[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)
____________________