Royal

New Obligations for Employers Concerning Pregnant and Nursing Employees

January 4, 2023

Just before the turn of the new year, President Biden signed two laws that directly affect certain employers’ obligations to their pregnant and nursing employees: the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act (PWFA) and the Providing Urgent Maternal Protections for Nursing Mothers (PUMP) Act.


The Pregnant Workers Fairness Act (PWFA)

The PWFA requires most employers to grant American-with-Disabilities-like reasonable accommodations for pregnant employees, including light duty and other arrangements, so far as the arrangements do not cause an undue burden on the employer and their operations. The law’s framework echoes that of the ADA, but temporarily carves out protections specifically for pregnant workers. As required by ADA, a pregnant worker would still need to be able to complete the essential functions of their role to be afforded the protections of their accommodation request.


The PWFA requires employers with 15 or more workers to provide such arrangements for job applicants and employees with conditions related to pregnancy or childbirth. Like the ADA, the PWFA prohibits employers from discriminating or retaliating against an employee for exercising their right to a pregnancy related accommodation.


The PWFA will be enforced by the US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and the United States Attorney General’s Office.


The Providing Urgent Maternal Protections for Nursing Mothers (PUMP) Act

The PUMP Act extends already existing privileges under the Fair Labor Standards Act and requires employers with 50 or more employees to provide breaks and a private space, other than a restroom, for breastfeeding workers to express milk. Under the Act, many workers not previously entitled to lactation accommodations under federal law (such as salaried employees) are now covered.

The PUMP Act extends the need to provide these accommodations for up to one year after the employee’s child is born.


The Act contains “opportunity to cure” language that requires employees who believe their employer is out of compliance with the Act to give their employer notice of the potential violation, and 10 days to come into compliance, before making any claim of liability against their employer.


The Department of Labor (DOL) Wage and Hour Division is charged with enforcing the PUMP Act.


If your business has any questions on this or any other matters, please do not hesitate to contact the attorneys at The Royal Law Firm at 413-586-2288.

February 19, 2025
The Massachusetts Superior Court found that Massachusetts’ wiretap statue does not bar employers from using allegedly illegally obtained recordings in civil proceedings. In a recent case, an employee claimed she was forced to resign. Plaintiff’s coworker recorded an argument between the Plaintiff and her supervisor without her consent and shared it with supervisors. The employee then sued for discrimination and retaliation, along with two counts for violation of the wiretap statute. Massachusetts is a two-party consent state but, in this case, it was found that the consent of only one party was needed because nothing in the Wiretap Statute bars the use of an allegedly illegally obtained communication in a civil proceeding. The court found that the provisions about the use of illegally obtained communications in evidence are limited to criminal trials. However, depending on the court, results may differ, as this recording was central to proving and/or disproving the Plaintiff’s claim, and as such, the recording was indispensable as a piece of evidence. Issues with unauthorized recordings have been arising all the time in civil proceedings because recording devices are everywhere, whether they be a cell phone, laptop or other recording device. This ruling is good for employers, as if there is an otherwise inadmissible recording that is made that disproves an employee’s claims, it can be admissible as evidence if meets the same scenario above. However, employers must be careful to use these recordings as they may be inadmissible and may not show the same thing that the employer believes in the court’s eyes. This being said, it is prudent to consult an attorney before utilizing a recording for any employment action or in legal action to avoid unwanted consequences. If your business has any questions on this topic or any other matters, please do not hesitate to contact the attorneys at The Royal Law Firm at 413-586-2288.
February 14, 2025
What Are the Compliance Requirements for Private Employers?
Share by: