Natasha Jackson was four months pregnant when she told her boss that she was pregnant. In 2008, Jackson was a sales representative at a furniture rental store in Charleston, South Carolina, and the only female employee there.
“I actually hid my pregnancy as much as possible because I was scared of what might happen,” she said.
Her doctor recommended she not lift more than 25 pounds, but her employer wouldn’t allow her to temporarily transfer to a job that didn’t require her to lift furniture, even though such jobs existed. She was forced to take time off work and then lost her job. Her marriage fell apart and she spent time in emergency housing after giving birth.
“That ordeal affected me for years and robbed me of the joy of being pregnant,” Jackson said. “It made me feel guilty and ashamed for having a baby.”
Jackson, now 41 and a mother of four who runs her own cleaning company, has worked with advocacy groups for years to push for better laws to protect pregnant workers. Last year, she was invited to speak at a White House event celebrating the bill’s passage. Pregnant Workers Fairness ActShe advocated for new anti-discrimination laws in the workplace.
But now the law, which passed with broad bipartisan support, has become part of a fierce battle over abortion rights between Republican-led states, including Iowa, and the federal government.
The law fills a gap in state and federal protections by requiring employers with 15 or more employees to provide “reasonable accommodations” to pregnant employees, employees who have recently given birth, or employees with related medical conditions unless the employer can show that doing so would create an “undue hardship” on the business.
Accommodations include allowing employees to take extra bathroom breaks, carry a water bottle, sit instead of stand during their shifts, etc. The federal law was passed in December 2022 after years of lobbying by nonprofit and business groups. It came into effect Last June.
During its rulemaking process, the Biden administration included abortion among the “relevant medical conditions” covered by the law, meaning employees who seek abortion care can ask their employers to make accommodations, such as time off work for appointments and recovery.
This year, 19 Republican attorneys general, including from Jackson’s home state of South Carolina, sued the administration over that interpretation.
It seems pretty ridiculous to me that some employers would seek to control their employees to the point that they feel as though they have the right to threaten an employee’s job security for pregnancy or related reasons.
– Natasha Jackson, mother of four who lost her job after asking for pregnancy accommodations
State attorneys general argue that the Biden administration is trying to make abortion more accessible even in states where it is illegal.
“This extreme interpretation of the PWFA would mean employers would face federal lawsuits if they fail to accommodate employees’ abortions, even if those abortions are illegal under state law,” said Arkansas Republican Attorney General Tim Griffin. statement The lawsuit, filed by Arkansas and 16 other Republican-led states, was announced last month.
But some advocates say the lawsuit threatens protections for all pregnant workers covered by the new law, not just the small minority who need abortion care.
“These states are shooting themselves in the foot,” said Elizabeth Gedmark, attorney and vice president of A Better Balance, a national nonprofit advocacy group that provides legal services and has long pushed for national pregnancy worker fairness laws.
“These attacks have very real impacts on people’s lives, economic security and health,” she said.
Jackson worries the lawsuit will mean fewer workers can get the medical care they need to stay healthy.
“[Workers] “People should have the right to proper medical care during pregnancy, after childbirth, after a miscarriage or after an abortion,” she said. “It seems completely absurd to me that some employers would seek to control their employees to the point that they feel they have the right to threaten their job security because of pregnancy or any related reason.”
Join the fray
After Congress passed the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, a federal agency known as the EEOC, had to develop a set of rules clarifying what employers can and cannot do under the law.
So last summer, the EEOC sought public comment on proposed rules for implementing the new law. 100,000 comments It was submitted over a two month period.
The flurry of comments arose over whether the EEOC should include abortion in its definition of “pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions” covered by the new law.
According to the EEOC, the majority of the comments were of roughly the same format: About 54,000 of the comments urged the EEOC to exclude abortion, and about 40,000 supported including it.
Ultimately, the EEOC voted 3-2 to adopt new rules that include abortion care in the definition of circumstances covered by the law, and the rules are set to go into effect on June 18.
However, in April, one week after the EEOC Final RulesIn their lawsuit, a coalition of Republican attorneys general from 17 states said the department’s “MisinterpretationSection 1 of the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act creates an “abortion accommodation mandate.”
“When this law was passed by Congress it was clearly understood that it would not address abortion at all, and the text of the statute makes no mention of abortion,” said Tennessee Attorney General Jonathan Scrummetti, who is leading the lawsuit with Arkansas’ Griffin.
Scurmetti and other Republican attorneys general Point out a comment Proposals made by lawmakers during debate on the bill seem to suggest that it is Congress’ intent not to impose abortion-related requirements in states where abortion is illegal.
Sen. Bob Casey, D-Pennsylvania, who introduced the Pregnant Worker Bill, Said During arguments, the EEOC said it “may not issue any regulations mandating abortion leave, and the Act does not permit the EEOC to require employers to provide abortions in violation of State law.”
The other 15 states joining the lawsuit are Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Utah and West Virginia.
More states joined the fray. In mid-May, the attorneys general of Louisiana and Mississippi, both Republicans, filed suit himself Object to the same provision.
And in February, a federal judge in Texas blocked the EEOC from accepting complaints filed by Texas employees under the Pregnant Worker Fairness Act, a victory for Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, a Republican. Sued Last year, the Biden administration
Protection is at risk
Tennessee Attorney General Scrummetti believes the Pregnant Worker Fairness Act is a good law.
“This bill was passed with a level of bipartisan agreement rarely seen,” he told Stateline. “When government agencies adopt and change laws without the authority of the people’s representatives, it undermines the efforts of Congress and the will of the people.”
But A Better Balance’s Gedmark said including abortion as a related medical condition for pregnant workers is supported by decades of case law. The Pregnancy Discrimination Act, a federal law passed in 1978, prohibits sex discrimination on the basis of pregnancy, childbirth, or a related medical condition. The EEOC has long interpreted that definition to include abortion.
Supporters of the new Pregnant Worker Fairness Act and the EEOC rule worry that the lawsuit will create confusion among employers and employees, and Gedmark said he worries the court could find many more rules invalid beyond those that mention abortion.
Scurmetti doesn’t believe the 17-state lawsuit will undermine the law’s protections for pregnant, postpartum and breastfeeding workers.
“The best outcome would be that abortion-related regulations that are not supported by law would be struck down,” he said. “But the law is [EEOC’s] The rules are…”
As the state and federal governments battle it out in court, Jackson said she’s focused on making sure as many women as possible know about their new rights.
Whenever she goes shopping and sees a pregnant store clerk, she asks how she is doing, whether she knows her rights at work and how to ask her employer for the accommodations she needs.
“Whether or not a mother decides to have an abortion, she will need medical care after the abortion procedure, just like she would after a miscarriage or a normal birth,” Jackson said. “I think employers need to know the difference between personal care and a normal birth. [ideology] And business.”
This story begins: Statelineis part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public benefit organization. Stateline maintains editorial independence. If you have questions, please contact Editor Scott S. Greenberger at 1-800-448-4490. [email protected]Follow Stateline Facebook and twitter.
