I’ve previously written extensively about the state laws covering pregnant employees before (here and here for example) so I encourage you to familiarize yourself with the current law so you can fully understand the contemplated change. But I’ll try to break it down here.
Existing law makes it a discriminatory practice to:
- To terminate a woman’s employment because of her pregnancy;
- to refuse to grant to that employee a reasonable leave of absence for disability resulting from her pregnancy;
- to deny to that employee, who is disabled as a result of pregnancy, any compensation to which she is entitled as a result of the accumulation of disability or leave benefits accrued pursuant to plans maintained by the employer;
- to fail or refuse to reinstate the employee to her original job or to an equivalent position with equivalent pay and accumulated seniority, retirement, fringe benefits and other service credits upon her signifying her intent to return unless, in the case of a private employer, the employer’s circumstances have so changed as to make it impossible or unreasonable to do so.
Those provisions would remain unchanged under the bill.
Existing law also makes it a discriminatory practice to:
- fail or refuse to make a reasonable effort to transfer a pregnant employee to any suitable temporary position which may be available in any case in which an employee gives written notice of her pregnancy to her employer and the employer or pregnant employee reasonably believes that continued employment in the position held by the pregnant employee may cause injury to the employee or fetus;
- fail or refuse to inform the pregnant employee that a transfer pursuant to subparagraph (E) of this subdivision may be appealed under the provisions of this chapter; or
- fail or refuse to inform employees of the employer, by any reasonable means, that they must give written notice of their pregnancy in order to be eligible for transfer to a temporary position;
The bill would delete those three rules and instead expand existing law to make it a discriminatory practice to:
- limit, segregate or classify the employee in a way that would deprive her of employment opportunities due to her pregnancy;
- discriminate against an employee or person seeking employment on the basis of her pregnancy in the terms or conditions of her employment;
- fail or refuse to make a reasonable accommodation for an employee or person seeking employment due to her pregnancy, unless the employer can demonstrate that such accommodation would impose an undue hardship on such employer;
- deny employment opportunities to an employee or person seeking employment if such denial is due to the employee’s request for a reasonable accommodation due to her pregnancy;
- force an employee or person seeking employment affected by pregnancy to accept a reasonable accommodation if such employee or person seeking employment (i) does not have a known limitation related to her pregnancy, or (ii) does not require a reasonable accommodation to perform the essential duties related to her employment;
- require an employee to take a leave of absence if a reasonable accommodation can be provided in lieu of such leave; and
- retaliate against an employee in the terms, conditions or privileges of her employment based upon such employee’s request for a reasonable accommodation.
The changes don’t end there. The bill creates definitions now for “reasonable accommodation” and “undue hardship”.
- Under the bill, “Reasonable accommodation” means, “but shall not be limited to, being permitted to sit while working, more frequent or longer breaks, periodic rest, assistance with manual labor, job restructuring, light duty assignments, modified work schedules, temporary transfers to less strenuous or hazardous work, time off to recover from childbirth or break time and appropriate facilities for expressing breast milk.”
- And under the bill, “Undue hardship” means an action requiring significant difficulty or expense when considered in light of factors such as (A) the nature and cost of the accommodation; (B) the overall financial resources of the employer; (C) the overall size of the business of the employer with respect to the number of employees, and the number, type and location of its facilities; and (D) the effect on expenses and resources or the impact otherwise of such accommodation upon the operation of the employer.
Contrast that with the ADA’s definition of those terms. If passed, the confusion for employers in interpreting these phrases are going to be plentiful. The ADA, for example, does not define it so precisely in the law and leaves it to regulations to provide further guidance. The undue hardship definition tracks closer but still differs:
The term “reasonable accommodation” may include (A) making existing facilities used by employees readily accessible to and usable by individuals with disabilities; and (B) job restructuring, part-time or modified work schedules, reassignment to a vacant position, acquisition or modification of equipment or devices, appropriate adjustment or modifications of examinations, training materials or policies, the provision of qualified readers or interpreters, and other similar accommodations for individuals with disabilities.
A) In general. – The term “undue hardship” means an action requiring significant difficulty or expense, when considered in light of the factors set forth in subparagraph (B).
(B) Factors to be considered. – In determining whether an accommodation would impose an undue hardship on a covered entity, factors to be considered include – (i) the nature and cost of the accommodation needed under this chapter; (ii) the overall financial resources of the facility or facilities involved in the provision of the reasonable accommodation; the number of persons employed at such facility; the effect on expenses and resources, or the impact otherwise of such accommodation upon the operation of the facility; (iii) the overall financial resources of the covered entity; the overall size of the business of a covered entity with respect to the number of its employees; the number, type, and location of its facilities; and (iv) the type of operation or operations of the covered entity, including the composition, structure, and functions of the workforce of such entity; the geographic separateness, administrative, or fiscal relationship of the facility or facilities in question to the covered entity
You will now have the same words mean different things.
Two other notes: First, the bill creates a broad definition of “pregnancy” by not just including the pregnancy and childbirth but also any “related condition, including, but not limited to, lactation”. Contrast this with the federal Pregnancy Discrimination Act which defines pregnancy to just related medical conditions.
And second, the bill would create a new poster regarding pregnancy discrimination that employers would need to add to their facilities.
The CBIA initially expressed concern about this bill increasing the number of lawsuits and suggesting that “we should consider whether adequate enforcement of existing law is better than making businesses risk endlessly litigating what ‘could have been provided’ to employees in the past.”
For employers, this is a bill that warrants close attention; these have the potential to bring the most significant changes to this area of law in well over a decade.
The post Legislative Update: Pregnancy Discrimination Protections Under State Law Changing? appeared first on Connecticut Employment Law Blog.
Comments
Post a Comment