[Congressional Record Volume 167, Number 84 (Friday, May 14, 2021)]
[House]
[Pages H2321-H2343]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                     PREGNANT WORKERS FAIRNESS ACT

  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 380, 
I call up the bill (H.R. 1065) 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. Pursuant to House Resolution 380, 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. 1065

       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

[[Page H2322]]

     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 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, as amended, shall be debatable for 
1 hour, equally divided and controlled by the chair and the ranking 
minority member of the Committee on Education and Labor or their 
respective designees.
  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. Mr. 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. 1065, the Pregnant 
Workers Fairness Act.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Virginia?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 1065, the Pregnant Workers 
Fairness Act introduced by Representatives Nadler and Katko.
  It is unacceptable that, in 2021, pregnant workers can still be 
denied basic workplace accommodations that help them stay healthy 
during their pregnancy. These accommodations, from

[[Page H2323]]

providing seating and water to excusing pregnant workers from heavy 
lifting, are not complex or costly.
  But without these protections, too many workers are forced to either 
leave their jobs or put their health and the health of their pregnancy 
at risk. We can and must do better to ensure that no worker in this 
country is forced to choose between financial security and a healthy 
pregnancy.
  The Pregnant Workers Fairness Act would finally establish a right to 
reasonable accommodations to all pregnant workers, and it would 
guarantee that pregnant workers can seek those accommodations without 
facing discrimination or retaliation.
  Last Congress, 226 House Democrats and 103 Republicans came together 
to pass this legislation by a margin of 329-73. I hope we can come 
together again this year and finally deliver this bipartisan priority 
to our Nation's workers.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge strong support for the Pregnant Workers Fairness 
Act, and I reserve the balance of my time.
                                         House of Representatives,


                            Committee on House Administration,

                                   Washington, DC, March 24, 2021.
     Hon. Robert C. ``Bobby'' Scott,
     Chairman, Committee on Education and Labor,
     House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Scott: I am writing to you concerning H.R. 
     1065, the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act. There are certain 
     provisions in the legislation which fall within the Rule X 
     jurisdiction of the Committee on House Administration.
       In the interest of permitting your committee to proceed 
     expeditiously to floor consideration, the Committee on House 
     Administration agrees to forego action on the bill. This is 
     done with the understanding that the Committee on House 
     Administration's jurisdictional interests over this and 
     similar legislation are in no way diminished or altered. In 
     addition, the Committee reserves its right to seek conferees 
     on any provisions within its jurisdiction which are 
     considered in a House-Senate conference and requests your 
     support if such a request is made.
       I would appreciate your response confirming this 
     understanding with respect to H.R. 1065 and ask that a copy 
     of our exchange of letters on this matter be included in your 
     committee report on the bill and in the Congressional Record 
     during consideration of the bill on the House floor.
           Sincerely,
                                                      Zoe Lofgren,
     Chairperson.
                                  ____

                                         House of Representatives,


                             Committee on Education and Labor,

                                   Washington, DC, March 25, 2021.
     Hon. Zoe Lofgren,
     Chairperson, Committee on House Administration, Washington, 
         DC.
       Dear Chairperson Lofgren: In reference to your letter of 
     March 24, 2021, I write to confirm our mutual understanding 
     regarding H.R. 1065, the ``Pregnant Workers Fairness Act.''
       I appreciate the Committee on House Administration's waiver 
     of consideration of H.R. 1065 as specified in your letter. I 
     acknowledge that the waiver was granted only to expedite 
     floor consideration of H.R. 1065 and does not in any way 
     waive or diminish the Committee on House Administration's 
     jurisdictional interests over this or similar legislation.
       I would be pleased to include our exchange of letters on 
     this matter in the committee report for H.R. 1065 and in the 
     Congressional Record during floor consideration of the bill 
     to memorialize our joint understanding.
       Again, thank you for your assistance with this matter.
           Very truly yours,
                                        Robert C. ``Bobby'' Scott,
     Chairman.
                                  ____

                                         House of Representatives,


                                   Committee on the Judiciary,

                                   Washington, DC, March 23, 2021.
     Hon. Bobby Scott,
     Chairman, House Committee on Education and Labor, Washington, 
         DC.
       Dear Chairman Scott: This is to advise you that the 
     Committee on the Judiciary has now had an opportunity to 
     review the provisions in H.R. 1065, the ``Pregnant Workers 
     Fairness Act,'' that fall within our Rule X jurisdiction. I 
     appreciate your consulting with us on those provisions. The 
     Judiciary Committee has no objection to your including them 
     in the bill for consideration on the House floor, and to 
     expedite that consideration is willing to forgo action on 
     H.R. 1065, with the understanding that we do not thereby 
     waive any future jurisdictional claim over those provisions 
     or their subject matters.
       In the event a House-Senate conference on this or similar 
     legislation is convened, the Judiciary Committee reserves the 
     right to request an appropriate number of conferees to 
     address any concerns with these or similar provisions that 
     may arise in conference.
       Please place this letter into the Congressional Record 
     during consideration of the measure on the House floor. Thank 
     you for the cooperative spirit in which you have worked 
     regarding this matter and others between our committees.
           Sincerely,
                                                   Jerrold Nadler,
     Chairman.
                                  ____

                                         House of Representatives,


                             Committee on Education and Labor,

                                   Washington, DC, April 28, 2021.
     Hon. Jerrold Nadler,
     Chairman, House Committee on the Judiciary,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Nadler: In reference to your letter of March 
     23, 2021, I write to confirm our mutual understanding 
     regarding H.R. 1065, the ``Pregnant Workers Fairness Act.''
       I appreciate the Committee on the Judiciary's waiver of 
     consideration of H.R. 1065 as specified in your letter. I 
     acknowledge that the waiver was granted only to expedite 
     floor consideration of H.R. 1065 and does not in any way 
     waive or diminish the Committee on the Judiciary's 
     jurisdictional interests over this or similar legislation.
       I would be pleased to include our exchange of letters on 
     this matter in the committee report for H.R. 1065 and in the 
     Congressional Record during floor consideration of the bill 
     to memorialize our joint understanding.
       Again, thank you for your assistance with this matter.
           Very truly yours,
                                        Robert C. ``Bobby'' Scott,
     Chairman.
                                  ____

                                         House of Representatives,


                            Committee on Oversight and Reform,

                                   Washington, DC, April 28, 2021.
     Hon. Robert C. ``Bobby'' Scott,
     Chairman, Committee on Education and Labor,
     House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Scott: I am writing to you concerning H.R. 
     1065, the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act. There are certain 
     provisions in the legislation that fall within the Rule X 
     jurisdiction of the Committee on Oversight and Reform.
       In the interest of permitting your Committee to proceed 
     expeditiously on this bill, I am willing to waive this 
     Committee's right to sequential referral. I do so with the 
     understanding that by waiving consideration of the bill, the 
     Committee on Oversight and Reform does not waive any future 
     jurisdictional claim over the subject matters contained in 
     the bill that fall within its Rule X jurisdiction. I request 
     that you urge the Speaker to name members of this Committee 
     to any conference committee that is named to consider such 
     provisions.
       Please place this letter into the Congressional Record 
     during consideration of the measure on the House floor. Thank 
     you for the cooperative spirit in which you have worked 
     regarding this matter and others between our respective 
     Committees.
           Sincerely,
                                               Carolyn B. Maloney,
     Chairwoman.
                                  ____

                                         House of Representatives,


                             Committee on Education and Labor,

                                   Washington, DC, April 29, 2021.
     Hon. Carolyn B. Maloney,
     Chairwoman, House Committee on Oversight and Reform, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairwoman Maloney: In reference to your letter of 
     April 28, 2021, I write to confirm our mutual understanding 
     regarding H.R. 1065, the ``Pregnant Workers Fairness Act.''
       I appreciate the Committee on Oversight and Reform' s 
     waiver of consideration of H.R. 1065 as specified in your 
     letter. I acknowledge that the waiver was granted only to 
     expedite floor consideration of H.R. 1065 and does not in any 
     way waive or diminish the Committee on Oversight and Reform's 
     jurisdictional interests over this or similar legislation.
       I would be pleased to include our exchange of letters on 
     this matter in the committee report for H.R. 1065 and in the 
     Congressional Record during floor consideration of the bill 
     to memorialize our joint understanding.
       Again, thank you for your assistance with this matter.
           Very truly yours,
                                        Robert C. ``Bobby'' Scott,
                                                         Chairman.

  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, House Republicans have long supported protections in 
Federal law for all workers, including pregnant workers, and we believe 
employers should provide reasonable workplace 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 grandmother. Discrimination of any type should not be 
tolerated, and no one should ever be denied an opportunity because of 
unlawful discrimination.
  That is why I support meaningful protections under Federal law to 
prevent workplace discrimination, including Federal laws that 
rightfully protect pregnant workers.
  The Pregnancy Discrimination Act and the Americans with Disabilities 
Act are examples. These Federal laws already ensure workers are not 
being discriminated against and receive reasonable accommodations 
related to pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions.

[[Page H2324]]

  I agree with the underlying principle of H.R. 1065 and appreciate the 
bipartisan negotiations that took place during the 116th Congress to 
get this bill to where it is today. And I am pleased to see the changes 
we negotiated last Congress were incorporated in the legislative text 
this time around.
  When the bill was introduced last Congress, it did not require that a 
pregnant worker, in order to be eligible for an accommodation, be able 
to perform the essential functions of the job with a reasonable 
accommodation. This is a sensible provision now included in the bill.
  A definition of ``known limitations'' related to pregnancy, 
childbirth, or related medical conditions was also initially omitted. 
The bill now includes such a definition, including a requirement that 
employees communicate the known limitation to the employer. This 
provision will help workers and their employers understand their rights 
and responsibilities.
  Additionally, the bill introduced last Congress appeared to allow 
employees a unilateral veto over offered accommodations. However, the 
bill now clarifies that reasonable accommodations will typically be 
determined through a balanced and interactive dialogue between workers 
and employers.
  The bill introduced last Congress also did not include the limitation 
on applicability to employers with 15 or more employees, as is the case 
in title VII of the Civil Rights Act and title I of the Americans with 
Disabilities Act, but it now includes the 15-employee threshold.
  Finally, the bill now includes a provision 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.
  Unfortunately, there is one key provision missing from this bill. One 
of the core tenets of the Constitution is the guarantee of religious 
freedom. In fact, it is the first freedom mentioned in the 
Constitution.
  For the last 240 years, the Supreme Court has upheld that principle 
in its decisions, and laws written by Congress have maintained strong 
protections for religious liberty. Yet, the bill we are discussing 
today deals an unnecessary blow to religious organizations, potentially 
forcing them to make hiring decisions that conflict with their faith.
  Our job in the people's House is not to defy the Constitution, but to 
uphold it. No employer should have to choose between abiding by the law 
and adhering to their religious beliefs.
  That is why Republicans offered an amendment in committee that would 
include a narrow but longstanding provision from the Civil Rights Act 
that is not currently incorporated in this bill. Committee Democrats 
voted down this commonsense amendment.
  I also submitted the same amendment to the Rules Committee so that it 
could be debated today, but the Democrats prevented me from offering 
it. As a result, I cannot, in good conscience, vote in favor of this 
legislation.
  I want to reiterate that I am pleased with the bipartisan 
negotiations that took place on H.R. 1065. When we work together, we 
can effect real change. But I will never support any bill that 
infringes on the Constitution, and I urge my colleagues on both sides 
of the aisle to do the same.
  Taking away rights from our citizens is not a win for the American 
people; it is a win for Big Government.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Bonamici), the chair of the Civil Rights 
and Human Services Subcommittee.
  Ms. BONAMICI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding.
  I rise in strong support of the bipartisan Pregnant Workers Fairness 
Act. As a mom and policymaker, I know how important it is to protect 
the health, well-being, and economic security of pregnant workers and 
their families. Unfortunately, under current Federal law, pregnant 
workers do not have access to reasonable workplace accommodations.
  Simple accommodations, such as providing seating, water, or an extra 
bathroom break, would allow pregnant workers to stay safe on their job 
during pregnancy. But when pregnant workers do not have access to the 
accommodations they need, they are at risk of jeopardizing their health 
and the health of their baby, losing their job, being denied a 
promotion, or not being hired in the first place.
  It is unacceptable that, in 2021, pregnant workers can still be 
forced to choose between a healthy pregnancy and a paycheck.
  Congress passed the Pregnancy Discrimination Act more than four 
decades ago, but pregnant workers still suffer discrimination at an 
alarming rate.
  Megan, a manufacturing worker in Oregon, was forced to take unpaid 
leave after her employer denied her modest request for light duty 3\1/
2\ months before her due date. Oregon has since passed a State version 
of the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act, and it is working very well. But 
pregnant workers across the country need fairness, too.
  We know that women of color are overrepresented in low-wage, 
physically demanding jobs and are, therefore, disproportionately harmed 
by a lack of access to reasonable accommodations. By clarifying the 
right of pregnant workers to reasonable accommodations on the job, we 
will finally give them the ability to work safely without fear of 
facing discrimination or retaliation.
  I thank Chairman Scott and Chairman Nadler for their leadership. I 
urge my colleagues to support this bipartisan bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a letter from the National 
Partnership for Women & Families in support of the Pregnant Workers 
Fairness Act.

                                          National Partnership for


                                             Women & Families,

                                     Washington, DC, May 11, 2021.
       Dear Member of Congress: 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 in strong support of H.R. 1065, 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--
     a choice that no one 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 
     this is nearly universal and bipartisan. Eighty-nine percent 
     of voters favor this bill, including 69 percent of voters who 
     strongly favor it. Just this Congress, thirty-five 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,

[[Page H2325]]

     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 COVID-19 pandemic has exacerbated the conditions of 
     pregnant workers. Pregnant people are at a higher risk of 
     falling ill from COVID-19 and experiencing complications, and 
     thus require increased protections against the virus. Since 
     the beginning of the pandemic, pregnant workers have 
     experienced increased levels of workplace discrimination by 
     being denied accommodations and leave. The Pregnant Workers 
     Fairness Act would ensure that pregnant workers have access 
     to the accommodations they need in order to have a safe 
     workplace experience.
       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. BONAMICI. Mr. Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues to support 
this bill.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
Louisiana (Ms. Letlow).
  Ms. LETLOW. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 1065.
  As a working mother who has two beautiful children, I support 
reasonable accommodations for pregnant workers. Many of the provisions 
in the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act are admirable. However, it is 
equally important to protect First Amendment rights of our religious 
organizations, hospitals, and schools, including those located in the 
Fifth District of Louisiana.
  Under this bill, organizations could be forced to make employment-
related decisions that conflict with their faith and sacrifice their 
religious rights. For example, a faith-based employer could be deemed 
in violation of this bill if it does not accommodate an employee's 
request for paid time off to undergo an abortion.
  Also, if signed into law, this bill allows an independent and 
uncontrollable Federal agency to make additional rules and regulations 
that could further erode religious liberties. It leaves decisionmaking 
in the hands of unelected government bureaucrats.
  Therefore, Congress must include a religious freedom exemption in the 
base text of this bill. When it comes to religious freedom and pro-life 
issues, we should not allow bureaucrats and potentially the judicial 
system to make decisions by reading between the lines. We must send a 
clear message that religious freedom is nonnegotiable.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may 
consume to the gentlewoman from New Mexico (Ms. Leger Fernandez), a 
member of the Committee on Education and Labor.
  Ms. LEGER FERNANDEZ. Mr. Speaker, Sunday, we celebrated Mother's Day. 
Today, we act to protect mothers-to-be.
  Every pregnant worker deserves the opportunity to support their 
family without risking the health of their pregnancy. Yet, pregnant 
workers, especially those in low-wage and physically demanding jobs, 
are often forced to choose between their health and a paycheck.
  The Pregnant Workers Fairness Act will correct these flaws in our 
system to ensure that pregnant women are treated fairly in the 
workplace.
  Women carried the brunt of losses during the pandemic, losing a net 
5.4 million jobs. We need to make it easier for them to get back to 
work, and that must include pregnant women.
  I am proud that my home State of New Mexico passed legislation to 
protect pregnant workers, with bipartisan support, last year. It is 
time for Congress to do the same.
  Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a letter from the ACLU in 
support of the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act.

                                                     May 11, 2021.
     Re Vote YES for the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act (H.R. 
         1065).

       Dear Members of Congress: On behalf of the American Civil 
     Liberties Union, and our more than 1.8 million members, 
     supporters, and activists, we write to express our support 
     for H.R. 1065, 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 longoverdue legislation.
       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 respond to this problem by requiring 
     employers with fifteen or more employees to provide 
     reasonable and temporary accommodations to pregnant workers 
     if doing so would not impose an undue hardship on the 
     business.


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

       Pregnancy and childbirth are often locus points for 
     discrimination against women in the workforce. Policies 
     excluding or forcing the discharge of pregnant women from the 
     workplace were common in the 1970s and reflected the 
     stereotype that a woman's primary or sole duties were to be a 
     homemaker and raise children. The adoption of the Pregnancy 
     Discrimination Act (PDA) in 1978, an amendment to Title VII 
     of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, established that 
     discrimination because of ``pregnancy, childbirth, and 
     related medical conditions'' was a form of discrimination 
     ``because of sex.'' It was intended to dismantle the 
     stereotype, and the policies based on it, that viewed 
     pregnant women's labor force participation as contingent, 
     temporary, and dispensable without regard to their individual 
     capacity to do the job in question.
       The PDA also required employers to treat pregnant workers 
     the same as other temporarily disabled workers because 
     Congress recognized that working women contributed to their 
     families' economic stability and should not have to choose 
     between a career and continuing a pregnancy. Despite the PDA, 
     pregnancy discrimination persists, and for many years courts 
     routinely ruled against workers who brought pregnancy 
     accommodation cases where they alleged discrimination when an 
     employer provided a job modification to an employee 
     temporarily unable to work but failed to do the same for a 
     pregnant worker.
       In Young v. United Parcel Service, Inc., the Supreme Court 
     granted certiorari to resolve a split in the Circuits and for 
     the first time addressed the PDA's application in the context 
     of an employee who needed an accommodation due to pregnancy. 
     The Court concluded that the statute's mandate applied with 
     equal force in these circumstances and articulated a modified 
     analysis for failure-to-accommodate cases. The Court also 
     offered a new pretext analysis that plaintiffs may rely on 
     when litigating claims under the PDA's second clause. Since 
     Young, the reflexive approval of employer policies favoring 
     workers with occupational injuries has largely disappeared. 
     However, the bright-line deference to employer policies, and 
     the overbroad reading of such policies as ``pregnancy-
     blind,'' has been replaced, in many instances, with an unduly 
     demanding standard for plaintiffs in making a showing of 
     differential treatment--even at the initial pleading stage, 
     prior to having the benefit of discovery. This trend 
     undermines Young's intent of demanding that employers justify 
     failures to accommodate pregnancy. Instead, they impose 
     unwarranted--and often insurmountable--burdens of proof on 
     pregnant workers that increasingly confer ``least favored 
     nation'' status on the protected trait of pregnancy. The 
     stories of clients the ACLU has represented--both as direct 
     counsel and as lead amicus--illustrate the harm:
       Lochren v. Suffolk County: Sandra Lochren and five other 
     police officers sued the Suffolk County Police Department 
     (SCPD) for refusing to temporarily reassign pregnant officers 
     to deskwork and other non-patrol jobs, even though it did so 
     for officers injured on the job. But for those officers who 
     opted to keep working patrol, SCPD also failed to provide 
     bulletproof vests or gun belts that would fit 
     pregnant officers. Their only safe option was to go on 
     unpaid leave 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

[[Page H2326]]

     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.


       Why Congress Should Pass the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act

       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.

                              {time}  0930

  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Idaho 
(Mr. Fulcher).
  Mr. FULCHER. Mr. Speaker, there is no question that pregnant workers 
should be treated fairly and be provided with reasonable accommodations 
in the workforce. We are all in favor of commonsense guidelines to 
ensure this.
  Serving as a subcommittee ranking member in the Education and Labor 
Committee, I had the opportunity to dive deeply into this bill and 
participate in the full committee markup.
  While much of this law is redundant to the two laws that currently 
protect pregnant workers, I agree with many of the provisions in the 
bill, and it was substantially improved from the version introduced in 
2019.
  During our markup, I asked for an amendment to clarify one specific 
provision before lending my support. My provision singles out religious 
organizations by removing the exemption found in nearly every civil 
rights bill, including the Civil Rights Act.
  Because each religion has its own unique customs, requirements, and 
traditions, it is not reasonable to mandate employment decisions that 
conflict with people's faith.
  By not including this longstanding Civil Rights Act provision, H.R. 
1065 is likely to create legal risk for religious organizations. 
Pregnancy-discrimination or pregnancy-accommodation laws in at least 16 
States and the District of Columbia also include a provision similar to 
the Civil Rights Act religious organizations protection.
  By adding a simple reference in H.R. 1065 to the Civil Rights Act, we 
can harmonize the bill with current law and ensure that religious 
organizations receive the same protections as outlined in the Civil 
Rights Act. This is the only reasonable thing to do.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentlewoman from Georgia (Mrs. McBath), a member of the Education and 
Labor Committee.
  Mrs. McBATH. Mr. Speaker, I thank Chairman Scott for bringing this 
vital legislation to the floor.
  The Pregnant Workers Fairness Act will ensure that no pregnant woman 
is unfairly forced out of their job or risk their health just simply to 
earn a paycheck. Our mothers deserve these Federal protections.
  I believe that we all want to support our working mothers. Allowing 
these simple accommodations can make the

[[Page H2327]]

difference between being forced out of a job and providing 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 can continue to support their families.
  This legislation is supported by both women's health groups and the 
industry.
  Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a letter from major employers 
and leaders in the business community across the country that are 
voicing support for this legislation.

   Open Letter in Support of the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act From 
                    Leading Private-Sector Employers

                                                   March 15, 2021.
       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-eight 
     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 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, CA; Amalgamate Bank, New York, NY; 
     AnitaB.org, Belmont, CA; BASF Corporation, Florham Park, NJ; 
     Care.com, Inc., Waltham, MA; Chobani, Norwich, NY; Cigna 
     Corp., Bloomfield, CT; Dow, Midland, MI; Expedia Group, 
     Seattle, WA; Facebook, Menlo Park, CA; Gap Inc., San 
     Francisco, CA; H&M USA, New York, NY; ICM Partners, Los 
     Angeles, Ca.
       J. Crew, New York, NY; Johnson & Johnson, New Brunswick, 
     NJ; L'Oreal USA, New York, NY; Levi Strauss & Co., San 
     Francisco, CA; Madewell, Long Island City, NY; Mastercard, 
     Purchase, NY; Microsoft Corporation, Redmond, WA; Navient, 
     LLC., Wilmington, DE; National Association of Manufactures, 
     Washington, DC; Patagonia, Ventura, CA; Paypal, San Jose, CA; 
     Postmates, San Francisco, CA.
       Salesforce, San Francisco, CA; Society of Women Engineers, 
     Chicago, IL; Spotify, New York, NY; Square, Inc., San 
     Francisco, CA; Sun Life, Wellesley, MA; U.S. Women's Chamber 
     of Commerce, Washington, DC.
       The Sustainable Food Policy Alliance:
       Danone North America, White Plains, NY; Mars Incorporated, 
     McLean, VA; Nestle USA, Arlington, VA; Unilever United 
     States, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.

  Mrs. McBATH. Mr. Speaker, I urge all my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on 
this legislation.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
Michigan (Mrs. McClain).
  Mrs. McCLAIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in objection to the Pregnant 
Workers Fairness Act.
  This bill was so close to being a bipartisan bill. In fact, I was 
ready to vote ``yes'' on it because, as the majority of people, I do 
not believe in discrimination. But at the very last minute, the 
majority had to throw in a provision to actually allow discrimination 
in a bill that is supposed to be about nondiscrimination--the very last 
minute.
  Ranking Member Foxx offered an amendment to protect and not to 
discriminate against religious organizations.
  Guess what the majority did?
  They voted it down.
  Remember, this is supposed to be a bill about not discriminating, yet 
we vote this down.
  Although the bill sounds good, and as a woman--and I will say I am a 
woman--as a mother--and I am proud to be a mother--I was also pregnant 
and a worker. So I believe in fairness. I believe in nondiscrimination. 
I believe in protecting the rights of those individuals.
  But let's stop playing games in Congress. Let's actually start 
protecting the people who need protection, and let's get to work.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentleman 
from Virginia for his kindness.
  This has to pass today if we have any sense of fairness not only to 
women, but to our children.
  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.
  Pregnant workers and individuals with known limitations related to 
pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions cannot be denied 
employment.
  The Supreme Court decision, just recently, in 2015, that allowed 
pregnant workers to bring reasonable accommodation discrimination 
claims is not enough because pregnant workers are still being denied 
accommodations, because the Young decision set an unreasonably high 
standard for proving discrimination.
  This is not discrimination. I have never seen a religious 
organization that wants to deny anyone any opportunity.
  This is a fair assessment. I know it personally because I was denied 
a job because I was nursing. A job was taken away from me. When I was 
pregnant and was about to give birth, there was no definition of 
pregnancy leave for my position. At that time I was a lawyer, 
practicing law in a large firm, and it was, at best, two weeks and get 
back.
  So I understand that this is essential for those workers in working 
conditions where they do not have the power to be protected, that they 
are doing heavy lifting, that they have physically demanding jobs, that 
they are the sole provider of their family.
  This is important. Black and Latino women particularly suffer, 
minority women, particularly a burden.
  Three in ten pregnant workers are employed in four of the occupations 
that make up the backbone of our communities. We must have this bill.
  I ask my colleagues to support this legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a letter from the disabled 
community, mental health community, United Spinal Association, and 
others.

                                                     May 11, 2021.
     Re Support for Pregnant Workers Fairness Act, H.R. 1065.

     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. 1065. 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. 1065 is limited, as 
     is the ADA's accommodation requirement, to those 
     accommodations

[[Page H2328]]

     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.
     Kelly Buckland,
       National Council on Independent Living.
     Samantha Crane,
       Autistic Self Advocacy Network.
     Molly Burgdorf,
       The Arc of the United States.
       Co-chairs, CCD Rights Task Force.

  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a letter 
representing organizations from Black Mamas Matter Alliance, to March 
of Dimes, to 1,000 Days to Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics.

                                                     May 11, 2021.
     Re Support the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act.

       Dear Representative: The undersigned organizations 
     dedicated to assuring quality maternal, infant, and child 
     health and well-being, improving pregnancy and birth 
     outcomes, and closing racial disparities in maternal health 
     enthusiastically support the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act 
     (H.R. 1065). 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.
       Congress must do all it can to end the prejudice pregnant 
     workers, especially Black pregnant workers and 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 do not fear asking for the accommodations they need 
     to maintain their health.
       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. For example, Black 
     women experience maternal mortality rates three to four times 
     higher than white women, with Indigenous women similarly 
     experiencing disproportionately high rates. The circumstances 
     surrounding these alarming statistics 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.
       Furthermore, 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.
       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 lowcost, 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.
       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. When pregnant workers 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 also experience higher rates 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.
       The Pregnant Workers Fairness Act is a measured approach to 
     a serious problem. As organizations dedicated to maternal 
     health and closing racial disparities in pregnancy and birth 
     outcomes, 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,
       Black Mamas Matter Alliance; March of Dimes; National WIC 
     Association; 1,000 Days; Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics; 
     American Academy of Pediatrics; American College of 
     Obstetricians and Gynecologists; Agricultural Justice 
     Project; Ancient Song Doula Services; Association of Maternal 
     & Child Health Programs; Baobab Birth Collective; Black 
     Women's Health Imperative; Breastfeeding in Combat Boots.
       California WIC Association; Centering Equity, Race & 
     Cultural Literacy in Family Planning (CERCL-FP); Earth 
     Action, Inc.; Farmworker and Landscaper Advocacy Project; 
     Farmworker Association of Florida; Feminist Women's Health 
     Center; First Focus Campaign for Children; Healthy Mothers, 
     Healthy Babies Coalition of Georgia; Healthy Women; Human 
     Rights Watch; Mom2Mom Global; NARAL Pro-Choice America.
       National Association of Nurse Practitioners in Women's 
     Health; National Birth Equity Collaborative; National 
     Partnership for Women & Families; National Women's Health 
     Network; Nebraska WIC Association; Nurse-Family Partnership; 
     Physicians for Reproductive Health; Planned Parenthood 
     Federation of America; Public Citizen, SisterReach; 
     SisterSong National Women of Color Reproductive Justice 
     Collective; U.S. Breastfeeding Committee; Workplace Fairness; 
     Wisconsin WIC Association; ZERO TO THREE.

  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a letter from 
the YWCA dealing with 200 local organizations in 45 States.


                                                     YWCA USA,

                                     Washington, DC, May 11, 2021.
       Dear Representative: On behalf of YWCA USA, a network of 
     over 200 local associations

[[Page H2329]]

     in 45 states and the District of Columbia, I write today to 
     urge you to pass the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act (H.R. 
     1065). As the economy continues to struggle under the weight 
     of the COVID-19 pandemic disproportionately affecting women 
     and marginalized communities, there is no better time to take 
     action to improve the economic security of women and families 
     and strengthen our economy. I urge you to pass H.R. 1065 
     without delay.
       For over 160 years, YWCA has been on a mission to eliminate 
     racism, empower women, and promote peace, justice, freedom, 
     and dignity for all. From our earliest days providing skills 
     and housing support to women entering the workforce in the 
     1850s, YWCA has been at the forefront of the most pressing 
     social movements--from voting rights to civil rights, from 
     affordable housing to pay equity, from violence prevention to 
     health care reform. Today, we serve over 2 million women, 
     girls and family members of all ages and backgrounds in more 
     than 1,200 communities each year.
       Informed by our extensive history, the expertise of our 
     nationwide network, and our collective commitment to 
     advocating for the equity of women and families, we believe 
     that no one should have to choose between their livelihoods 
     and their health, family, or safety. Yet far too many women 
     and families, including a disproportionate number of women 
     and families of color, must make this choice every day. This 
     has become more clear as the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic 
     become more transparent. The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic 
     has fallen heavily on women and women of color. Women are 
     especially likely to be essential workers, but they are also 
     bearing the brunt of job losses, while shouldering increased 
     caregiving responsibilities that have pushed millions out of 
     the workforce entirely, resulting in an economic 
     ``Shesession''. Black women, Latinas, and other women of 
     color are especially likely to be on the front lines of the 
     crisis, risking their lives in jobs in health care, child 
     care, and grocery stores, all while being paid less than 
     their male counterparts. Pregnant employees are no exception 
     to this situation and often forced out of work or forced to 
     risk their health due to unclear laws around pregnancy 
     accommodations, particularly during the pandemic.
       The bipartisan Pregnant Workers Fairness Act (H.R. 1065) 
     takes critical steps to promote healthy pregnancies and 
     support the economic security of pregnancy workers. Today, 
     women are a primary source of financial support for many 
     families and bear significant caretaking responsibilities at 
     home. At least half of all households in the U.S. with 
     children under the age of 18 have either a single mother who 
     heads a household or a married mother who provides at least 
     40 percent of a family's earnings. Additionally, more than 
     four in five Black mothers (81.1%), 67.1% of Native American 
     mothers, and 52.5% of Latina mothers are breadwinners. As 
     demographics shifts and a higher number of women take their 
     place in the workforce, a higher number of pregnant workers 
     than ever before are working later into their pregnancies, 
     often in physically demanding jobs without worker 
     accommodations. As a result, too many pregnant workers are 
     pushed out into unpaid leave or out of work altogether, 
     threatening their families' economic security just when they 
     need the income the most. The Pregnant Workers Fairness Act 
     would require employers to provide reasonable accommodations 
     to pregnant workers who need them, such as avoiding heavy 
     lifting, taking more frequent bathroom breaks, sitting on a 
     stool instead of standing during a shift, or carrying a water 
     bottle. States, localities, and businesses that have begun to 
     adopt policies similar to those identified in the Pregnant 
     Workers Fairness Act have reported reduced lawsuits and 
     greater employee morale. Providing reasonable accommodations 
     for pregnant women will benefit both the employer and 
     employees.
       No one should have to choose between their paycheck and a 
     healthy pregnancy--an issue only to be exacerbated by the 
     pandemic--and it's time Congress took action to protect 
     pregnant workers. If passed, this bill would take critical 
     steps towards strengthening women's economic security, 
     particularly at a time when the country continues to recover 
     from the COVID-19 pandemic. At this pivotal moment, Congress 
     must take aggressive action to address the economic 
     disparities disproportionately affecting women and women of 
     color. We urge you to pass the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act 
     (H.R 1065) today.
       Thank you for your time and consideration. Please contact 
     Pam Yuen, YWCA USA Director of Government Relations, if you 
     have any questions.
           Sincerely,
                                                    Elisha Rhodes,
                            Interim CEO & Chief Operating Officer.

  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, women are in the workplace. They are 
the backbone of this economy. We need to pass this legislation and pass 
it now.
  I thank Mr. Scott and Mr. Nadler for their leadership.
  Mr. Speaker, as a senior member of the Judiciary, Homeland Security, 
and Budget Committees, the Democratic Working Women Task Force, the 
Founder and Co-Chair of the Congressional Children's Caucus, and as 
cosponsor, I rise in strong support of H.R. 1065, 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 to take paid or unpaid leave if 
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; 191 L. Ed. 2d 279 
(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.
  The fact is, Mr. Speaker, there are no similar conditions to 
pregnancy.
  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.
  Mr. 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 United States 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;

[[Page H2330]]

nursing, psychiatric and home health aide; and cashier--who report 
continuously standing on the job would particularly benefit from this 
legislation.
  Mr. 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.
  Mr. 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. 1065, the Pregnant 
Workers Fairness Act.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Good).
  Mr. GOOD of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, it amazes me that House Democrats 
are claiming to champion the cause of pregnant worker fairness when 
they are so radically anti-life.
  How can Democrats claim to support fairness or champion pregnancy 
when they support taxpayer-funded abortion for any reason at any time 
on demand?
  How can they claim this with a straight face when they minimize the 
sanctity of life and the family?
  Democrats say they are pro-choice. So you would think they must at 
least be okay with the choice of some religious employers to object to 
helping their employees get an abortion and would provide an 
accommodation for religious reasons under this bill.
  It would seem reasonable for someone who says they are pro-choice to 
support the notion that if someone gets an abortion, they can't force 
their employer to be part of this choice.
  But Democrats refuse to allow language to protect religious freedom 
in this bill. The fact is, Democrats are only pro-choice when the 
choice is abortion, the taking of innocent human life.
  Protections already exist for pregnant workers through the Pregnancy 
Discrimination Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act.
  I oppose these additional heavy-handed regulations. I trust America's 
small business owners to treat their employees fairly. I honor the 
constitutional mandate that States should make their own healthcare 
policy.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/4\ minutes to the 
gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Wasserman Schultz).
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the 
Pregnant Workers Fairness Act, a bipartisan proposal that will finally 
secure clear protection for pregnant workers.
  Pregnant women should not have to risk their lives on the job. Yet, 
too often, instead of offering accommodations routinely given to other 
employees, a pregnant worker risks termination, meaning she loses her 
paycheck and health insurance right when she needs them the most.
  We know that COVID-19 has exacerbated health inequalities for women, 
especially women of color.
  Before the pandemic, moms in the U.S. already struggled and died from 
pregnancy-related causes at the highest rate in the developed world, 
with Black moms dying three to four times the rate of their White 
peers.
  Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a letter on behalf of maternal 
health organizations who support putting a national pregnancy 
accommodation standard in place.
                                                     May 11, 2021.
     Re Support the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act.

       Dear Representative: The undersigned organizations 
     dedicated to assuring quality maternal, infant, and child 
     health and well-being, improving pregnancy and birth 
     outcomes, and closing racial disparities in maternal health 
     enthusiastically support the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act 
     (H.R. 1065). 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.
       Congress must do all it can to end the prejudice pregnant 
     workers, especially Black pregnant workers and 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 do not fear asking for the accommodations they need 
     to maintain their health.
       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. For example, Black 
     women experience maternal mortality rates three to four times 
     higher than white women, with Indigenous women similarly 
     experiencing disproportionately high rates. The circumstances 
     surrounding these alarming statistics 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.
       Furthermore, 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

[[Page H2331]]

     forced to keep working which can compromise their health and 
     the health of their pregnancy.
       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 lowcost, 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.
       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. When pregnant workers 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 also experience higher rates 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.
       The Pregnant Workers Fairness Act is a measured approach to 
     a serious problem. As organizations dedicated to maternal 
     health and closing racial disparities in pregnancy and birth 
     outcomes, 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,
       Black Mamas Matter Alliance; March of Dimes; National WIC 
     Association; 1,000 Days; A Better Balance; Academy of 
     Nutrition and Dietetics; American Academy of Pediatrics; 
     American Civil Liberties Union; American College of 
     Obstetricians and Gynecologists; Agricultural Justice 
     Project; Ancient Song Doula Services; Association of Maternal 
     & Child Health Programs; Baobab Birth Collective.
       Black Women's Health Imperative; Breastfeeding in Combat 
     Boots; California WIC Association; Centering Equity, Race & 
     Cultural Literacy in Family Planning (CERCL-FP); Earth 
     Action, Inc.; Farmworker and Landscaper Advocacy Project; 
     Farmworker Association of Florida; Feminist Women's Health 
     Center; First Focus Campaign for Children; Healthy Mothers, 
     Healthy Babies Coalition of Georgia; Healthy Women; Human 
     Rights Watch; Mom2Mom Global; NARAL Pro-Choice America.
       National Association of Nurse Practitioners in Women's 
     Health; National Birth Equity Collaborative; National 
     Partnership for Women & Families; National Women's Health 
     Network; National Women's Law Center; Nebraska WIC 
     Association; Nurse-Family Partnership; Physicians for 
     Reproductive Health; Planned Parenthood Federation of 
     America; Public Citizen; SisterReach; SisterSong National 
     Women of Color Reproductive Justice Collective; U.S. 
     Breastfeeding Committee; Workplace Fairness; Wisconsin WIC 
     Association; ZERO TO THREE.

  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Mr. Speaker, the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act 
can improve some of the most serious health consequences Black pregnant 
women experience in the workplace.
  Federal protections for pregnant workers are stuck in the 1950s. In 
2021, it is past time for workplaces to accommodate our families and 
protect all pregnant workers. It is women and families who keep our 
economy and communities running.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes.''
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, Democrats claim it is not necessary to incorporate the 
religious organization protection from the Civil Rights Act in H.R. 
1065 because the bill does not repeal that provision and it will still 
be effective if the bill becomes law. I strongly disagree.
  H.R. 1065 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. 1065?
  At worst, the provision would be duplicative with the Civil Rights 
Act, causing no harm to workers or employers.
  Let's remember that the Americans with Disabilities 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. 1065 are saying the 
quiet part out loud in their opposition to the religious organization 
protection in the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
  I have reached this conclusion because Democrats have also claimed 
that the Civil Rights Act provision is overinclusive, to begin with, 
and would provide too much protection in this instance.
  Are Democrats saying that the existing Civil Rights Act protection 
for religious organizations should also be repealed?
  Again, this is a provision that has been law for 56 years.
  As I have stated previously, the longstanding Civil Rights Act 
religious organization protection should be added to H.R. 1065. At 
worst, it would do no harm. At best, it will prevent religious 
organizations from being required to violate their faith.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Katko), the lead cosponsor of this 
legislation.
  Mr. KATKO. Mr. Speaker, 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 important bipartisan 
bill.
  This legislation addresses a seemingly simple issue that I have no 
doubt everyone in this Chamber agrees with. No mother or mother-to-be 
should have to choose between being a parent and keeping their job.
  This commonsense notion is, unfortunately, not the reality in many 
places in the United States.
  Before my home State of New York passed a law prohibiting 
discrimination against pregnant workers, I heard far too many stories 
of pregnant women facing discrimination in the workforce and having to 
choose between a healthy pregnancy and a paycheck.
  There was Yvette, a single mother of three, who worked in the same 
grocery store for 11 years. Having suffered miscarriages in the past, 
she knew her pregnancy was high risk, and she gave her employer a 
doctor's note with a lifting restriction.
  Instead, she was fired, despite the fact that an employee with a 
shoulder injury had been accommodated with lighter work.

                              {time}  0945

  She lost her health insurance and had to go on Medicaid. She and her 
family survived on food stamps and savings.
  Then there was Hilda, an employee at a Dollar Tree who worked there 
for 3 years when she became pregnant. As her pregnancy progressed, it 
became painful to stand at the cash register for 8 hours to 10 hours at 
a time. Denied her request for a stool, she began to experience severe 
complications, including bleeding and premature labor pains, and was 
put on bed rest. With no paid leave, she and her family struggled to 
make ends meet.
  These women and others who have been subject to similar 
discrimination in the workforce suffered an unthinkable physical and 
financial toll. The Pregnant Workers Fairness Act ensures that going 
forward, no woman will face this type of discrimination.
  This bipartisan bill provides pregnant workers with an affirmative 
right to reasonable--and I stress the word ``reasonable''--
accommodations in the workplace while creating a clear and navigable 
standard for employers to follow. These accommodations are minor, as 
simple as providing an employee with extra restroom breaks or a stool 
to sit on.
  This bill is not a hiring statute and does not amend or eliminate 
existing religious freedom protections. The arguments against this bill 
made by

[[Page H2332]]

some Members of my own party are based on inaccuracies or wrongfully 
detract from the importance of this commonsense policy.
  This bill is a product of extensive bipartisan negotiation and 
collaboration with advocates and the business community. Reflecting the 
widespread support for this legislation, the bill has received numerous 
endorsements from the business community, including the U.S. Chamber of 
Commerce, as well as over 180 women's health, labor, and civil rights 
organizations.
  Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a letter of support from a 
coalition of business groups, including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, 
SHRM, and the National Retail Federation.

                                                     May 13, 2021.
       To The Members of the U.S. House of Representatives: We 
     urge Congress to pass H.R. 1065, the ``Pregnant Workers 
     Fairness Act.'' 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.
       The Pregnant Workers Fairness Act, as reported 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. This legislation 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 H.R. 1065 with no changes.
           Sincerely,
         Associated Builders and Contractors, BASF Corporation, 
           College and University Professional Association for 
           Human Resources, Dow, HR Policy Association, 
           International Franchise Association, National 
           Restaurant Association, National Retail Federation, pH-
           D Feminine Health, Retail Industry Leaders Association, 
           Society for Human Resource Management, U.S. Chamber of 
           Commerce.

  Mr. KATKO. Fundamental protections for mothers and soon-to-be mothers 
in the workplace are long overdue. I strongly urge my colleagues to 
support this commonsense, critical legislation.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Illinois (Mrs. Miller).
  Mrs. MILLER of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 
1065, the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act.
  The policy choices we make here in Congress about labor should be 
made to support the family and our freedoms. This is because work, 
family, and freedom support and need each other. If one of these 
aspects is weakened, the whole chain is weakened as well.
  The Federal Government is, once again, overreaching into our freedoms 
as Americans with this Pregnant Workers Fairness Act. Passing the PWFA 
means that a small business or religious organization could be forced 
to provide paid time off for an employee to have an abortion or other 
concerning procedures.
  Instead of working to improve our systems to support families and the 
workplace, the Democrats are going after our First Amendment freedom of 
religion. Religious freedom is a bedrock principle of this country, and 
we must protect the ability of all Americans to act in accordance with 
their conscience. The Federal Government must never infringe on this 
sacred right.
  Religious organizations should be allowed to make religiously based 
employment decisions, and States should be the leaders in this, not the 
Federal Government.
  We have laws currently in place to protect discrimination in the 
workplace. The PWFA does not protect religious employers with the same 
protections contained in the Civil Rights Act of 1964. For these 
reasons and more, I oppose the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds to 
briefly respond to the fact that, first of all, this only applies to 
those employers with 15 workers or more. Furthermore, the Religious 
Freedom Restoration Act and First Amendment still apply. It is hard to 
imagine any religious objection to giving a pregnant worker water or an 
extra bathroom break, and there haven't been any complaints to the EEOC 
about the failure to do that.
  At this time I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. 
Schakowsky).
  Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, pregnant women should never have to 
choose between maintaining a healthy pregnancy and their paycheck.
  This critical bill will ensure that pregnant women get accommodations 
when they need them without facing discrimination and/or retaliation at 
work. It will especially help low-paid women--largely women of color 
and immigrants--working in jobs that require prolonged standing, long 
hours, irregular schedules, and heavy lifting or physical activity.
  Many people can work just fine without accommodations through their 
pregnancy. However, some in physically demanding jobs need a temporary 
adjustment of their job duties and perhaps some rules during pregnancy 
so that they can continue to work and support their families.
  The Pregnant Workers Fairness Act is long overdue, and we think that 
it is common sense.
  Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a letter from the Religious 
Action Center of Reform Judaism.

                                           Religious Action Center


                                            of Reform Judaism,

                                     Washington, DC, May 11, 2021.
       Dear Member of Congress: I write on behalf of the Union for 
     Reform Judaism, whose 850 congregations across North America 
     encompass approximately 1.8 million Reform Jews, and the 
     Central Conference of American Rabbis, whose membership 
     includes more than 2,000 Reform rabbis, to express our 
     support for the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act (H.R. 1065).
       Over 40 years since the passage of the Pregnancy 
     Discrimination Act in 1978, pregnant workers still face 
     unjust barriers in the workplace. No worker should have to 
     choose between their pregnancy and their family's financial 
     security, yet due to the lack of explicit protections for 
     pregnant workers needing onsite accommodations for medical or 
     safety reasons, countless workers confront the agonizing 
     choice between risking their health and facing forced leave, 
     lost benefits, or possible termination.
       As the inequitable impact of the pandemic has highlighted, 
     People of Color are more likely to hold demanding, inflexible 
     jobs where they face tradeoffs between their work and their 
     health. Illegal pregnancy discrimination and denial of 
     workplace accommodations, which disproportionately affect 
     pregnant People of Color, contribute to the Black maternal 
     health crisis and other forms of racial inequity.
       The Pregnant Workers Fairness Act (PWFA) would mitigate 
     these disparities by requiring employers to provide 
     reasonable, temporary accommodations to pregnant workers so 
     that they can remain in the workforce throughout their 
     pregnancies. By requiring temporary adjustments similar to 
     the accommodations employers already must provide through the 
     Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), pregnant workers would 
     no longer be forced to choose between their pregnancies and 
     their paychecks.
       According to the ancient rabbis, workers should not be put 
     in the position where they have ``to starve or afflict 
     themselves in order to feed their children'' (Tosefta Bava 
     Metzia 8:2). We are similarly taught that the fair treatment 
     of all workers is a matter of tzedek, or justice. These moral 
     imperatives guide our support for the bipartisan Pregnant 
     Workers Fairness Act, and we strongly urge Congress to pass 
     this bill to ameliorate the impact of discrimination against 
     pregnant people in the workplace.
           Sincerely,

                                            Barbara Weinstein,

                                     Director of the Commission on
                                  Social Action of Reform Judaism.

  Ms. FOXX. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, in their statements supporting H.R. 1065, Democrat 
Members have encouraged the House to follow the examples of States that 
have enacted pregnancy accommodation laws. However, the majority of 
these States have laws that include important protections for religious 
organizations.
  At least 15 States and the District of Columbia have pregnancy 
discrimination, or pregnancy accommodation 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.
  Kentucky's pregnancy accommodation law, which was highlighted by a 
Democrat-invited witness at a hearing on the Pregnant Workers Fairness 
Act as a successful workable solution, includes a limited religious 
organization protection very similar to section 702

[[Page H2333]]

of the Civil Rights Act. Unfortunately, the bill before us today omits 
this needed provision.
  If we are to follow the example of these States and recommendations 
from congressional testimony, then a provision protecting religious 
organizations should be added to H.R. 1065.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentlewoman from Michigan (Ms. Stevens), a member of the Committee on 
Education and Labor.
  Ms. STEVENS. Mr. Speaker, just a few weeks ago, the Census reported 
that the U.S. population grew at its slowest rate since the Great 
Depression. Birth rates are falling for the sixth year in a row.
  A recent Harvard Business Review study declared that the United 
States has the most family-hostile policies of any industrialized 
country in the world. This is a wake-up moment for us, and this is why 
H.R. 1065, the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act, couldn't be more 
important, particularly for the unheard, the suffering expectant mother 
who has to time when she can go to the bathroom.
  I hear from teachers all across Michigan who explain this to me: the 
woman who is bleeding and bloating and wondering when she can check in 
with her doctor, and then being egregiously pushed out of the 
workplace.
  We are talking about stools, we are talking about a place for a 
pregnant woman to sit in the workplace. That is why it is so joyous, 
Mr. Speaker, that this bill today is bipartisan.
  Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a letter in support of this 
legislation on behalf of the 1.4 million AFSCME workers.

                                                       AFSCME,

                                     Washington, DC, May 11, 2021.
     House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Representative: On behalf of the 1.4 million members 
     of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal 
     Employees (AFSCME), I urge you to support the Pregnant 
     Workers Fairness Act (PWFA) (H.R. 1065). This legislation 
     would ensure that pregnant workers get adequate 
     accommodations when they need them without facing retaliation 
     in the workplace. It also prevents employers from refusing to 
     make reasonable accommodations for pregnant workers unless it 
     poses an undue hardship on an employer.
       More than four decades after Congress passed the Pregnancy 
     Discrimination Act (PDA) of 1978, women still face inequality 
     in the workplace when they become pregnant. While the PDA 
     prohibits discrimination against employees based on 
     pregnancy, childbirth or related medical conditions, 
     pregnancy discrimination is still prevalent. In 2015, the 
     Supreme Court ruled in Young v. UPS to allow pregnant workers 
     to bring discrimination claims under the Pregnancy 
     Discrimination Act (PDA) of 1978. The Young decision also set 
     an unreasonably high standard for proving discrimination.
       Research shows that 88 percent of first-time mothers worked 
     during their last trimester. Employees who are pregnant are 
     routinely denied water bottles, bathroom breaks, stools to 
     sit on, and larger fitting uniforms to work in. Many of these 
     hardships can lead to an increased risk of pre-term delivery 
     and low birth rate. In addition, for far too many working 
     women, being pregnant can still mean losing a job, being 
     denied a promotion, or not being hired in the first place. 
     And, while women are the majority of the U.S. workforce, 
     these realities perpetuate challenges that no employee should 
     have to face.
       H.R. 1065 is also important because many pregnant women are 
     front-line workers who hold physically demanding or hazardous 
     jobs. Now more than ever, pregnant women working on the front 
     lines and deemed essential by their employers face the risk 
     of getting sick because of the coronavirus pandemic. Many of 
     them also lack access to paid sick leave forcing them to 
     choose between a paycheck and their health. At no time should 
     anyone ever be forced to choose between financial security 
     and a healthy pregnancy especially during the coronavirus 
     pandemic with countless women working on the front lines. 
     While many states have adopted laws requiring reasonable 
     accommodations, current federal law does not plainly state 
     that workers have a right to ask for them to reduce pregnancy 
     complications without jeopardizing their employment. Pregnant 
     women's lives and livelihood are on the line when they cannot 
     work safely. This bill is essential to promote gender equity, 
     healthy pregnancies, children and family wellness, and the 
     economic security of pregnant and parenting women over the 
     course of their terms.
       AFSCME strongly supports H.R. 1065 and urges you to vote 
     for its passage.
           Sincerely,
                                               Bailey K. Childers,
                           Director of Federal Government Affairs.

  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that the U.S. Chamber of Commerce worked 
with the Education and Labor Committee to make improvements to the 
Pregnant Workers Fairness Act. However, the Chamber does have few, if 
any, religious organizations as members. Therefore, it is 
understandable they would not take the position on protections for 
these organizations.
  As Members of Congress, we should ensure that the legislation we 
consider is fair to all and does not infringe on fundamental rights.
  The religious organization protection that I am advocating, which 
comes from the Civil Rights Act, will ensure religious organizations 
are not compelled to make decisions that violate their faith.
  H.R. 1065 should include the religious organization protection from 
the Civil Rights Act, which would not detract from any of the 
provisions included in the bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler), the chair of the House Judiciary 
Committee and sponsor of the legislation.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I thank Mr. Katko for cosponsoring this 
bill.
  For as long as women have been in the workforce, they have faced 
discrimination because of their sex, which is only amplified when a 
woman is pregnant. Pregnant workers are often passed over for 
promotions, forced out on leave, whether paid or unpaid, and sometimes 
even fired. As we have seen time and again, these policies 
disproportionately impact women of color and low-wage hourly workers.
  We all agree that 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.
  Given the low cost of these accommodations, we must ask why so many 
employers are unwilling to provide them and keep their pregnant workers 
employed. The answer, unfortunately, is that for many employers, a 
pregnant employee embodies negative gender stereotypes regarding 
motherhood and pregnancy. Society still expects women to conform to 
stereotypical notions that to be a good parent, you must choose between 
pregnancy and work.
  This harmful stereotype puts working women in an impossible position 
of having to choose between their family's health and their financial 
well-being. While pregnancy may create some known physical limitations, 
this choice between work and pregnancy is a fallacy and can be remedied 
with a reasonable accommodation. Despite repeated attempts by Congress 
over the years to address this persistent gender discrimination, many 
employers still view pregnancy and work as incompatible.
  Current law continues to allow employers to simply force most 
pregnant workers out on leave rather than even considering providing an 
accommodation. The Americans with Disabilities Act does require 
employers to accommodate a pregnant worker if her work limitations rise 
to the disability impacting one or more major life functions. Women who 
have limitations that do not rise to this level are not protected under 
the ADA, which was not designed to address pregnancy-related gender 
discrimination.
  Furthermore, the courts have hamstrung other attempts by Congress to 
address pregnancy-related gender discrimination. Courts have 
interpreted the Pregnancy Discrimination Act to only require employers 
to provide an accommodation if they also accommodate nonpregnant 
employees similar in their ability or inability to work and employed in 
similar working conditions.
  In order to prove discrimination, pregnant women must have perfect 
and complete employment and medical histories for every other employee 
in their workplace. It is obviously nearly impossible for employees to 
have that information, as evidenced by the fact that in over two-thirds 
of cases, courts have sided with employers who denied a pregnant worker 
accommodation.

[[Page H2334]]

  Current law lets women fall through the cracks in every sector of our 
economy, including the public sector. Take, for example, the story of 
Devyn Williams, a correctional officer trainee with the Alabama 
Department of Corrections. From the moment Ms. Williams told her 
employer she was pregnant, they started a campaign to fire her.

                              {time}  1000

  When she presented a note from her doctor requesting to be excused 
from a monthly physical training session during her pregnancy, the 
State fired her. Her employer actually wrote an email stating that her 
doctor's note gave them grounds to dismiss Ms. Williams.
  Even with that email in her possession, Ms. Williams is still 
litigating her case 5 years later. No one should have to go to Federal 
court to get a simple accommodation to safely stay on the job while 
pregnant.
  The bipartisan Pregnant Workers Fairness Act before us today will 
close this gap in the law and create an affirmative right to 
accommodation for all pregnant workers. Using the familiar language of 
the ADA as a framework, 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.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman an 
additional 30 seconds.
  Mr. NADLER. 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 30 States have passed pregnancy accommodation laws 
similar to the PWFA and over 200 business, civil rights, health, and 
labor organizations support the bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record letters of support from two of 
those organizations, A Better Balance and the National Women's Law 
Center.

                                                     May 11, 2021.
     Re The Pregnant Workers Fairness Act (H.R. 1065).

       Dear Representative: On behalf of A Better Balance, I write 
     to express our strong support for the Pregnant Workers 
     Fairness Act (``PWFA''; H.R. 1065). 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.
       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 Committee in 
     March 2021 and October 2019, as well as in 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.
       A Better Balance is a national non-profit legal 
     organization that advances justice for workers so they can 
     care for themselves and their loved ones without sacrificing 
     their economic 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, ``[Gaps in our civil rights laws 
     leave this enormous class without the right to the modest 
     accommodations that would protect them.'' As a result, ``for 
     many women, a choice between working under unhealthy 
     conditions and not working is no choice at all.''
       We founded A Better Balance 15 years ago because we 
     recognized that a lack of fair and supportive work-family 
     laws and policies--the ``care crisis''--was 
     disproportionately harming women, especially Black and Latina 
     mothers, in low-wage jobs. As I recently shared before 
     Congress, ``This bias and inflexibility often kicks in when 
     women become pregnant and then snowballs into lasting 
     economic disadvantage. We call this the `pregnancy penalty'--
     and since day one, A Better Balance has recognized it as a 
     key barrier to gender equality in America.''
       Through our free, national legal helpline, we have spoken 
     with thousands of pregnant workers, disproportionately women 
     of color, who have been fired or forced on to unpaid leave 
     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 year alone, we have heard from women across the 
     country who continue to face termination or are forced out 
     for needing pregnancy accommodations, in situations often 
     exacerbated by the pandemic and economic crisis. Tesia, a 
     retail store employee from Missouri called us in 2020 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 at that 
     time, 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.
       Although the pandemic has shined a spotlight on these 
     issues, the stories we heard in 2020 are in many ways similar 
     to those we've been hearing for over a decade. ln 2012, 
     Armanda Legros was forced out of her job at an armored truck 
     company because her employer would not accommodate her 
     lifting restriction. Without an income, she struggled to feed 
     her newborn and young child. As she told the Senate Health, 
     Education, Labor, and Pensions committee in a hearing in 
     2014, ``Once my baby arrived just putting food on the table 
     for him and my four-year-old was a challenge. I was forced to 
     use water in his cereal at times because I could not afford 
     milk.'' The need for the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act 
     preceded our current public health crisis and will remain in 
     place beyond the pandemic, until the law is passed.


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

       Gaps in federal law, namely the Pregnancy Discrimination 
     Act (PDA) and Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), mean 
     many pregnant workers in need of accommodation are without 
     legal protection in states that do not have statewide PWFA 
     protections. As we explained in our report Long Overdue, 
     ``[w]hile the PDA bans pregnancy discrimination, it requires 
     employers to make accommodations only if they accommodate 
     other workers, or 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 two-thirds 
     of cases decided since Young, employers were permitted to 
     deny pregnant workers accommodations under the Pregnancy 
     Discrimination Act. As I shared in my recent testimony, women 
     are continuing to lose their cases because of this uniquely 
     burdensome standard.
       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 Americans with Disabilities Act is also inadequate for 
     pregnant workers for two reasons. 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

[[Page H2335]]

     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.''


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

       Pregnant workers who are fired or forced on to unpaid leave 
     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, or face staggering health care costs associated 
     with pregnancy and childbirth. Many workers must use up saved 
     paid or unpaid leave they had hoped to reserve to recover 
     from 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, despite the health risks in doing so, 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 not only a loss of pay, but also 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.
       To be clear, 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 also a key solution, among 
     many, needed to address the Black maternal and infant 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 Mureil, 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 coworkers, also Black, miscarried after 
     supervisors dismissed their requests for reprieve from heavy 
     lifting. As Cherisse Scott, CEO of Memphis-based SisterReach, 
     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 [Black 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 a 
     devastating 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 Act 
     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 will 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 the two challenges with the 
     ADA outlined above.
       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.
                                  ____

                                                     May 11, 2021.
       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. 1065). The National Women's Law Center (``the 
     Center'') has worked for nearly 50 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 nine 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. We are eager to build on the momentum from 
     September 2020, when the bill passed with overwhelming 
     bipartisan support in the House, 329-73.
       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. COVID-19 
     has only increased the need for clarity regarding employers' 
     obligations to provide accommodations for pregnant workers. 
     COVID-19 poses grave risks for pregnant workers, who are 
     urgently seeking, and far too often being denied, 
     accommodations like proper personal protective equipment, 
     telework, moving to a less

[[Page H2336]]

     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 benefitted 
     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.
           Sincerely,

                                              Emily J. Martin,

       Vice President for Education & Workplace, Justice National 
                                               Women's Law Center.

  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, that is why, last Congress, the House passed 
identical legislation with an overwhelming bipartisan vote. But as the 
economy reopens, the problem persists. The House must act again to pass 
this bill, and the Senate must take it up.
  Providing reasonable accommodations to pregnant workers helps 
businesses, workers, and families. Passing this bill is long overdue, 
and I urge a ``yes'' vote.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire how much time is remaining.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from North Carolina has 14 
minutes remaining. The gentleman from Virginia has 9\3/4\ minutes 
remaining.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/4\ minutes to the 
gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Fortenberry).
  Mr. FORTENBERRY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Virginia for 
yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, you might notice a little smile on my face. Honestly, as 
I was walking over here to speak on the bill, I was reflecting on my 
own life as a father.
  I have five children. When two of my children were little, my wife 
was away from the house, and I was to meet her somewhere. One needed 
their diaper changed, and then I had to feed the other. By the time I 
did that, the other diaper had to be changed. My wife called me, and 
she said: ``You can't get out of the house, can you?''
  Mr. Speaker, pregnancy and motherhood, of course, bring joy and 
unique challenges and call from all of us a higher sense of duty.
  My wife carried my children in their earliest formation, and I 
carried that burden and opportunity to give them life in other ways. 
But if we can see pregnancy as a part of community, a journey of life 
for our good, the good of all, and the good of our Nation, then we 
accept that it requires reasonable accommodation at work when someone 
is pregnant, when they are giving life to their child, or if they have 
necessarily hard conditions. It is only the right thing to do, 
especially for those who are suffering.
  Now, as I have been listening to this debate, a concern has been 
raised about civil rights and religious organizations, considerations I 
am surprised that haven't been worked out before now. But let's keep 
working on that and pass this important bill.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, being able to bear children is a great gift, and I am 
very pleased that God gave me that opportunity.
  I would like to address the claim that the Civil Rights Act's 
protection for religious organizations is not needed in H.R. 1065 
because these employers could raise the Religious Freedom Restoration 
Act, RFRA, as a defense to a lawsuit.
  However, RFRA does not provide the same protections for religious 
organizations as the Civil Rights Act. In fact, RFRA's provisions are 
much narrower than the protection for religious organizations in the 
Civil Rights Act.
  Moreover, RFRA defenses are difficult to win in court. Indeed, more 
than 80 percent of the time, courts rule in favor of the government and 
against the person seeking protection under RFRA.
  The claim that the Civil Rights Act's longstanding religious 
organization protection does not need to be incorporated in H.R. 1065 
because of RFRA is not persuasive. Indeed, the protection should be 
added to the bill to ensure it does not infringe on religious freedoms.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a letter 
from dozens of religious organizations, including the Catholic Labor 
Network, Jewish Women International, National Council of Churches, 
Union for Reform Judaism, and United Church of Christ, Justice and 
Witness Ministries in support of the legislation as it is.

       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. 1065). 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. 1065), Congress will ensure that workers 
     who are 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

[[Page H2337]]

     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, the last year for which data is 
     available, 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. In 2020, 77.5 percent of mothers 
     with children under age 6 worked full time, and that number 
     goes up to 81.2 percent for employed mothers with children 
     ages 6 to 17. Millions of families rely on their earnings. In 
     2019, the last year for which data is available, 41 percent 
     of mothers were the sole or primary breadwinners in their 
     families, while 24.8 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.
           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, Jewish Alliance for Law and Social Action, 
     Jewish Family & Children's Service of Greater Boston, Jewish 
     Women International, Justice Revival, Keshet, Leadership 
     Conference of Women Religious, National Advocacy Center of 
     the Sisters of the Good Shepherd, National Coalition Against 
     Domestic Violence.
       National Council of Churches, National Council of Jewish 
     Women, NETWORK Lobby for Catholic Social Justice, Network of 
     Jewish Human Service Agencies, Pax Christi USA, T'ruah: The 
     Rabbinic Call for Human Rights, Union for Reform Judaism, 
     United Church of Christ, Justice and Witness Ministries, Uri 
     L'Tzedek.
                                  ____

                                                     May 11, 2021.


 Faith Leader Statements. of Support for Pregnant Workers Fairness Act

       ``The Union for Reform Judaism is proud to support the 
     Pregnant Workers Fairness Act. According to the ancient 
     rabbis, workers should not be put in the position where they 
     have ``to starve or afflict themselves in order to feed their 
     children'' (Tosefta Bava Metzia 8:2). With reasonable 
     workplace accommodations, pregnant workers can keep earning a 
     livelihood while protecting their health, so no worker faces 
     the agonizing choice between a healthy pregnancy and their 
     family's financial security. As the inequitable impact of the 
     pandemic has highlighted, People of Color are more likely to 
     hold demanding, inflexible jobs where they face tradeoffs 
     between their work and their health. Illegal pregnancy 
     discrimination and denial of workplace accommodations, which 
     disproportionately affect pregnant People of Color, 
     contribute to the Black maternal health crisis and other 
     forms of racial inequity. Congress must protect expectant 
     parents and pass the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act, which 
     will help to mitigate the racial and economic injustices that 
     pregnancy discrimination perpetuates.''--Rabbi Jonah Dov 
     Pesner, Director, Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism
       NETWORK Lobby for Catholic Social Justice urges all members 
     of the House of Representatives to vote yes on the Pregnant 
     Workers Fairness Act (PWFA). In just the fall of 2020, this 
     critical legislation received more than 300 affirmative votes 
     in the House and now is the time to show the same 
     overwhelming support for pregnant workers. This common sense, 
     bipartisan legislation is faithful to the principles of 
     Catholic Social Teaching--and the dignity of the human person 
     in particular--by caring for the health and economic security 
     of pregnant people and their families. Forcing workers to 
     choose between a healthy pregnancy and a paycheck is immoral 
     and the PWFA ends this injustice. NETWORK Lobby calls on the 
     House of Representatives to quickly send the PWFA to the 
     Senate to support working people in the United States who are 
     bringing new life into the world.''--Mary J. Novak, Executive 
     Director, NETWORK Lobby for Catholic Social Justice
       The Catholic Labor Network strongly supports the Pregnant 
     Workers' Fairness Act. Pro-life and proworker, this essential 
     legislation protects worker justice and honors families. No 
     woman should have to choose between her job and her unborn 
     child.''--Clayton Sinyai, Executive Director, Catholic Labor 
     Network
       ``National Council of Jewish Women knows that pregnancy 
     discrimination is a racial justice issue. Black women, 
     Latinas, and immigrant women are more likely to hold 
     inflexible and physically demanding jobs that present 
     specific challenges for pregnant workers and are less likely 
     to provide reasonable pregnancy accommodation. The Pregnant 
     Workers Fairness Act would ensure that pregnant people do not 
     have to choose between a healthy pregnancy and their economic 
     security.''--Jody Rabhan, Chief Policy Officer, National 
     Council of Jewish Women
       ``ln so many of our homes, children depend upon their 
     mothers for placing food on the table. Moms work; that's been 
     the case for years. Yet our laws and regulations are not 
     keeping up. Too often, working women who are pregnant are not 
     given appropriate accommodations while they are pregnant. 
     Congress must pass the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act that 
     would ensure that pregnant workers are able to continue 
     working safely, in the same way as workers with disabilities 
     are accommodated''--Lawrence E. Couch, Director, National 
     Advocacy Center of the Sisters of the Good Shepherd
       ``Women of Reform Judaism is proud to support the Pregnant 
     Workers' Fairness Act. The COVID-19 pandemic has heightened 
     the urgent need to establish policies to protect essential 
     workers--overwhelmingly Black women, Latinas, immigrant 
     women, and other Women of Color. Today, far too many of these 
     essential workers are denied temporary job-related 
     accommodations in order to maintain a healthy pregnancy and 
     are forced to make the heartbreaking choice between their 
     family's economic security and their health. No worker should 
     ever be forced to make such a choice. Passing the Pregnant 
     Workers Fairness Act is a moral imperative and we urge 
     members of Congress to support its swift passage.''--Rabbi 
     Marla Feldman, Executive Director, Women of Reform Judaism

  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman 
from Texas (Mr. Green).
  Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, much has been said about the Civil 
Rights Act. Well, what do the organizations that protect and promote 
the Civil Rights Act actually say?
  More than 220 of them, I might add, say that the Pregnant Workers 
Fairness Act is critical to promoting economic security for pregnant 
workers and their families.
  They say that women of color--more than two-thirds of Black women, 55 
percent of Native American women, and 41 percent of Latina women--are 
the sole primary breadwinners for their families. They say that they 
support reasonable accommodations.
  They say that a woman ought not be fired or be threatened with being 
fired for simply coming to work bearing a child, having a child.
  They say that they support this legislation.
  But the question really is, who are they? They are the Human Rights 
Campaign. They are the Anti-Defamation League. They are the League of 
Women Voters of the United States. They are the NAACP. They are the 
American Civil Liberties Union. They are the AFL-CIO. They are Mary Kay 
Henry. They are the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law. They 
are the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund. They are Rabbi Jonah 
Pesner. And they are for this legislation.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, could you advise as to how much 
time is remaining on both sides?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Virginia has 7\1/2\ 
minutes remaining. The gentlewoman from North Carolina has 12\1/2\ 
minutes remaining.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman 
from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the majority leader of the United States 
House of Representatives.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I would say in response to Mr. Green's 
passionate speech: Me too.
  I rise in strong support of this bill, and I am proud to bring it to 
the floor for consideration, Mr. Speaker.
  I appreciate Chairman Nadler's leadership in sponsoring and 
shepherding it through the committee.
  I thank Chairman Scott, as well, for his efforts on behalf of this 
very important piece of legislation.
  America still has a long way to go when it comes to making our 
economy work for women and mothers. We have seen that dramatically 
during COVID-19.
  Too often, women are pressured to leave the workforce when they start 
a family.

[[Page H2338]]

  Women should not face discrimination or adverse actions as a result 
of pregnancy. I think everybody would, I hope, agree with that.
  This legislation would prevent that from happening by requiring 
employers, Mr. Speaker, to make reasonable accommodations so that 
pregnant workers can remain on the job, earning their incomes.
  Now, I know a thing or two about reasonable accommodations, frankly, 
as the principal sponsor of the Americans with Disabilities Act signed 
by President Bush on July 26, 1990. When I sponsored the bill more than 
30 years ago, that legislation incorporated the concept of reasonable 
workplace accommodations, in that case, for employees with 
disabilities.
  Pregnancy, of course, is not a disability. It is a joy. But there are 
certainly dangers faced by pregnant workers that could threaten the 
health of the woman and her unborn child, including heavy lifting and 
exposure to toxic substances.
  That is why it is essential for pregnant workers to receive 
reasonable accommodations that protect their safety in the workplace 
without being demoted or losing their jobs and, of course, to protect 
the rights and safety of their babies.
  Protecting the rights and safety of pregnant workers in our economy 
is something Democrats have championed for a very long time, Mr. 
Speaker, and we passed this legislation last Congress, as well.
  But I hope that this is an issue where Democrats and Republicans--Mr. 
Fortenberry just spoke very well--can come together, in a bipartisan 
way, to protect mothers-to-be and their children.
  I hope that the Senate will join the House in adopting these 
protections, which are so essential at a time when millions of women 
are eager to rejoin the workforce and continue pursuing careers that 
bring them and their families opportunity and economic security.
  I thank Chairman Nadler again for his leadership. I thank Mr. Scott 
for his leadership, as well.
  I urge a ``yes'' vote on this legislation.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman 
from Tennessee (Mr. Cohen), the chair of the Subcommittee on the 
Constitution, Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties of the Judiciary 
Committee.

  Mr. COHEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong 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 in my district in Memphis, Tennessee.
  In 2018, I was shocked to read of the disturbing workplace abuses in 
an XPO Logistics warehouse in Memphis, which was reported in The New 
York Times. Warehouse workers were denied minor and reasonable 
accommodations, like less taxing workloads and shortened work shifts. 
These were pregnant workers.
  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 97 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.
  I also participated in the Education and Labor Committee's 
subcommittee hearing on this bill last Congress.
  Many pregnant workers are being forced to choose between maintaining 
a healthy pregnancy and losing their jobs at a time when both their 
healthcare and their economic security are crucial.
  The Pregnant Workers Fairness Act will ensure that pregnant workers 
get accommodations when they need them without facing discrimination or 
retaliation in the workplace by putting in place a clear, explicit 
pregnancy accommodation framework similar to the accommodation standard 
that has been in place for decades for workers with disabilities.
  I urge passage of this bill. I include in the Record the Better 
Balance report on the need for this law in spite of inaction by the 
State and the need for the 14th Amendment to be invoked. About eight 
States are included here.

                                                     May 13, 2021.


A Better Balance Legal Analysis of State Actor Pregnancy-Related Gender 
                             Discrimination

       Decades after Congress passed the Pregnancy Discrimination 
     Act (``PDA''), pregnant workers continue to face pernicious 
     and unconstitutional gender discrimination at the hands of 
     their employers, including state actors.
       Evidence of persistent discrimination by state actors 
     against pregnant workers in need of accommodation warrants--
     and indeed demands--Congress's exercise of its Section 5 
     power under the Fourteenth Amendment to remedy and deter 
     violations of equal protection.
       In the 21st century, sex discrimination against pregnant 
     workers often takes the form of reliance on insidious gender 
     role stereotyping concerning women's place in the home and in 
     the workplace. Too often, such stereotypes--such as, that 
     motherhood and employment are irreconcilable--force pregnant 
     women ``to choose between having a child and having a job.'' 
     Stereotyping surrounding pregnancy and motherhood is 
     pervasive, and biases can be intentional, implicit, 
     unconscious, or structural. For instance, a study published 
     in June 2020 surveying pregnant women who work in physically 
     demanding jobs found that 63 percent of women surveyed 
     worried about facing negative stereotypes related to their 
     pregnancy, and many avoided asking for accommodations, 
     sensing instead that they needed to overexert themselves 
     physically in order to avoid stereotyping. As a result, the 
     study's authors recommended ``creat[ing] better social 
     support for utilizing pregnancy accommodation.'' Those 
     pregnant women who are let go or pushed out for needing 
     accommodation face a double burden based on stereotyping: 
     After losing critical income at the very moment their growing 
     family needs it most, they must then fight to re-enter a job 
     market that assumes new mothers are less competent and 
     committed than fathers and their childless peers.
       As the Supreme Court has repeatedly reaffirmed, such sex 
     role stereotyping is a problem of constitutional magnitude. 
     Indeed, the constitutional right to be free of invidious sex 
     stereotyping ``at the faultline between work and family'' is 
     now well-established For instance, in Nevada Department of 
     Human Resources v. Hibbs, the Court rejected the ``sex-role 
     stereotype'' that ``women's family duties trump those of the 
     workplace. Craig v. Boren, the Court rejected ``outdated 
     misconceptions concerning the role of females in the home 
     rather than in the 'marketplace and world of ideas.' '' And, 
     in Califano v. Westcott, the Court rejected ``the baggage of 
     sexual stereotypes that presumes the father has the primary 
     responsibility to provide a home and its essentials, while 
     the mother is the center of home and family life.''
       Yet state employers continue to participate in and foster 
     unconstitutional sex discrimination, including gender-role 
     stereotyping, by failing to provide reasonable accommodations 
     to allow pregnant women to be both mothers and wage earners. 
     The problem is pervasive. To offer just a handful of 
     examples:
       In Alabama, Devyn Williams, a correctional officer trainee, 
     informed her employer, the Alabama Department of Corrections, 
     that she was pregnant. Corrections officials immediately 
     began to discuss how to terminate Williams, with one deputy 
     commissioner commenting in an email, ``Let me guess, we have 
     to pay this person [Williams] through the entire 
     pregnancy[?]''. At officials' urging, Williams provided a 
     doctor's note recommending she be excused from the state's 
     monthly physical training session due to her pregnancy. Upon 
     receipt of the note, one corrections official emailed the 
     others, ``[t]his [doctor's note] will give us grounds to 
     separate [Plaintiff] from service.'' The state promptly fired 
     Williams. In one sense, Williams was lucky: Alabama officials 
     had the poor judgment to document their animus. Their emails 
     made explicit the unconstitutional sex stereotypes motivating 
     their refusal to accommodate. Employers do not always put the 
     animus underlying their failures to accommodate in 
     discoverable emails. The PDA has failed to root out such 
     intentional yet ``subtle [forms of] discrimination that [are] 
     difficult to detect on a case-by-case basis,'' thanks in part 
     to a proof structure that demands onerous and lengthy 
     litigation. (Williams was still litigating her case nearly 
     five years after she requested accommodation.)
       In Oklahoma, Clarisa Borchert, a childcare attendant, 
     informed her employer, a state university child care center, 
     that she was pregnant. When Borchert's doctor recommended a 
     20-pound lifting restriction--which Borchert believed would 
     allow her to continue to care for infants--the state told her 
     that she would not be permitted to work ``with restrictions 
     of any kind.'' The gender-based animus underlying the state's 
     blanket refusal to accommodate Borchert's pregnancy was 
     revealed by the ``daily disparaging comments'' made by 
     Borchert's boss and other employees about her pregnancy. For 
     instance, in response to Borchert's ``severe and ongoing 
     nausea and vomiting caused by her pregnancy,'' her boss told 
     her to ``get over it'' and accused her of feigning illness, 
     telling Borchert that she ``wasn't

[[Page H2339]]

     really sick.'' Soon thereafter, the state issued Borchert a 
     Separation Notice.
       In New York, Lakia Jackson, a nurse technician, informed 
     her employer, a state university, that she was pregnant. 
     Jackson repeatedly requested assistance changing patients, 
     which her state employer denied because, in the words of her 
     supervisors, the university ``does not accommodate pregnant 
     women.'' As a result of the strain of changing one patient, 
     Jackson had to be rushed to the emergency room and ``nearly 
     [went] into pre-term labor.'' In defense of its refusal to 
     accommodate Jackson's pregnancy, her state employer invoked a 
     common sex stereotype about pregnant women: that she was 
     simply ``using her pregnancy as an excuse for not doing her 
     work.'' The state terminated her shortly thereafter.
       In Tennessee, Amber Burnett, a veterinary assistant, 
     informed her employer, a state university, that she was 
     pregnant. When Burnett alerted her employer that she could 
     still work but that her physician had advised minimal or no 
     contact with diseased animals placed in isolation, her 
     employer told her that ``she should begin looking for another 
     job.'' Shortly thereafter, the state terminated her. In 
     justifying the termination, the state claimed concern for the 
     potential for harm to Burnett's pregnancy--a rationale that 
     the Supreme Court recognized decades ago is rooted in 
     impermissible sex discrimination.
       In North Carolina, Lauren Burch, a special agent, informed 
     her employer, the state alcohol enforcement agency, that she 
     was pregnant. On her doctor's advice, Burch requested light 
     duty status to avoid ``situations that would put her at risk 
     for physical altercations.'' Her state employer approved the 
     request but assigned her to a worksite that ``required a 
     daily, six-hour round-trip commute'' (for which she was 
     provided ``no work credit for travel time'' and was forced to 
     use ``her personal vehicle at her own expense''). The state 
     refused to grant her an assignment with a shorter commute--
     despite Burch's doctor's recommendation that she travel no 
     more than 1.5 hours--and pushed her onto unpaid leave.
       In Illinois, Tracy Atteberry, a police officer, informed 
     her employer, the Illinois State Police, that she was 
     pregnant. Upon the advice of her doctor, she requested light 
     duty, which the state denied, despite providing light duty to 
     other non-pregnant employees with medical needs. Instead, the 
     state forced Atteberry to use up her personal time prior to 
     giving birth to her child.
       In Oregon, Maricruz Caravantes, a caregiver, informed her 
     employer, a state agency, that she had a high-risk pregnancy. 
     Upon the advice of her doctor, Caravantes requested--and was 
     denied--assistance with lifting patients, causing her to 
     ``seriously injure[]'' her back.
       In Kansas, Deanna Porter, a psychiatric aide, informed her 
     employer, a state hospital, that she was pregnant. When 
     Porter's doctor advised that she avoid lifting more than 40 
     pounds, the state refused to allow Porter to work with the 
     lifting restriction in place and sent her home. Shortly 
     thereafter, she was terminated.
       Due to a combination of gaps in the law and narrow judicial 
     interpretations, Congress's efforts through the PDA to 
     eradicate ``the pervasive presumption that women are mothers 
     first, and workers second'' have ``proved ineffective for a 
     number of reasons.'' First, as described in A Better 
     Balance's report, ``Long Overdue,'' two-thirds of women lose 
     their PDA pregnancy accommodation claims in court. A high 
     percentage of these losses can be traced to courts' rejection 
     of pregnant workers' comparators or to workers' inability to 
     find a comparator, under the Supreme Court's Young framework. 
     The Young standard also has done little to create clarity in 
     the law, sowing confusion among lower courts, juries, and 
     litigants alike. As A Better Balance co-president Dina Bakst 
     testified earlier this year:
       [R]ecent decisions further illustrate how steep a barrier 
     Young and its comparator standard have erected to proving 
     pregnancy discrimination in court. Workers, especially low-
     wage workers--and particularly women of color--typically do 
     not have access to their coworkers' personnel files and do 
     not otherwise know how they are being treated. Often, this 
     information is rightly confidential, which means a pregnant 
     worker would be unable to find the information needed to show 
     they are entitled to an accommodation.
       Second, litigating accommodation cases under the PDA has 
     proven so onerous and timeconsuming as to be wholly 
     ineffective in the lives of real women. As noted above, Devyn 
     Williams was still litigating her accommodation case nearly 
     five years after she requested accommodation. Such delay has 
     devastating consequences for pregnant workers who need 
     accommodation promptly, not five years later. As our co-
     president testified:
       Most pregnant workers do not have the resources, time, or 
     desire to engage in timeconsuming and stressful litigation to 
     attempt to obtain such information. They want, and need, to 
     be able to receive an accommodation promptly, so they can 
     continue earning income while maintaining a healthy 
     pregnancy.
       Finally, even when pregnant workers win their PDA 
     accommodation cases, it is because they are lucky enough to 
     find the perfect comparator or, like Devyn Williams, to have 
     a state employer foolish enough to document their gender 
     animus in a ``smoking gun'' email--the kinds of evidence 
     courts have deemed necessary to prevail under the PDA. The 
     many pregnant women who lack such evidence--but who 
     nevertheless are denied the accommodations they need due to 
     their state employers' animus and stereotypes--do not bring 
     suit at all, a reality A Better Balance often hears from 
     workers on its legal helpline. If a standard is so onerous as 
     to prevent workers from seeking justice, that means current 
     law offers no adequate remedy for a pernicious, 
     unconstitutional form of discrimination.
       The PDA's failure to combat states' record of 
     unconstitutional gender discrimination demands further action 
     by Congress. Where, as here, ``Congress ha[s] already tried 
     unsuccessfully'' to remedy violations of equal protection and 
     such ``previous legislative attempts ha[ve] failed,'' then 
     ``added prophylactic measures'' are justified and, indeed, 
     imperative. The Pregnant Workers Fairness Act (PWFA) is just 
     such a measure.
       The PWFA is narrow, tailored, and targeted to combat gender 
     discrimination, including invalid sex role stereotypes about 
     the place of ``mothers or mothers-to-be'' in the work sphere. 
     By requiring reasonable accommodation of pregnant workers 
     only where doing so would not cause employers undue hardship, 
     the PWFA is carefully crafted to deter and quickly remedy 
     unconstitutional sex discrimination in the hiring, retention, 
     and promotion of young (potentially-pregnant) women and soon-
     to-become mothers. Moreover reasonable accommodations for 
     pregnancy are inherently time-limited, and the vast majority 
     of accommodations pregnant workers need, like the right to 
     carry a water bottle or sit on a stool at a retail counter, 
     are low-cost or no-cost. The minimal (or non-existent) 
     economic cost of a pregnancy accommodation is one reason 
     major industry groups, such as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, 
     champion the PWFA.
       We urge Congress to pass this much-needed legislation:

  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, how much time do I have 
remaining?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Virginia has 5\1/2\ 
minutes remaining. The gentlewoman from North Carolina has 12\1/2\ 
minutes remaining.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 4\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act is based on the simple 
idea that no one in this country should have to choose between 
financial security and a healthy pregnancy.
  This concept of fairness for pregnant workers is precisely why both 
Democrats and Republicans came together to pass the Pregnant Workers 
Fairness Act in the last Congress.
  Let's be clear. Reasonable protections for workers are nothing new in 
our Nation's workplaces. Employers already have several decades of 
experience providing reasonable accommodations for workers with 
disabilities under the Americans with Disabilities Act.
  We have heard about the fact that it doesn't include a religious 
exemption. Well, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act still applies. 
The First Amendment still applies. But there is no reason to give a 
wholesale exemption to religious organizations, because what are you 
exempting them from? Providing water for pregnant workers, giving a 
bathroom break to a pregnant worker, is that what they need an 
exemption from?
  We need to make sure that those accommodations are available to all 
pregnant women who are working and that organizations with at least 15 
workers are guaranteeing protections for pregnant workers in Federal 
law.

                              {time}  1015

  By doing that, this bill will eliminate the confusing patchwork of 
State and local workplace standards that workers and employers are 
currently forced to navigate. This legislation has broad support across 
the political spectrum and our communities.
  In a recent nationwide survey, 89 percent of voters say they support 
the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act. Labor unions; civil rights groups, 
as we have heard; and the business community, including the Chamber of 
Commerce, have all endorsed this proposal as it is. It is imperative 
that we finally guarantee pregnant workers access to reasonable 
workplace accommodations.
  Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a letter signed by over 250 
organizations in support of H.R. 1065, the Pregnant Workers Fairness 
Act.

                                                     May 11, 2021.

     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

[[Page H2340]]

     Workers Fairness Act, a crucial maternal and infant health 
     measure. This bipartisan legislation promotes healthy 
     pregnancies and economic security for pregnant workers 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 
     pregnant workers--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 pregnant workers with an 
     accommodation, employers will fire or push them onto unpaid 
     leave, depriving them of a paycheck and health insurance at a 
     time when it may be most needed.
       Additionally, discrimination affects pregnant workers 
     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 workers 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 workers can obtain necessary 
     reasonable accommodations in a timely manner, which keeps 
     pregnant workers healthy and earning an income when they need 
     it most. Workers should not have to choose between providing 
     for their family and maintaining a healthy pregnancy, and the 
     Pregnant Workers Fairness Act would ensure that all those 
     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 workers to continue to 
     work, they can maintain income and seniority, while forced 
     leave sets new parents back with lost wages and missed 
     advancement opportunities. When pregnant workers 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 those who are pregnant and unemployed.
       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. Pregnant workers 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 pregnant workers 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, if 
     workers are not forced to use their leave during pregnancy, 
     they may have more leave available to take following 
     childbirth, which in turn facilitates lactation, 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, 2020 Mom, 9to5, ACTION OHIO Coalition For 
     Battered Women, Advocates for Youth, AFL-CIO, African 
     American Ministers In Action, Alaska Breastfeeding Coalition, 
     Alianza Nacional de Campesinas, All-Options, Academy of 
     Nutrition and Dietetics, American Academy of Pediatrics, 
     American Association of University, Women (AAUW), American 
     Association of University, Women (AAUW) Indianapolis, 
     American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, American 
     Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees.
       American Federation of Teachers, American Public Health 
     Association, AnitaB.org, Asian Pacific American Labor 
     Alliance, AFL-CIO, Association of Farmworker Opportunity 
     Programs, Association of Maternal & Child Health Programs, 
     Association of State Public Health Nutritionists, Autistic 
     Self Advocacy Network, Baby Cafe USA, Beaufort-Jasper-Hampton 
     Comprehensive Health Services, Black Mamas Matter Alliance, 
     Black Women's Roundtable, Bazelon Center for Mental Health 
     Law, Bloom, Baby! Birthing Services, Bread For the World.
       Breastfeeding Coalition of Delaware, Breastfeeding Family 
     Friendly Communities, Breastfeeding Hawaii, BreastfeedLA, 
     Building Pathways, Inc, California Breastfeeding Coalition, 
     California WIC Association, California Work & Family 
     Coalition, California Women's Law Center, Casa de Esperanza: 
     National Latina@ Network for Healthy Families and 
     Communities, Center for American Progress, Center for Law and 
     Social Policy (CLASP), Center for LGBTQ Economic, Advancement 
     & Research, Center for Parental Leave Leadership, Center for 
     Public Justice, Center for Reproductive Rights, Chosen 
     Vessels Midwifery Services, Church World Service, 
     Clearinghouse on Women's Issues, CLUW.
       Coalition for Restaurant Safety & Health, Coalition of 
     Labor Union Women (CLUW), Coalition on Human Needs, 
     Congregation of Our Lady of Charity of the Good Shepherd, 
     U.S. Provinces, Connecticut Women's Education and Legal Fund 
     (CWEALF), DC Dorothy Day Catholic Worker, Disability Rights 
     Education & Defense Fund, Disciples Center for Public 
     Witness, Economic Policy Institute, Equality Ohio, Equal Pay 
     Today, Equal Rights Advocates, Every Texan, Every Mother, 
     Inc., Family Equality, Family Values @ Work, Farmworker 
     Justice, Feminist Majority Foundation, First Focus Campaign 
     for Children.
       Futures Without Violence, Gender Equality Law Center, 
     Gender Justice, Grandmothers for Reproductive Rights (GRR!), 
     Hadassah, The Women's Zionist, Organization of America, Inc., 
     Hawai`i Children's Action Network Speaks!, Health Care For 
     America Now, Healthier Moms and Babies, Healthy Children 
     Project, Inc., Healthy and Free Tennessee, Healthy Mothers, 
     Healthy Babies Coalition of Georgia, HealthyWomen, Hispanic 
     Federation, Hoosier Action, Human Rights Watch, ICNA CSJ, In 
     Our Own Voice: National Black Women's Reproductive Justice 
     Agenda, Indiana Chapter of the American Academy of 
     Pediatrics, Indiana Institute for Working Families.
       Indianapolis Urban League, Institute for Women's Policy 
     Research, Interfaith Workers Justice, Justice for Migrant 
     Women, Kansas Action for Children, Kansas Breastfeeding 
     Coalition, KWH Law Center for Social Justice and Change, La 
     Leche League Alliance, La Leche League USA, LatinoJustice 
     PRLDEF, LCLAA, Legal Aid at Work, Legal Momentum, The Women's 
     Legal Defense and Education Fund, Legal Voice, Mabel 
     Wadsworth Center, Main Street Alliance, Maine Women's Lobby, 
     Make It Work Nevada, Mana, A National Latina Organization.
       March of Dimes, Maternal Mental Health Leadership Alliance, 
     MCCOY (Marion County Commission on Youth), Methodist 
     Federation for Social Action, Michigan Breastfeeding Network, 
     Michigan League for Public Policy, Midwives Alliance of 
     Hawaii, Minus 9 to 5, Mississippi Black Women's Roundtable, 
     Mom Congress, MomsRising, Monroe County NOW, Mother Hubbard's 
     Cupboard, Mothering Justice, Mother's Own Milk Matters, MS 
     Black Women's Roundtable & MS, Women's Economic Security 
     Initiative, NAACP, NARAL Pro-Choice America, National 
     Advocacy Center of the Sisters of the Good Shepherd, National 
     Asian Pacific American Women's Forum (NAPAWF).
       National Association of Pediatric Nurse Practitioners, 
     National Association of Social Workers, National Association 
     of Social Workers NH Chapter, National Advocates for Pregnant 
     Women, National Birth Equity Collaborative, National Center 
     for Law and Economic Justice, National Center for Lesbian 
     Rights, National Center for Parent Leadership, Advocacy, and 
     Community Empowerment (National PLACE), National Coalition 
     for the Homeless, National Coalition of 100 Black Women, 
     Inc., Central Ohio Chapter, National Coalition Against 
     Domestic Violence, National Consumers League, National

[[Page H2341]]

     Council for Occupational Safety and Health (National COSH).
       National Council of Jewish Women, National Council of 
     Jewish Women Cleveland, National Council of Jewish Women 
     (NCJW), Atlanta Section, National Domestic Workers Alliance, 
     National Education Association, National Employment Law 
     Project, National Employment Lawyers Association, National 
     Health Law Program, National Hispanic Council on Aging, 
     National Network to End Domestic Violence, National 
     Organization for Women, National Urban League, National WIC 
     Association, National Women's Health Network, NETWORK Lobby 
     for Catholic Social Justice, New Jersey Breastfeeding 
     Coalition, New Jersey Citizen Action, New Jersey Time to Care 
     Coalition.
       New Mexico Breastfeeding Task Force, New Working Majority, 
     North Carolina Justice Center, Northwest Arkansas 
     Breastfeeding Coalition, Nurse-Family Partnership, Nutrition 
     First, Ohio Alliance to End Sexual Violence, Ohio Coalition 
     for Labor Union Women, Ohio Domestic Violence Network, Ohio 
     Federation of Teachers, Ohio Religious Coalition for 
     Reproductive Choice, Ohio Women's Alliance, Oxfam America, 
     Paid Leave For All, Partnership for America's Children, 
     Peirce Consulting LLC, Philadelphia Coalition of Labor Union, 
     Women Philly CLUW, Philadelphia NOW Education Fund, 
     Philaposh, Physicians for Reproductive Health, Planned 
     Parenthood Federation of America.
       PL+US: Paid Leave for the United States, Poder Latinx, 
     Pontikes Law LLC, PowHer New York, Pray First Mission 
     Ministries, Pretty Mama Breastfeeding, LLC, Prevent Child 
     Abuse NC, Public Advocacy for Kids (PAK), Restaurant 
     Opportunities Center United, RESULTS, RESULTS DC/MD, Shriver 
     Center on Poverty Law, SisterReach, SPAN Parent Advocacy 
     Network (SPAN), Solutions for Breastfeeding, Speaking of 
     Birth, Southwest Women's Law Center, The International Union, 
     United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement 
     Workers of America (UAW), The Leadership Conference on Civil 
     and Human Rights,
       The Little Timmy Project, The National Domestic Violence 
     Hotline, The Ohio Women's Public Policy Network, The Women 
     and Girls Foundation of Southwest Pennsylvania, The Women's 
     Law Center of Maryland, The Zonta Club of Greater Queens, 
     TIME'S UP Now, U.S. Breastfeeding Committee, Ujima Inc: The 
     National Center on Violence Against Women in the Black 
     Community, UltraViolet, Union for Reform Judaism, United 
     Church of Christ Justice and Witness Ministries, United 
     Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers of America (UE), United 
     Food and Commercial Workers International Union (UFCW), 
     United Spinal Association, United State of Women, United 
     Steelworkers, United Today, Stronger Tomorrow.
       Universal Health Care Action Network of Ohio, VA NOW, Inc., 
     Virginia Breastfeeding Advisory Committee, Virginia 
     Breastfeeding Coalition, Voices for Progress, Wabanaki 
     Women's Coalition, We All Rise, West Virginia Breastfeeding 
     Alliance, Western Kansas Birthkeeping, William E. Morris 
     Institute for Justice (Arizona), Women and Girls Foundation 
     of Southwest Pennsylvania, Women Employed, Women of Reform 
     Judaism, Women's Fund of Greater Chattanooga.
       Women's Fund of Rhode Island, Women's Law Project, Women's 
     March, Women's Media Center, Women's Rights and Empowerment 
     Network, Women4Change, Workplace Fairness, Workplace Justice 
     Project at Loyola Law Clinic, Worksafe, WV Breastfeeding 
     Alliance, WV Perinatal Partnership, Inc., YWCA Dayton, YWCA 
     Greater Cincinnati, YWCA Mahoning Valley, YWCA McLean County, 
     YWCA Northwestern Illinois, YWCA USA, YWCA of the University 
     of Illinois, ZERO TO THREE.

  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, lastly, I thank Chairman Nadler 
and Congressman Katko for their leadership on this important 
legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``yes'' vote, and I reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.
  Mr. Speaker, the chairman of the committee just said that this is 
going to stop the patchwork of laws related to this issue.
  Au contraire, Mr. Chairman. This is going to add to the confusion, 
which is the point I have been making over and over and over again. 
Simple addition of the reference to the Civil Rights Act would keep us 
from adding to the patchwork of laws and the confusion that this bill 
is going to create. And I am sorely disappointed that we could not work 
out this last little accommodation.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I have one last speaker, and I 
reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, House Republicans will not stand for discrimination of 
any kind. As a mother, a grandmother, and a very strong pro-life 
advocate, workplace protections for pregnant women are particularly 
important to me. My Republican colleagues and I have long been 
committed to policies and laws that empower all Americans to achieve 
success, and this includes current protections in Federal law for 
pregnant workers.
  While meaningful and necessary bipartisan improvements were made to 
H.R. 1065, it falls short in protecting one of the Nation's most 
treasured rights: Freedom of religion.
  Democrats' refusal to include a commonsense, current-law provision 
that protects religious organizations from being forced to make 
employment decisions that conflict with their faith is shortsighted and 
disappointing. Congress should not be in the business of taking away 
rights from the American people.
  In fact, as we all know, the Constitution starts with the three most 
important words outside the Bible: We the People.
  And then in the First Amendment to the Constitution--and I want to 
jog the memories of my colleagues--the Constitution enshrines the right 
of religious freedom by saying: ``Congress shall make no law respecting 
an establishment of religion''--and this is very important, the next 
part--``or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.''
  That is what we are talking about here today. We are talking about 
the free exercise of religion. I will say again: Congress should not be 
in the business of attempting to take away rights from the American 
people. The Constitution does not give us that right.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote, and I yield back the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), the Speaker of the House of 
Representatives.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for the recognition 
and for his leadership, and that of the committee in bringing this 
important bipartisan legislation to the floor.
  I salute the gentleman; I salute Jerry Nadler, an author of this 
legislation, the chair of the Committee on the Judiciary; Mr. Katko for 
his lead cosponsorship; among other Republican members, to make this 
strongly bipartisan.
  Mr. Speaker, I am excited about this legislation as a mother of five 
children--four daughters, one son--nine grandchildren. This is about a 
recognition of being family-friendly in our legislation, as more women 
are a part of the economic success of our country.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise to support the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act, a 
strong bipartisan step to ensure that women are no longer forced to 
choose between maintaining a healthy pregnancy and paycheck--a choice 
that, for many, has serious health consequences.
  This landmark legislation advances the health of women and children, 
the financial security of families, and, really, the dynamism of our 
American economy. And its passage--while long overdue--is particularly 
urgent, as the lives and livelihood of so many are under threat from 
the coronavirus.
  Again, I thank the chairman and Mr. Katko, Mr. Nadler, and so many 
others for their leadership in passing this bill. And I thank all the 
cosponsors.
  Again, as a mother of five, I am especially proud to support the 
bill. And I want to salute all the mothers and women who have spoken 
out, often risking professional retaliation, to end pregnancy 
discrimination in the workplace.
  This is what this means: It means that too often when a pregnant 
worker asks for a temporary job-related accomodation, she will be fired 
or pushed onto unpaid leave, deprived of her paycheck and health 
insurance when she needs them most.
  This is particularly true in many physically taxing jobs, which tend 
to be low wage and traditionally dominated by women. And that is why we 
must pass the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act, putting in place a clear, 
explicit pregnancy accommodation framework, similar to the standard 
that has been in place for decades for workers with disabilities, which 
I was proud to be part of. Our distinguished leader, Mr. Hoyer, has 
been a major leader in that regard.
  Mr. Speaker, this legislation is also a matter of justice. As nearly 
300 groups from the ACLU to Zero To Three recently wrote to Congress--
from A to

[[Page H2342]]

Z--``Discrimination affects pregnant workers 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. . . . This can make 
reasonable accommodations on the job even more important, and loss of 
wages and health insurance due to pregnancy discrimination especially 
challenging.''
  I think it is important to note that this legislation is important 
also from the standpoint of hiring. We want to make sure that employers 
who are hiring someone know there is a level playing field should the 
woman of childbearing age--or even already blessed with a pregnancy--
that this is a positive initiative for their workplace and their 
treating that person with respect is not placing them at any 
disadvantage if the playing field is level.
  This comes at a time when--I mentioned about the pandemic--around 2 
million women were pushed out of the labor force. One out of four women 
report they are still worse off financially than a year ago. Studies 
show it will take 18 months longer for the women's employment to 
rebound from the pandemic than for men's. And the reduction of women's 
work hours and labor force participation is said to erase tens of 
billions of dollars from our economy.
  American women are part of the engine of America's economy and the 
key to building back better after this crisis. And again, as we all 
say: When women succeed, America succeeds.
  And we can apply that to say: When women of childbearing age succeed, 
America certainly succeeds.
  And for mothers and women who are pregnant, the challenges are even 
graver because our Nation still lacks sufficient workplace protections 
against pregnancy discrimination.
  Mr. Speaker, that is why this legislation is so very important and is 
consistent with what we pledge--liberty and justice for all women.
  I am very excited about this because, as we all know, pregnancy is a 
blessing to any family, and we do not want any intervention that can be 
avoided in terms of accommodating the needs of women who are pregnant.
  Mr. Speaker, I salute all of you. I am very excited about this 
legislation and I am so glad it will have strong bipartisan support.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my 
time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 380, 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.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on passage of the bill.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to section 3(s) of House Resolution 
8, the yeas and nays are ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 315, 
nays 101, not voting 14, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 143]

                               YEAS--315

     Adams
     Aguilar
     Allred
     Amodei
     Auchincloss
     Axne
     Bacon
     Balderson
     Barragan
     Bass
     Beatty
     Bentz
     Bera
     Beyer
     Bice (OK)
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Blumenauer
     Blunt Rochester
     Bonamici
     Bost
     Bourdeaux
     Bowman
     Boyle, Brendan F.
     Brown
     Brownley
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Burgess
     Bush
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Calvert
     Carbajal
     Cardenas
     Carson
     Carter (LA)
     Cartwright
     Case
     Casten
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chabot
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Cole
     Comer
     Connolly
     Cooper
     Correa
     Costa
     Courtney
     Craig
     Crenshaw
     Crist
     Crow
     Cuellar
     Curtis
     Davids (KS)
     Davis, Danny K.
     Davis, Rodney
     Dean
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Delgado
     Demings
     DeSaulnier
     Deutch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle, Michael F.
     Emmer
     Escobar
     Eshoo
     Espaillat
     Evans
     Feenstra
     Ferguson
     Fischbach
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Fletcher
     Fortenberry
     Foster
     Frankel, Lois
     Gaetz
     Gallagher
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Garbarino
     Garcia (CA)
     Garcia (IL)
     Garcia (TX)
     Gimenez
     Gomez
     Gonzales, Tony
     Gonzalez (OH)
     Gonzalez, Vicente
     Gottheimer
     Granger
     Graves (LA)
     Green, Al (TX)
     Grijalva
     Guthrie
     Hagedorn
     Harder (CA)
     Hayes
     Herrera Beutler
     Higgins (NY)
     Hill
     Himes
     Hinson
     Hollingsworth
     Horsford
     Houlahan
     Hoyer
     Hudson
     Huffman
     Huizenga
     Issa
     Jackson Lee
     Jacobs (CA)
     Jacobs (NY)
     Jayapal
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson (TX)
     Jones
     Joyce (OH)
     Kahele
     Kaptur
     Katko
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Khanna
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kim (CA)
     Kim (NJ)
     Kind
     Kinzinger
     Kirkpatrick
     Krishnamoorthi
     Kuster
     Kustoff
     LaMalfa
     Lamb
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Latta
     Lawrence
     Lawson (FL)
     Lee (CA)
     Lee (NV)
     Leger Fernandez
     Lesko
     Levin (CA)
     Levin (MI)
     Lieu
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lucas
     Luria
     Lynch
     Malinowski
     Malliotakis
     Maloney, Carolyn B.
     Maloney, Sean
     Manning
     Matsui
     McBath
     McCarthy
     McCaul
     McCollum
     McEachin
     McGovern
     McKinley
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meijer
     Meng
     Mfume
     Miller-Meeks
     Moolenaar
     Mooney
     Moore (UT)
     Moore (WI)
     Morelle
     Moulton
     Mrvan
     Mullin
     Murphy (NC)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Neguse
     Newhouse
     Newman
     Norcross
     Nunes
     O'Halleran
     Obernolte
     Ocasio-Cortez
     Omar
     Owens
     Pallone
     Panetta
     Pappas
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Phillips
     Pingree
     Pocan
     Porter
     Pressley
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Raskin
     Reed
     Rice (NY)
     Rogers (KY)
     Ross
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Rutherford
     Ryan
     Salazar
     Sanchez
     Sarbanes
     Scalise
     Scanlon
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schneider
     Schrader
     Schrier
     Schweikert
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Sewell
     Sherman
     Sherrill
     Sires
     Slotkin
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (WA)
     Soto
     Spanberger
     Spartz
     Speier
     Stanton
     Stauber
     Steel
     Stefanik
     Steil
     Stevens
     Stewart
     Strickland
     Suozzi
     Swalwell
     Takano
     Tenney
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tiffany
     Titus
     Tlaib
     Tonko
     Torres (CA)
     Torres (NY)
     Trahan
     Trone
     Turner
     Underwood
     Upton
     Valadao
     Van Drew
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Wagner
     Walorski
     Waltz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson Coleman
     Welch
     Wenstrup
     Wexton
     Wild
     Williams (GA)
     Williams (TX)
     Wilson (FL)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Womack
     Yarmuth
     Zeldin

                               NAYS--101

     Aderholt
     Allen
     Armstrong
     Arrington
     Babin
     Baird
     Banks
     Barr
     Bishop (NC)
     Boebert
     Brady
     Brooks
     Buck
     Budd
     Burchett
     Cammack
     Carl
     Carter (GA)
     Carter (TX)
     Cawthorn
     Cheney
     Cline
     Cloud
     Clyde
     Crawford
     Davidson
     DesJarlais
     Donalds
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Fallon
     Fitzgerald
     Foxx
     Franklin, C. Scott
     Fulcher
     Gibbs
     Gohmert
     Good (VA)
     Gooden (TX)
     Gosar
     Graves (MO)
     Green (TN)
     Greene (GA)
     Grothman
     Guest
     Harris
     Harshbarger
     Hern
     Herrell
     Hice (GA)
     Higgins (LA)
     Jackson
     Johnson (LA)
     Jordan
     Joyce (PA)
     Keller
     Kelly (PA)
     LaHood
     Lamborn
     LaTurner
     Letlow
     Long
     Loudermilk
     Luetkemeyer
     Mace
     Mann
     Massie
     Mast
     McClain
     McClintock
     McHenry
     Miller (IL)
     Miller (WV)
     Moore (AL)
     Nehls
     Norman
     Palazzo
     Palmer
     Pence
     Perry
     Pfluger
     Posey
     Reschenthaler
     Rice (SC)
     Rodgers (WA)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rose
     Rosendale
     Rouzer
     Roy
     Scott, Austin
     Sessions
     Smith (NE)
     Smucker
     Steube
     Taylor
     Timmons
     Van Duyne
     Walberg
     Weber (TX)
     Westerman

                             NOT VOTING--14

     Bergman
     Biggs
     Estes
     Golden
     Griffith
     Hartzler
     Kelly (MS)
     Meuser
     Murphy (FL)
     Simpson
     Stivers
     Thompson (PA)
     Webster (FL)
     Young

                              {time}  1103

  Messrs. RICE of South Carolina, MAST, and Mrs. RODGERS of Washington 
changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Mr. WITTMAN and Mrs. FISCHBACH changed their vote from ``nay'' to 
``yea.''
  So the bill was passed.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  Stated for:
  Mr. CARTER of Texas. Madam Speaker, I voted in error on rollcall 143. 
I mistakenly voted no when I intended to vote yes.
  Mr. GRIFFITH. Mr. Speaker, today I am absent due to a family matter. 
Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall No. 143 
(H.R. 1065).
  Mrs. RODGERS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I voted no on H.R. 1065, 
however, this

[[Page H2343]]

vote was a mistake. I support H.R. 1065, the Pregnant Workers Fairness 
Act.
  Stated against:
  Mr. BIGGS. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 143 on H.R. 1065, I am not 
recorded because I had to return home to my district to attend the 
funeral of a close family friend. Had I been present, I would have 
voted ``nay'' on rollcall No. 143.
  Mr. KELLY of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, I was absent from votes today 
due to Mississippi National Guard obligations. Had I been present, I 
would have voted ``nay'' on rollcall No. 143.
  Mr. BERGMAN. Mr. Speaker, please accept this personal explanation as 
I was unexpectedly detained during vote proceedings. Had I been 
present, I would have voted ``nay'' on rollcall No. 143.


    MEMBERS RECORDED PURSUANT TO HOUSE RESOLUTION 8, 117TH CONGRESS

     Allred (Stevens)
     Beatty (Lawrence)
     Bilirakis (Fleischmann)
     Cardenas (Gallego)
     Comer (Cammack)
     Correa (Vargas)
     Crenshaw (Pfluger)
     Doyle, Michael F. (Cartwright)
     Grijalva (Garcia (IL))
     Huffman (Thompson (CA))
      Johnson (GA) (Cohen)
     Johnson (TX) (Jeffries)
     Jones (Jacobs (CA))
     Kirkpatrick (Stanton)
     Lawson (FL) (Evans)
     Lieu (Beyer)
     Lofgren (Jeffries)
     Lowenthal (Beyer)
     McEachin (Wexton)
     McHenry (Banks)
     Meng (Clark (MA))
     Moore (WI) (Beyer)
     Napolitano (Chu)
     Payne (Pallone)
     Porter (Wexton)
     Ruiz (Aguilar)
     Ruppersberger (Raskin)
     Rush (Underwood)
     Sewell (DelBene)
     Sires (Pallone)
     Slotkin (Stevens)
     Smith (WA) (Kilmer)
     Speier (Scanlon)
     Strickland 
     (Del Bene)
     Timmons (Gonzalez (OH))
     Torres (CA) (Barragan)
     Wagner (Walorski)
     Welch (McGovern)
     Wilson (FL) (Hayes)

                          ____________________