to have a water 
     bottle at their work station. Although minor, these 
     accommodations allow pregnant workers to stay in the 
     workforce and continue to provide for themselves and their 
     families. When pregnant workers are fired, demoted, or forced 
     into unpaid leave, they and their families lose critical 
     income, and they may struggle to re-enter a job market that 
     is particularly harsh for people who are currently or were 
     recently pregnant.
       Pregnancy discrimination affects women across race and 
     ethnicity, but women of color and immigrants are at 
     particular risk. They are disproportionately likely to work 
     in jobs and industries where accommodations during pregnancy 
     are not often provided (such as home health aides, food 
     service workers, package handlers and cleaners). Black women 
     are much more likely than white women to file pregnancy 
     discrimination charges; they are also at a higher risk for 
     pregnancy-related complications like pre-term labor, 
     preeclampsia and hypertensive disorders, making reasonable 
     accommodations on the job even more important, and loss of 
     wages and health insurance due to pregnancy discrimination 
     especially challenging.
       To date, thirty-one states including the District of 
     Columbia and four cities have passed laws requiring employers 
     to provide reasonable accommodations to pregnant workers. But 
     the ability to maintain a healthy pregnancy and keep a job 
     should not depend on where a pregnant person works. Women are 
     a crucial part of the workforce and their participation 
     matters for the growth of our economy and for the stability 
     and wellbeing of families nationwide. The Pregnant Workers 
     Fairness Act would strengthen existing federal protections, 
     ensure more equitable workplaces and allow women to remain in 
     the workforce and maintain their economic stability while 
     having the accommodations necessary for healthy pregnancies. 
     It is time to clarify and strengthen existing federal 
     protections for pregnant workers by passing the Pregnant 
     Workers Fairness Act.
           Sincerely,

                                                Debra L. Ness,

                               President, National Partnership for
                                                 Women & Families.
  Ms. DeLAURO. The bipartisan Pregnant Workers Fairness Act is vital 
for women like Regina Scates, a firefighter in Connecticut. She was 
placed on unrequested, unpaid leave when she got pregnant, even though 
she was still capable of performing light duty work. She was left to 
ask: ``How am I going to be able to feed my family?''
  Today, 88 percent of first-time mothers work in the third trimester, 
yet an estimated 250,000 requests for reasonable accommodations go 
unheard and unapproved. And women of color are disproportionately 
impacted, being overrepresented in low-wage jobs where accommodations 
during pregnancy are not often provided, like healthcare aides and food 
service workers.
  So we seek to build on the 1978 Pregnancy Discrimination Act, the 
first social policy ever to be enacted into law to provide protection 
to working mothers. And we must.
  Decisions from the Supreme Court have made it exceedingly difficult 
for women to get reasonable accommodations under current law even when 
the adjustments could be as small as a chair and the stakes could be as 
enormous as a miscarriage or preterm birth.
  It is modeled after the Americans with Disabilities Act. It 
establishes a clear-cut right to reasonable accommodations for all 
public sector employees and all private sector employees at companies 
with more than 15 workers.
  This is not just an economic question. It is a moral question. Like 
many of you, I was horrified by reports that doctors at ICE detention 
centers performed hysterectomies on women without their consent. It is 
unimaginable. It is inhumane and diminishes, dehumanizes and 
disrespects women.
  To all who preach a culture of life, to all who champion the dignity 
of work, I say let us seize the opportunity before us to protect life.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Madam Speaker, I yield an additional 30 
seconds to the gentlewoman from Connecticut.
  Ms. DeLAURO. Madam Speaker, to all who preach a culture of life, to 
all who champion the dignity of work, I say, Let us seize this 
opportunity before us to protect life, to respect women, to protect 
pregnant women at work and to do so with the strength, not of just 
words, but with the strength of the law. Let us pass this bipartisan 
bill.
  Ms. FOXX of North Carolina. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of 
my time.
  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.
  Mrs. McBATH. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding and 
for bringing this vital legislation to the floor.
  The Pregnant Workers Fairness Act will ensure that no woman is 
unfairly fired or forced to risk the health of themselves or their 
pregnancy just to earn a paycheck. Our mothers deserve these Federal 
protections.
  We want all to support our working mothers. Allowing them simple 
accommodations can ensure that they are able to continue working and 
provide a living for themselves and for their families.
  Twenty-seven States have already passed laws that require certain 
employers to provide accommodations to pregnant women. It is time for 
federal action to ensure that all pregnant women are protected from 
discrimination and continue to support their families. This legislation 
is supported by both women's health groups and the business community.
  I have here a letter from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce voicing strong 
support for this legislation, and I submit this letter for the Record.
         Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America,
                                               September 14, 2020.
       To the Members of the U.S. House of Representatives: The 
     U.S. Chamber of Commerce strongly supports H.R. 2694, the 
     ``Pregnant Workers Fairness Act (PWFA).'' As reported by the 
     Committee on Education and Labor, this bipartisan compromise 
     would protect the interests of both pregnant employees and 
     their employers. The Chamber

[[Page H4519]]

     will consider including votes on this legislation in our How 
     They Voted scorecard.
       Employers currently face great uncertainty about whether, 
     and how, they are required to accommodate pregnant workers. 
     The revised PWFA would clarify an employer's obligation to 
     accommodate a pregnant employee or applicant with a known 
     limitation that interferes with her ability to perform some 
     essential functions of her position.
       The PWFA takes advantage of the widely known and accepted 
     interactive process associated with the Americans with 
     Disabilities Act (ADA) that is used to find reasonable 
     accommodations for employees covered by the ADA, and also 
     carries forward the 15-or-more-employee threshold from the 
     ADA.
       The Chamber worked extensively with advocates for this bill 
     to find bipartisan agreement. This important bill is a 
     reminder that through good faith negotiations, legislative 
     solutions to important questions and problems can be 
     achieved. We urge the House to pass the Pregnant Workers 
     Fairness Act.
           Sincerely,
                                                      Jack Howard.
  Ms. McBATH. Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on 
this legislation.
  Ms. FOXX of North Carolina. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of 
my time.
  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.
  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

[[Page H4520]]

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.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentlewoman from Michigan (Ms. Tlaib).
  Ms. TLAIB. Madam Speaker, I submit for the Record a letter of support 
for this legislation from the March of Dimes.
                                               September 11, 2020.
     Re Support the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act.
       Dear Representative: On behalf of the March of Dimes, one 
     of the leading non-profit organization fighting for the 
     health of all moms and babies and promotes the health of 
     women, children and families across the life course, we 
     enthusiastically support the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act 
     (H.R. 2694). Modeled after the Americans with Disabilities 
     Act, the bill would require employers to provide reasonable, 
     temporary workplace accommodations to pregnant workers as 
     long as the accommodation does not impose an undue hardship 
     on the employer. This bill is critically important because no 
     one should have to choose between having a healthy pregnancy 
     and a paycheck.
       Three-quarters of women will be pregnant and employed at 
     some point in their lives. Most pregnant workers can expect a 
     normal pregnancy and healthy birth. However, healthcare 
     providers have consistently recommended that some pregnant 
     women make adjustments in their work activities to sustain a 
     healthy pregnancy and prevent adverse pregnancy outcomes, 
     including preterm birth or miscarriage. Workplace 
     accommodations are medically necessary and can include 
     allowing additional bathroom breaks, opportunities to stay 
     hydrated, lifting restrictions, or access to a chair or stool 
     to decrease time spent standing.
       Unfortunately, too many pregnant workers, particularly 
     pregnant women of color, face barriers to incorporating even 
     these small changes to their workdays. Workplace 
     accommodations help safeguard a healthy pregnancy or prevent 
     harm to a higher-risk pregnancy. Across the country, pregnant 
     workers continue to be denied simple, no-cost or low-cost, 
     temporary adjustments in their work settings or activities 
     and instead risk being fired or forced to take unpaid leave 
     to preserve the health of their pregnancy. Low-wage pregnant 
     workers in physically demanding jobs, which are 
     disproportionately occupied by people of color, feel the 
     impact most acutely. This impossible choice forces many 
     pregnant workers to continue working without accommodations, 
     putting both mother and baby at risk of longlasting and 
     severe health consequences.
       One of the main predictors of a healthy pregnancy is early 
     and consistent prenatal care. Getting early and regular 
     prenatal care can help ensure a healthy, full-term pregnancy. 
     The costs of a healthy birth tend to be around $5,000, 
     whereas the costs associated with a premature or complicated 
     birth range closer to $76,000. Prenatal checkups are crucial 
     and necessary, so that providers can answer any questions, 
     check on the overall health of mom and baby, and spot 
     complications early when there is a greater chance to prevent 
     them. If there is a possibility of a loss of employment, it 
     would impact family resources and threaten the ability to 
     afford vital prenatal care and healthcare costs when most 
     needed.
       Pregnancy affects every system of the body, so pregnant 
     workers may need workplace accommodations to mitigate 
     complications before they arise. During the second and third 
     trimester, additional stress requires that the lungs work 
     harder to provide oxygen as the heart supplies blood 
     throughout the body and for the fetus. Some pregnant people 
     have chronic health diseases, such as diabetes and 
     cardiovascular disease, and need to take extra precautions to 
     manage the condition. Moreover, additional stress during 
     pregnancy may be caused by physical discomfort and other 
     changes in daily life. Some of this stress may cause serious 
     health problems, like high blood pressure, which could lead 
     to problems like preeclampsia and premature birth, conditions 
     that impact Black women at far higher rates than white women 
     and contribute to this country's Black maternal health 
     crisis. Therefore, it is imperative that pregnant workers are 
     protected and provided the necessary and reasonable 
     accommodations, to ensure that they are able to continue 
     working and maintain healthy pregnancies.
       The Pregnant Workers Fairness Act is a measured approach to 
     a serious problem. March of Dimes understands the importance 
     of reasonable workplace accommodations to ensure that women 
     can continue to provide for their families and have safe and 
     healthy pregnancies. We urge swift passage of the Pregnant 
     Workers Fairness Act.
           Sincerely,
     Ariel Gonzalez, ESQ., MA,
       Senior Vice President, Public Policy & Government Affairs, 
     March of Dimes.
  Ms. TLAIB. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of the Pregnant 
Workers Fairness Act.
  In my district and across the country, pregnancy discrimination 
persists, especially against people of color and immigrant women.
  When companies refuse to accommodate for pregnancy-related needs, it 
doesn't just hurt the person being discriminated against, it hurts the 
entire family, especially when nearly half of working women are the 
sole or primary provider for their families.
  It is time to put families first over corporate greed. We must ensure 
that no pregnant person is forced to quit, coerced into taking unpaid 
leave, or fired because their employer refuses to accommodate them.
  We must protect the more than 85 percent of women who will become 
mothers at some point in their working lives.
  On behalf of all the beautiful mothers in my district, 
#13DistrictStrong, I thank Chairman Nadler and Chairman Scott for their 
leadership, and I urge support for this bill.
  Ms. FOXX of North Carolina. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of 
my time.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Neguse).
  Mr. NEGUSE. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of the Pregnant 
Workers Fairness Act.
  I thank Chairman Nadler for introducing this vital bill, and I also 
thank Chairman Scott for his incredible leadership and his work in 
getting it to the floor.
  Ending discrimination against pregnant workers is a critical 
component in closing the economic divide between men and women in our 
country.
  Before coming to Congress, I ran Colorado's Consumer Protection 
Agency, which included our State civil rights division, and I saw up 
close in the complaints that we adjudicated the unfortunate reality is 
that women are often denied even the simplest of workplace 
accommodations because they are pregnant, and too often women are 
forced out or not considered for hire due to their pregnancy. This must 
end. And we have an incredible opportunity to do precisely that by 
getting this bill across the finish line today.
  I am a proud supporter of the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act, and I 
would encourage every Member of this body to vote ``aye'' on this 
critical legislation.
  Madam Speaker, I submit for the Record a letter from the 
International Brotherhood of Teamsters, a 1.4 million-member 
organization highlighting their support for this critical legislation.
                                         International Brotherhood


                                                 of Teamsters,

                                               September 11, 2020.
     House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Representative: On behalf of the 1.4 million members 
     of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, I urge you to 
     support H.R. 2694, the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act when it 
     comes to the floor in the next week. The Teamsters Union is 
     proud to support this important legislation which would 
     promote healthy pregnancies and economic security for 
     pregnant women.
       In the last few decades, there has been a demographic shift 
     in the workplace. Women now make up almost half of the 
     workforce. There are more pregnant workers than ever before 
     and they are working later into their pregnancies. 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.
       While pregnancy discrimination affects women across race, 
     ethnicity and economic status, women of color and low-wage 
     workers are disproportionately impacted. Women of color are 
     more likely to hold certain inflexible and physically 
     demanding jobs that can present specific challenges for 
     pregnant workers, making reasonable accommodations on the job 
     even more important.
       In 2018, the New York Times ran a front page article 
     detailing the tragic loss experienced by a number of women 
     working at a Verizon fulfillment center/warehouse in Memphis, 
     TN, operated by XPO Logistics and previously operated by New 
     Breed Logistics. New Breed and XPO should be quite familiar 
     at this point, as they have garnered considerable press 
     attention in recent weeks. Postmaster General Louis DeJoy was 
     CEO of New Breed and served on the XPO Board during the time 
     at which these tragedies took place.
       The women who worked at the Memphis warehouse generally 
     spent twelve hour shifts moving boxes full of Verizon cell 
     phones and other devices. Upon becoming pregnant, all had 
     asked for reasonable accommodations, including light duty. 
     Three of the women said that they even brought in doctors' 
     notes recommending less-taxing workloads and

[[Page H4521]]

     shorter shifts, but supervisors disregarded the letters.
       Certainly, some of these women considered leaving their 
     jobs with New Breed/XPO, or taking unpaid leave to protect 
     theirs and their unborn child's health, but at an average 
     hourly wage of $11/hr, unpaid leave and elective terms of 
     unemployment are entirely unrealistic.
       In response to the New York Times article and additional 
     coverage by the Los Angeles Times and the PBS Newshour, 
     nearly 100 members of Congress submitted a letter to the 
     House Committee on Education and Labor urging investigation 
     into the disturbing treatment of workers at the Memphis 
     facility. With pressure mounting, XPO solicited the counsel 
     of an outside expert to draft an internal policy to address 
     the needs of pregnant workers. This was a step in the right 
     direction, but it should not take congressional action and 
     national press coverage to compel an employer to do the right 
     thing. Make no mistake, this new XPO policy only exists 
     because of the workers in Memphis who stood up and spoke out.
       Unfortunately, XPO's new policy has zero chance of helping 
     women at the Memphis facility. Two months after announcing 
     the policy, XPO Logistics abruptly announced that it would 
     shut down the warehouse where all of the women featured in 
     the New York Times article had worked. This action creates a 
     chilling effect on other workers who might choose to access 
     reasonable accommodations at XPO. What pregnant worker is 
     going to feel comfortable asking for reasonable accommodation 
     when the end result of speaking up might be job loss? Key 
     among its many protections is that H.R. 2694 would prohibit 
     retaliation against pregnant workers who request 
     accommodation.
       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. No woman should have to choose 
     between providing for her family and maintaining a healthy 
     pregnancy. The Pregnant Workers Fairness Act would ensure 
     that all women working for covered employers would be 
     protected.
       The Teamsters Union is proud to stand with XPO workers and 
     all pregnant workers demanding change. I urge you to stand up 
     to unscrupulous employers like XPO and swiftly enact H.R. 
     2694, the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act.
           Sincerely,
                                                   James P. Hoffa,
                                                General President.
  Ms. FOXX of North Carolina. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time 
as I may consume.
  It is a great disappointment to me that I will be voting against this 
legislation before us today. My Republican colleagues and I have long 
been committed to policies and laws that empower all Americans to 
achieve success, and this includes protections in Federal law for 
pregnant workers. We agree that discrimination of any type should not 
be tolerated, and no one should ever be denied an opportunity because 
of unlawful discrimination. I will repeat that, Madam Speaker. We agree 
that discrimination of any type should not be tolerated, and no one 
should ever be denied an opportunity because of unlawful 
discrimination.
  After meaningful and necessary bipartisan improvements were made to 
H.R. 2694 during the committee markup, it is unfortunate today's 
legislation falls short in protecting one of our Nation's most 
treasured rights, freedom of religion, the first right mentioned in the 
Bill of Rights.
  Democrats' refusal to include a commonsense provision that protects 
religious organizations from being forced to make employment decisions 
that conflict with their faith is short-sighted, disappointing, and 
easy to fix.
  Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1145

  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.

[[Page H4522]]

       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.
  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.

[[Page H4523]]

  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.
  Ms. HAALAND. Madam Speaker, today we act so that women will no longer 
experience the fear of not knowing if they can maintain their family's 
financial security while they are pregnant.
  As the number of women who work as the primary breadwinners in their 
households continues to rise, this financial insecurity rises as well.
  While growing up, my mother was forced out of the Navy because she 
was pregnant. Although times have changed, mothers are still being 
forced out of their employment due to the absence of reasonable 
accommodations. I know first-hand the pressures of being that single 
source of income for my household, and I have seen how Black and Latina 
workers are overrepresented in low-wage, physically demanding jobs that 
need pregnancy accommodations for them to stay safe.
  More than a decade ago, the Americans with Disabilities Act was 
amended to better implement the principle that physical or mental 
disabilities should be met with reasonable accommodations.
  Pregnancy is not considered a disability under the ADA, however, 
enabling employers to deny reasonable accommodations like allowing 
pregnant employees to sit on a stool rather than stand during a long 
shift.
  This bill would correct that, and I would like to include in the 
Record a letter from the Consortium for Citizens with Disabilities 
addressed to Chairman Scott and Ranking Member Foxx in support of the 
Pregnant Workers Fairness Act.
  New Mexico is one of thirty states that have enacted laws to protect 
access to reasonable accommodations for pregnant workers so they have 
safe working conditions and, if they are denied that, the right to 
receive lost pay and compensatory damages.
  Millions of pregnant workers in these states have benefited from 
these protections, but a pregnant employee's ability to work safely 
should not depend on where in this country she lives.
  The Pregnant Workers' Fairness Act, which is endorsed by nearly 200 
worker advocates, civil rights groups and the business community, will 
hold every employer in our country, across state lines, to these same 
standards.
  As we hear horrific stories of immigrant women forced to have 
hysterectomies and lose their ability to have children, we are reminded 
that the health, safety and wellbeing of all women is not something we 
can turn a blind eye to, whether those women work in boardrooms, on a 
factory floor, or in a hospital.
  I support this legislation because no expectant mother should have to 
risk her health or that of her unborn child to stay financially stable.
  I urge my colleagues to vote yes on this historic bill.

                                               September 11, 2020.
     Re Support for Pregnant Workers Fairness Act, H.R. 2694.

     Hon. Bobby Scott,
     Chairman, Committee on Education and Labor, House of 
         Representatives, Washington, DC.
      Hon. Virginia Foxx,
     Ranking Member, Committee on Education and Labor, House of 
         Representatives, Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Scott and Ranking Member Foxx: As co-chairs 
     of the Consortium for Citizens with Disabilities (CCD) Rights 
     Task Force, we write in strong support of the Pregnant 
     Workers Fairness Act, H.R. 2694. CCD is the largest coalition 
     of national organizations working together to advocate for 
     federal public policy that ensures the self-determination, 
     independence, empowerment, integration and inclusion of 
     children and adults with disabilities in all aspects of 
     society.
       The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)'s mandate that 
     covered employers make reasonable accommodations to ensure 
     equal opportunity for applicants and employees with 
     disabilities has been tremendously important in helping 
     people with disabilities secure and maintain employment. 
     While the ADA does not cover pregnancy itself as a 
     disability, in light of the ADA Amendments Act, which lowered 
     the standard for demonstrating a disability from what the 
     courts had previously applied, many pregnant workers who 
     experience pregnancy-related complications should be covered 
     as people with disabilities and entitled to reasonable 
     accommodations under the ADA. Yet many courts have continued 
     to interpret the ADA's coverage narrowly, and in practice, 
     large numbers of pregnant workers are not offered reasonable 
     accommodations. Furthermore, a clear pregnancy accommodation 
     standard will help prevent pregnancy-related complications 
     before they arise. Such accommodations should be provided to 
     pregnant workers so that they can remain in the workforce and 
     not lose their employment simply because they experience 
     pregnancy-related limitations.
       The accommodation requirement of H.R. 2694 is limited, as 
     is the ADA's accommodation requirement, to those 
     accommodations that are reasonable and would not impose an 
     undue hardship. That standard takes into account the needs of 
     employers while also ensuring that pregnant workers can stay 
     on the job with reasonable accommodations. This protection is 
     critical not only for pregnant workers but for our national 
     economy.
       The Pregnant Workers Fairness Act is particularly important 
     to people with disabilities. Many people with disabilities 
     who did not require accommodations before becoming pregnant 
     experience new complications due to how pregnancy impacts 
     their disabilities, and need accommodations once they become 
     pregnant. These workers are sometimes told that they are not 
     entitled to accommodations because the employer views the 
     need for accommodation as related to pregnancy rather than to 
     the worker's underlying disability.
       We thank the Committee for moving the bill forward and urge 
     all members of the House of Representatives to vote for the 
     Pregnant Workers Fairness Act and oppose any motion to 
     recommit.
           Sincerely,
     Jennifer Mathis,
       Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law.
     Stephen Lieberman,
       United Spinal Association.
     Allison Nichol,
       Epilepsy Foundation, Co-chairs, CCD Rights Task Force.
     Kelly Buckland,
       National Council on Independent Living.
     Samantha Crane,
       Autistic Self Advocacy Network.
  Mr. COHEN. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of the Pregnant 
Workers Fairness Act. This meaningful legislation will protect pregnant 
workers who have suffered because of insufficient workplace 
protections, a story far too familiar to many workers who call Memphis 
home.
  Two years ago, I was shocked to read of the disturbing workplace 
abuses in an XPO warehouse in Memphis. Warehouse workers were denied 
minor and reasonable accommodations like less taxing workloads and 
shortened work shifts. As a result, several women suffered 
miscarriages, some of which happened while they were still on the 
warehouse floor.
  I, along with Congresswoman DeLauro and ninety-five of my colleagues, 
wrote to the Education and Labor Committee to urge the 115th Congress 
to take decisive action and consider the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act.
  The 116th Congress has rightly given this bill the attention it 
deserves, and this bill will give pregnant workers the protections that 
are past-due. No employee should be forced to choose between their job 
and their health. I appreciated the opportunity to participate in the 
Education and Labor Committee's Subcommittee hearing on this bill, and 
I am pleased to support the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act's 
consideration today.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Madam Speaker, as a senior member of the Judiciary, 
Homeland Security, and Budget Committees, the Democratic Working Women 
Task Force, and as cosponsor, I rise in strong support of H.R. 2694, 
the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act (PWFA), which would ensure that 
pregnant workers can continue to do their jobs and support their 
families by requiring employers to make workplace adjustments for those 
workers who need them due to pregnancy, childbirth, and related medical 
conditions, like breastfeeding.
  The Pregnant Workers Fairness Act would establish that private sector 
employers with more than 15 employees and public sector employers must 
make reasonable accommodations for pregnant employees, job applicants, 
and individuals with known limitations related to pregnancy, 
childbirth, or related medical conditions.
  Similar to the Americans with Disabilities Act, employers are not 
required to make an accommodation if it imposes an undue hardship on an 
employer's business.
  Pregnant workers and individuals with known limitations related to 
pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions cannot be denied 
employment opportunities, retaliated against for requesting a 
reasonable accommodation, or forced take paid or unpaid leave if

[[Page H4524]]

another reasonable accommodation is available.
  Workers denied a reasonable accommodation under the Pregnant Workers 
Fairness Act will have the same rights and remedies as those 
established under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, including 
recovery of lost pay, compensatory damages, and reasonable attorneys' 
fees.
  While the Pregnancy Discrimination Act (PDA) and the Americans with 
Disabilities Act (ADA) provide some protections for pregnant workers, 
there is currently no federal law that explicitly and affirmatively 
guarantees all pregnant workers the right to a reasonable accommodation 
so they can continue working without jeopardizing their pregnancy.
  The Supreme Court's landmark decision in Young v. United Parcel 
Service, 575 U.S. __, No. 12-1226, 135 S.Ct. 1338 (2015) allowed 
pregnant workers to bring reasonable accommodation discrimination 
claims under the PDA.
  But pregnant workers are still being denied accommodations because 
the Young decision set an unreasonably high standard for proving 
discrimination, requiring workers to prove that their employers 
accommodated non-pregnant workers with similar limitations.
  As a result, in two-thirds of cases after Young, courts ruled against 
pregnant workers who were seeking accommodations under the PDA.
  Providing accommodations ensures that women can work safely while 
pregnant instead of getting pushed out of work at a time when they may 
need their income the most.
  The Pregnant Workers Fairness Act is especially important considering 
that many pregnant workers hold physically demanding or hazardous jobs, 
and thus may be especially likely to need reasonable accommodations at 
some point during their pregnancy.
  Madam Speaker, research shows that pregnant workers are likely to 
hold jobs that involve standing and making continuous movements, which 
can raise specific challenges during pregnancy.
  Such physically demanding work--including jobs that require prolonged 
standing, long work hours, irregular work schedules, heavy lifting, or 
high physical activity--carries an increased risk of pre-term delivery 
and low birth weight.
  Twenty-one (20.9) percent of pregnant workers are employed in low-
wage jobs, which are particularly likely to be physically demanding.
  Pregnant black and Latina women are disproportionately represented in 
low-wage jobs, which means as a result, these workers are especially 
likely to stand, walk or run continuously during work, and therefore 
may be more likely to need an accommodation at some point during 
pregnancy to continue to work safely.
  Three in ten pregnant workers are employed in four of the occupations 
that make up the backbone of our communities: elementary school 
teachers, nurses and home health aides.
  Employers can accommodate pregnant workers because pregnant women 
make up a small share of the workforce, even in the occupations where 
they are most likely to work, which means that only a very small share 
of an employer's workforce is likely to require pregnancy 
accommodations in any given year since less than two percent of all 
workers in the U.S. are pregnant each year.
  Not all pregnant workers require any form of accommodation at work, 
so only a fraction of that small fraction will need accommodations.
  For example, pregnant women are most likely to work as elementary and 
middle school teachers but only three percent (3.2 percent) of all 
elementary and middle school teachers are pregnant women.
  But workers employed in four of the ten most common occupations for 
pregnant workers--retail salesperson; waiter or waitress; nursing, 
psychiatric and home health aide; and cashier--who report continuously 
standing on the job would particularly benefit from this legislation.
  Madam Speaker, prolonged standing at work has been shown to more than 
triple the odds of pregnant women taking leave during pregnancy or 
becoming unemployed.
  Another four of the ten most common occupations for pregnant 
workers--waiter or waitress; nursing, psychiatric and home health aide; 
cashier; and secretaries and administrative assistants--involve making 
repetitive motions continuously on the job which have been shown to 
increase the likelihood of pregnant women taking sick leave.
  Pregnant workers in low-wage jobs are particularly in need of this 
legislation granting them the clear legal right to receive 
accommodations because, in addition to the physically demanding nature 
of their jobs, they often face inflexible workplace cultures that make 
it difficult to informally address pregnancy-related needs.
  For instance, workplace flexibility--such as the ability to alter 
start and end times or take time off for a doctor's appointment--is 
extremely limited for workers in low-wage jobs.
  Over 40 percent of full-time workers in low-wage jobs report that 
their employers do not permit them to decide when to take breaks; 
between two-thirds and three-quarters of full-time workers in low-wage 
jobs report that they are unable to choose their start and quit times; 
and roughly half report having very little or no control over the 
scheduling of hours more generally.
  The second most common occupation for pregnant Latinas--maids and 
housekeeping cleaners--is especially physically demanding because, 
according to the data, 80 percent of maids and housekeeping cleaners 
stood continuously, 38 percent were exposed to disease daily, and 70 
percent walked or ran continuously on the job.
  Occupations that have seen the most growth among pregnant women in 
the past decade expose many workers to disease or infection daily; 
depending on the disease, this can pose particular challenges to some 
pregnant workers at some points during pregnancy.
  When pregnant workers are exposed to some diseases, they face 
particular risks; pregnant women with rubella are at risk for 
miscarriage or stillbirth and their developing fetuses are at risk for 
severe birth defects.
  Madam Speaker, no one should have to choose between a paycheck and a 
healthy pregnancy, which is why they should have clear rights to 
reasonable accommodations on the job to ensure they are not forced off 
the job at the moment they can least afford it.
  I urge all Members to join me in voting for H.R. 2694, the Pregnant 
Workers Fairness Act.
  Ms. JOHNSON of Texas. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 
2694, the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act, a critical effort that I have 
cosponsored. Despite almost four decades since the passage of the 
Pregnancy Discrimination Act, women continue to face significant 
challenges in the workplace during their pregnancies.
  This is especially concerning for those working jobs that require 
physical activity, for which temporary modifications to limit risks to 
expectant mothers should be considered. Instead, employers have often 
refused to accommodate pregnant workers, forcing them to choose between 
their health or economic security. This is unacceptable--employers 
should not be permitted to discriminate against pregnant individuals 
who are requesting reasonable workplace accommodations.
  Therefore, I am pleased to support the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act, 
which will require that employers make these reasonable accommodations 
for pregnant workers. This legislation will also benefit those who are 
employed and expecting, but it is especially critical for the more than 
1 in 5 pregnant workers who are employed in a low-paid job with 
physically demanding work and minimal flexibility. The Pregnant Workers 
Fairness Act will make possible for accommodations that include the 
modification of no-food-or-drink policy to prevent contractions from 
lack of hydration, reassignment of heavy lifting duties, and provision 
of additional personal protective equipment, staggered workplace 
schedules, or telework during COVID-19.
  As representatives of Americans from all corners of our country, we 
have a responsibility to protect the health and economic livelihood of 
our expectant mothers and the well-being of their families. On behalf 
of my home state of Texas, I urge my colleagues to support the Pregnant 
Workers Fairness Act.
  Ms. GARCIA of Texas. Madam Speaker, for far too long, pregnant 
workers in our country have lacked reasonable accommodations at their 
workplaces. They need to keep their jobs to ensure economic security 
for themselves and their families. Yet, without reasonable 
accommodations they could risk their health and safety. I am proud to 
cosponsor the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act, which would right this 
wrong. This bill would require employers to make reasonable 
accommodations for pregnant workers who need them. Without this 
legislation, some may continue to work in unsafe conditions. Currently, 
pregnant workers might be let go or forced into unpaid leave, just for 
asking for reasonable accommodations. Some may quit their job to avoid 
risking the health of their pregnancy. This is unacceptable. Pregnant 
workers deserve better. They deserve these commonsense protections. 
That is why I am proud to cosponsor and vote for this bill today.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.
  Pursuant to House Resolution 1107, the previous question is ordered 
on the bill, as amended.
  The question is on the engrossment and third reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was 
read the third time.


                           Motion to Recommit

  Ms. FOXX of North Carolina. Madam Speaker, I have a motion to 
recommit at the desk.

[[Page H4525]]

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentlewoman opposed to the bill?
  Ms. FOXX of North Carolina. Madam Speaker, I am in its current form.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to 
recommit.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Ms. Foxx of North Carolina moves to recommit the bill (H.R. 
     2694) to the Committee on Education and Labor with 
     instructions to report the bill back to the House forthwith 
     with the following amendment:
       Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the 
     following:

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Pregnant Workers Fairness 
     Act''.

     SEC. 2. NONDISCRIMINATION WITH REGARD TO REASONABLE 
                   ACCOMMODATIONS RELATED TO PREGNANCY.

       It shall be an unlawful employment practice for a covered 
     entity to--
       (1) not make reasonable accommodations to the known 
     limitations related to the pregnancy, childbirth, or related 
     medical conditions of a qualified employee, unless such 
     covered entity can demonstrate that the accommodation would 
     impose an undue hardship on the operation of the business of 
     such covered entity;
       (2) require a qualified employee affected by pregnancy, 
     childbirth, or related medical conditions to accept an 
     accommodation other than any reasonable accommodation arrived 
     at through the interactive process referred to in section 
     5(7);
       (3) deny employment opportunities to a qualified employee 
     if such denial is based on the need of the covered entity to 
     make reasonable accommodations to the known limitations 
     related to the pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical 
     conditions of a qualified employee;
       (4) require a qualified employee to take leave, whether 
     paid or unpaid, if another reasonable accommodation can be 
     provided to the known limitations related to the pregnancy, 
     childbirth, or related medical conditions of a qualified 
     employee; or
       (5) take adverse action in terms, conditions, or privileges 
     of employment against a qualified employee on account of the 
     employee requesting or using a reasonable accommodation to 
     the known limitations related to the pregnancy, childbirth, 
     or related medical conditions of the employee.

     SEC. 3. REMEDIES AND ENFORCEMENT.

       (a) Employees Covered by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act 
     of 1964.--
       (1) In general.--The powers, remedies, and procedures 
     provided in sections 705, 706, 707, 709, 710, and 711 of the 
     Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. 2000e-4 et seq.) to the 
     Commission, the Attorney General, or any person alleging a 
     violation of title VII of such Act (42 U.S.C. 2000e et seq.) 
     shall be the powers, remedies, and procedures this Act 
     provides to the Commission, the Attorney General, or any 
     person, respectively, alleging an unlawful employment 
     practice in violation of this Act against an employee 
     described in section 5(3)(A) except as provided in paragraphs 
     (2) and (3) of this subsection.
       (2) Costs and fees.--The powers, remedies, and procedures 
     provided in subsections (b) and (c) of section 722 of the 
     Revised Statutes (42 U.S.C. 1988) shall be the powers, 
     remedies, and procedures this Act provides to the Commission, 
     the Attorney General, or any person alleging such practice.
       (3) Damages.--The powers, remedies, and procedures provided 
     in section 1977A of the Revised Statutes (42 U.S.C. 1981a), 
     including the limitations contained in subsection (b)(3) of 
     such section 1977A, shall be the powers, remedies, and 
     procedures this Act provides to the Commission, the Attorney 
     General, or any person alleging such practice (not an 
     employment practice specifically excluded from coverage under 
     section 1977A(a)(1) of the Revised Statutes).
       (b) Employees Covered by Congressional Accountability Act 
     of 1995.--
       (1) In general.--The powers, remedies, and procedures 
     provided in the Congressional Accountability Act of 1995 (2 
     U.S.C. 1301 et seq.) to the Board (as defined in section 101 
     of such Act (2 U.S.C. 1301)) or any person alleging a 
     violation of section 201(a)(1) of such Act (2 U.S.C. 
     1311(a)(1)) shall be the powers, remedies, and procedures 
     this Act provides to the Board or any person, respectively, 
     alleging an unlawful employment practice in violation of this 
     Act against an employee described in section 5(3)(B), except 
     as provided in paragraphs (2) and (3) of this subsection.
       (2) Costs and fees.--The powers, remedies, and procedures 
     provided in subsections (b) and (c) of section 722 of the 
     Revised Statutes (42 U.S.C. 1988) shall be the powers, 
     remedies, and procedures this Act provides to the Board or 
     any person alleging such practice.
       (3) Damages.--The powers, remedies, and procedures provided 
     in section 1977A of the Revised Statutes (42 U.S.C. 1981a), 
     including the limitations contained in subsection (b)(3) of 
     such section 1977A, shall be the powers, remedies, and 
     procedures this Act provides to the Board or any person 
     alleging such practice (not an employment practice 
     specifically excluded from coverage under section 1977A(a)(1) 
     of the Revised Statutes).
       (4) Other applicable provisions.--With respect to a claim 
     alleging a practice described in paragraph (1), title III of 
     the Congressional Accountability Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1381 
     et seq.) shall apply in the same manner as such title applies 
     with respect to a claim alleging a violation of section 
     201(a)(1) of such Act (2 U.S.C. 1311(a)(1)).
       (c) Employees Covered by Chapter 5 of Title 3, United 
     States Code.--
       (1) In general.--The powers, remedies, and procedures 
     provided in chapter 5 of title 3, United States Code, to the 
     President, the Commission, the Merit Systems Protection 
     Board, or any person alleging a violation of section 
     411(a)(1) of such title shall be the powers, remedies, and 
     procedures this Act provides to the President, the 
     Commission, the Board, or any person, respectively, alleging 
     an unlawful employment practice in violation of this Act 
     against an employee described in section 5(3)(C), except as 
     provided in paragraphs (2) and (3) of this subsection.
       (2) Costs and fees.--The powers, remedies, and procedures 
     provided in subsections (b) and (c) of section 722 of the 
     Revised Statutes (42 U.S.C. 1988) shall be the powers, 
     remedies, and procedures this Act provides to the President, 
     the Commission, the Board, or any person alleging such 
     practice.
       (3) Damages.--The powers, remedies, and procedures provided 
     in section 1977A of the Revised Statutes (42 U.S.C. 1981a), 
     including the limitations contained in subsection (b)(3) of 
     such section 1977A, shall be the powers, remedies, and 
     procedures this Act provides to the President, the 
     Commission, the Board, or any person alleging such practice 
     (not an employment practice specifically excluded from 
     coverage under section 1977A(a)(1) of the Revised Statutes).
       (d) Employees Covered by Government Employee Rights Act of 
     1991.--
       (1) In general.--The powers, remedies, and procedures 
     provided in sections 302 and 304 of the Government Employee 
     Rights Act of 1991 (42 U.S.C. 2000e-16b; 2000e-16c) to the 
     Commission or any person alleging a violation of section 
     302(a)(1) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 2000e-16b(a)(1)) shall be 
     the powers, remedies, and procedures this Act provides to the 
     Commission or any person, respectively, alleging an unlawful 
     employment practice in violation of this Act against an 
     employee described in section 5(3)(D), except as provided in 
     paragraphs (2) and (3) of this subsection.
       (2) Costs and fees.--The powers, remedies, and procedures 
     provided in subsections (b) and (c) of section 722 of the 
     Revised Statutes (42 U.S.C. 1988) shall be the powers, 
     remedies, and procedures this Act provides to the Commission 
     or any person alleging such practice.
       (3) Damages.--The powers, remedies, and procedures provided 
     in section 1977A of the Revised Statutes (42 U.S.C. 1981a), 
     including the limitations contained in subsection (b)(3) of 
     such section 1977A, shall be the powers, remedies, and 
     procedures this Act provides to the Commission or any person 
     alleging such practice (not an employment practice 
     specifically excluded from coverage under section 1977A(a)(1) 
     of the Revised Statutes).
       (e) Employees Covered by Section 717 of the Civil Rights 
     Act of 1964.--
       (1) In general.--The powers, remedies, and procedures 
     provided in section 717 of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 
     U.S.C. 2000e-16) to the Commission, the Attorney General, the 
     Librarian of Congress, or any person alleging a violation of 
     that section shall be the powers, remedies, and procedures 
     this Act provides to the Commission, the Attorney General, 
     the Librarian of Congress, or any person, respectively, 
     alleging an unlawful employment practice in violation of this 
     Act against an employee described in section 5(3)(E), except 
     as provided in paragraphs (2) and (3) of this subsection.
       (2) Costs and fees.--The powers, remedies, and procedures 
     provided in subsections (b) and (c) of section 722 of the 
     Revised Statutes (42 U.S.C. 1988) shall be the powers, 
     remedies, and procedures this Act provides to the Commission, 
     the Attorney General, the Librarian of Congress, or any 
     person alleging such practice.
       (3) Damages.--The powers, remedies, and procedures provided 
     in section 1977A of the Revised Statutes (42 U.S.C. 1981a), 
     including the limitations contained in subsection (b)(3) of 
     such section 1977A, shall be the powers, remedies, and 
     procedures this Act provides to the Commission, the Attorney 
     General, the Librarian of Congress, or any person alleging 
     such practice (not an employment practice specifically 
     excluded from coverage under section 1977A(a)(1) of the 
     Revised Statutes).
       (f) Prohibition Against Retaliation.--
       (1) In general.--No person shall discriminate against any 
     employee because such employee has opposed any act or 
     practice made unlawful by this Act or because such employee 
     made a charge, testified, assisted, or participated in any 
     manner in an investigation, proceeding, or hearing under this 
     Act.
       (2) Prohibition against coercion.--It shall be unlawful to 
     coerce, intimidate, threaten, or interfere with any 
     individual in the exercise or enjoyment of, or on account of 
     such individual having exercised or enjoyed, or on account of 
     such individual having aided or encouraged any other 
     individual in the exercise or enjoyment of, any right granted 
     or protected by this Act.
       (3) Remedy.--The remedies and procedures otherwise provided 
     for under this section shall be available to aggrieved 
     individuals with respect to violations of this subsection.
       (g) Limitation.--Notwithstanding subsections (a)(3), 
     (b)(3), (c)(3), (d)(3), and (e)(3), if an unlawful employment 
     practice involves the provision of a reasonable accommodation 
     pursuant to this Act or regulations implementing this Act, 
     damages may not be awarded under section 1977A of the Revised 
     Statutes (42 U.S.C. 1981a) if the covered entity demonstrates 
     good faith efforts, in consultation with the employee with 
     known

[[Page H4526]]

     limitations related to pregnancy, childbirth, or related 
     medical conditions who has informed the covered entity that 
     accommodation is needed, to identify and make a reasonable 
     accommodation that would provide such employee with an 
     equally effective opportunity and would not cause an undue 
     hardship on the operation of the covered entity.

     SEC. 4. RULEMAKING.

       Not later than 2 years after the date of enactment of this 
     Act, the Commission shall issue regulations in an accessible 
     format in accordance with subchapter II of chapter 5 of title 
     5, United States Code, to carry out this Act. Such 
     regulations shall provide examples of reasonable 
     accommodations addressing known limitations related to 
     pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions.

     SEC. 5. DEFINITIONS.

       As used in this Act--
       (1) the term ``Commission'' means the Equal Employment 
     Opportunity Commission;
       (2) the term ``covered entity''--
       (A) has the meaning given the term ``respondent'' in 
     section 701(n) of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. 
     2000e(n)); and
       (B) includes--
       (i) an employer, which means a person engaged in industry 
     affecting commerce who has 15 or more employees as defined in 
     section 701(b) of title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 
     (42 U.S.C. 2000e(b)), subject to the applicability to 
     religious employment as set forth in section 702(a) of title 
     VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. 2000e-1(a));
       (ii) an employing office, as defined in section 101 of the 
     Congressional Accountability Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1301) and 
     section 411(c) of title 3, United States Code;
       (iii) an entity employing a State employee described in 
     section 304(a) of the Government Employee Rights Act of 1991 
     (42 U.S.C. 2000e-16c(a)); and
       (iv) an entity to which section 717(a) of the Civil Rights 
     Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. 2000e-16(a)) applies;
       (3) the term ``employee'' means--
       (A) an employee (including an applicant), as defined in 
     section 701(f) of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. 
     2000e(f));
       (B) a covered employee (including an applicant), as defined 
     in section 101 of the Congressional Accountability Act of 
     1995 (2 U.S.C. 1301);
       (C) a covered employee (including an applicant), as defined 
     in section 411(c) of title 3, United States Code;
       (D) a State employee (including an applicant) described in 
     section 304(a) of the Government Employee Rights Act of 1991 
     (42 U.S.C. 2000e-16c(a)); or
       (E) an employee (including an applicant) to which section 
     717(a) of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. 2000e-
     16(a)) applies;
       (4) the term ``person'' has the meaning given such term in 
     section 701(a) of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. 
     2000e(a));
       (5) the term ``known limitation'' means physical or mental 
     condition related to, affected by, or arising out of 
     pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions that the 
     employee or employee's representative has communicated to the 
     employer whether or not such condition meets the definition 
     of disability specified in section 3 of the Americans with 
     Disabilities Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 12102);
       (6) the term ``qualified employee'' means an employee or 
     applicant who, with or without reasonable accommodation, can 
     perform the essential functions of the employment position, 
     except that an employee or applicant shall be considered 
     qualified if--
       (A) any inability to perform an essential function is for a 
     temporary period;
       (B) the essential function could be performed in the near 
     future; and
       (C) the inability to perform the essential function can be 
     reasonably accommodated; and
       (7) the terms ``reasonable accommodation'' and ``undue 
     hardship'' have the meanings given such terms in section 101 
     of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 
     12111) and shall be construed as such terms are construed 
     under such Act and as set forth in the regulations required 
     by this Act, including with regard to the interactive process 
     that will typically be used to determine an appropriate 
     reasonable accommodation.

     SEC. 6. WAIVER OF STATE IMMUNITY.

       A State shall not be immune under the 11th Amendment to the 
     Constitution from an action in a Federal or State court of 
     competent jurisdiction for a violation of this Act. In any 
     action against a State for a violation of this Act, remedies 
     (including remedies both at law and in equity) are available 
     for such a violation to the same extent as such remedies are 
     available for such a violation in an action against any 
     public or private entity other than a State.

     SEC. 7. RELATIONSHIP TO OTHER LAWS.

       Nothing in this Act shall be construed to invalidate or 
     limit the powers, remedies, and procedures under any Federal 
     law or law of any State or political subdivision of any State 
     or jurisdiction that provides greater or equal protection for 
     individuals affected by pregnancy, childbirth, or related 
     medical conditions.

     SEC. 8. SEVERABILITY.

       If any provision of this Act or the application of that 
     provision to particular persons or circumstances is held 
     invalid or found to be unconstitutional, the remainder of 
     this Act and the application of that provision to other 
     persons or circumstances shall not be affected.

  Ms. FOXX of North Carolina (during the reading). Madam Speaker, I ask 
unanimous consent to dispense with the reading.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from North Carolina?
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentlewoman from 
North Carolina is recognized for 5 minutes in support of her motion.
  Ms. FOXX of North Carolina. Madam Speaker, this motion is the final 
opportunity to amend this legislation and would do so without any delay 
in passage.
  Madam Speaker, Republicans support protections in Federal law for 
pregnant workers, and we believe employers should provide reasonable 
accommodations for pregnant workers.
  I support the provisions in H.R. 2694, which were previously outlined 
during the general debate. I also recognize that improvements to the 
bill were the result of bipartisan negotiations, and I commend Chairman 
Scott for his outreach in this regard.
  Unfortunately, despite our agreement on these changes, there remains 
an important outstanding issue that must be resolved. The bill before 
us today does not include a narrow but longstanding provision from the 
Civil Rights Act that protects religious organizations from being 
forced to make employment decisions that conflict with their faith. The 
motion to recommit adds this important protection.
  This very limited provision is already in current law, and it allows 
religious organizations to make religiously based employment decisions.
  Without this longstanding Civil Rights Act provision, H.R. 2694 will 
create confusion and legal risk for religious organizations in their 
religiously based employment decisions.
  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.
  In fact, a Democrat-invited witness at a committee hearing 
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.
  At the Rules Committee hearing on H.R. 2694 earlier this week, the 
bill's sponsor, Chairman Nadler, said it is not necessary to 
incorporate into H.R. 2694 the Civil Rights Act provision that protects 
religious organizations. He stated that because H.R. 2694 does not 
repeal this provision, it will still be effective if the bill becomes 
law.
  At the same hearing, Chairman Scott said the religious organization 
protection should not be included in H.R. 2694 because it is 
overinclusive and would provide too much protection.
  I strongly disagree with both of these perspectives, and I am not 
sure Chairman Nadler's explanation is in line with Chairman Scott's 
position.
  Without the current law protection, H.R. 2694 will create legal 
jeopardy for religious organizations, as I have previously stated. But 
for the sake of argument, let's assume the provision is superfluous.
  Madam Speaker, what would the harm be in including the Civil Rights 
Act protection in H.R. 2694? At worst, the provision would be 
duplicative with the Civil Rights Act, causing no harm to workers or 
employers. At best, it will prevent a religious organization from being 
required to violate its faith.
  By adding this simple reference to H.R. 2694 from the Civil Rights 
Act, we can ensure the protections in the bill are harmonized with the 
protections for religious organizations found in the Pregnancy 
Discrimination Act, PDA, and the Americans with Disabilities Act, ADA.
  I would also briefly like to address recent claims made by the U.S. 
Chamber of Commerce--a trade association which represents few, if any, 
religious employers--that, under this bill, required workplace 
accommodations would not come into conflict with a religious 
organization's beliefs.
  The chamber acknowledges that leave, including paid leave, can be 
part of a reasonable accommodation under

[[Page H4527]]

the ADA, from which H.R. 2694 incorporates the definition of reasonable 
accommodation. Therefore, if a religious organization has a paid leave 
policy, H.R. 2694 could require the organization to allow paid leave 
for purposes that conflict with its religious tenets.
  The chamber also contends that H.R. 2694 is not a bill that addresses 
hiring, unlike the PDA and the ADA, which apply to hiring. This is 
false. H.R. 2694 applies to both employees and job applicants, so it is 
indeed a hiring statute.
  Therefore, the religious organization protections in the Civil Rights 
Act and the ADA are just as relevant to H.R. 2694 as they are to those 
statutes.
  Madam Speaker, to conclude, the motion to recommit includes H.R. 2694 
in its entirety, with one important addition related to religious 
organization protections. My amendment simply incorporates the title 
VII religious organization protection to ensure these organizations are 
not forced to violate their faith in making employment and 
accommodation decisions.
  Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this simple but 
important addition to the bill, and I yield back the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to the 
motion.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Virginia is recognized 
for 5 minutes.
  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).
  Ms. WILD. Madam Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding.
  I rise in opposition to this political poison pill of an MTR.
  Corporations are a legal creation. They don't have religious beliefs. 
Their officers might, but they do not.
  Let's be clear about who inspired the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act.
  It is women who have asked for accommodations in lifting requirements 
because their doctors told them they were at high risk of miscarriage 
or preterm birth.
  It is women like the worker in Pennsylvania who was denied a schedule 
change and fired due to cramping in her uterus that landed her in the 
ER.
  This MTR invites discrimination. It emboldens those who would use 
religion as a basis to discriminate against people who are pregnant and 
not married, workers in same-sex couples, women who used IVF to get 
pregnant, even people with partners of a different race.
  Something the proponents of this amendment aren't saying out loud is 
that other religious exemptions would already apply to the Pregnant 
Workers Fairness Act.
  This MTR frustrates the purpose of a good bill, a bill that is 
supported by the Chamber of Commerce and by 89 percent of voters.
  Every year, an estimated quarter of a million women are denied 
requests for an accommodation because current law forces pregnant 
workers to find other nonpregnant employees who received similar 
accommodations to make a case.
  When pregnant women are denied accommodations, they face health 
risks, miscarriage, premature births.
  Symptoms and conditions of pregnancy cannot be fully appreciated 
unless you have been pregnant yourself. So when you consider this vote 
on the MTR, remember that 80 percent of directors of ACWI Index 
companies are men. Men who have never experienced the struggles of 
pregnancy will be deciding whether to invoke an exemption to deny an 
accommodation to a pregnant worker. That is not right.
  This bill is not some new burden on employers. They must already 
engage in a good faith interactive process over reasonable 
accommodations under the ADA.
  This bill, as written, takes employer concerns into account. 
Employers with fewer than 15 employees or those who would suffer undue 
hardship need not provide accommodations.
  Madam Speaker, I urge a resounding ``no'' vote on this MTR because it 
dilutes the very protections for pregnant workers that the bill seeks 
to establish. Those protections are long overdue.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my 
time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is 
ordered on the motion to recommit.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to recommit.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.
  Ms. FOXX of North Carolina. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas 
and nays.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to section 3 of House Resolution 
965, the yeas and nays are ordered.
  Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further proceedings on this question 
are postponed.

                          ____________________