Pregnant Workers Fairness Act

Background

The Pregnant Workers Fairness Act was first introduced in the House of Representatives on May 8, 2012, by Rep. Jerry Nadler (D-NY) following the publication of a January 2012 New York Times op-ed, "Pregnant, and Pushed Out of a Job."

In 2014, the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee held a hearing, "Economic Security for Working Women: A Roundtable Discussion," in which several witnesses discussed the need for the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act. In 2019 the House of Representatives Education & Labor Committee held the first-ever dedicated hearing on the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act entitled "Long Over Due: Exploring the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act." Witnesses included Congressman Jerry Nadler, Michelle Durham, an Alabama mother who was denied pregnancy accommodations, Iris Wilbur, then-Vice President of Greater Louisville Inc., Dina Bakst, Co-Founder & Co-President of A Better Balance, and Ellen McLaughlin, a partner at Seyfarth Shaw LLP.

In September 2020, the bill passed the House of Representatives by a vote of 329–73. In March 2021, the House of Representatives Education & Labor Committee held a hearing entitled "Fighting for Fairness: Examining Legislation to Confront Workplace Discrimination," with a focus on the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act, among other pieces of workplace legislation. In May 2021, the House of Representatives voted to pass the bill by a vote of 315–101. In August 2021, the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee voted to pass the bill out of Committee by a vote of 19–2.

The text of the bill was inserted by the Senate into the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2023, which was passed by Congress on December 27, 2022.

Legislative history

As of 22 December 2022:

Provisions

Specifically, the bill declares that it is an unlawful employment practice to:

fail to make reasonable accommodations to known limitations of certain employees unless the accommodation would impose an undue hardship on an entity's business operation;

require an employee affected by such limitations to accept an accommodation other than any reasonable accommodation arrived at through an interactive process;

deny employment opportunities based on the need of the entity to make such reasonable accommodations to a qualified employee;

require such employees to take paid or unpaid leave if another reasonable accommodation can be provided; or

take adverse action in terms, conditions, or privileges of employment against a qualified employee requesting or using such reasonable accommodations.

Legal challenge

Texas's attorney general Ken Paxton challenged the PWFA along with an additional budget item within the 2023 consolidated budget bill. At the time the bill was passed, the U.S. House of Representatives was operating with allowance for remote voting, a practice developed from the COVID-19 pandemic. Paxton's lawsuit that the passage of the PWFA and the additional budget item were invalid since with the remote votes, there was not a sufficient quorum of representatives present to pass the bill, as set in Article One of the United States Constitution. Judge James Wesley Hendrix of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas ruled in February 2024 that while the other budget item could not be challenged, that there was an insufficient quorum for the PWFA to be enacted, issuing an injunction from the law being enforced in Texas. The ruling was appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, which ruled in August 2025 that the use of remote voting did not violate the quorum clause, lifting the injunction and allowing PWFA to be enforced in Texas. Cory T. Wilson dissented. In January 2026, the Fifth Circuit vacated its decision after agreeing to rehear the case en banc. In May 2026, the circuit heard the case.