Three Years Later: Lessons from Early PWFA Enforcement Actions

The Pregnant Workers Fairness Act (PWFA), effective June 2023, was designed to fill gaps left by Title VII and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) by requiring covered employers to reasonably accommodate pregnancy, childbirth, and related medical conditions. Although the statute has been in effect for several years, employers are only beginning to see how the EEOC is applying and enforcing it.

Claims brought under the PWFA have increased in the few years following its enactment. In its 2024 fiscal year, the EEOC received about 2,729 charges alleging PWFA violations. In its 2025 fiscal year, that number jumped to 3,448. It is expected that those numbers will hold steady or continue to grow, which also means that employers are likely to see more EEOC enforcement actions.

PWFA Framework

The PWFA shares many similarities with the reasonable accommodation process under the ADA, but differs in several important respects. Like the ADA, the PWFA applies to employers with 15 or more employees and provides protections to current and prospective employees alike. The PWFA does not apply to an employee’s or prospective employee’s spouse, partner, or family member.

The PWFA imposes a duty on employers to provide reasonable accommodations for known limitations related to, affected by, or arising out of pregnancy, childbirth, and related medical conditions. These “related medical conditions” include common conditions such as morning sickness, lactation, miscarriage, fertility treatment, and postpartum depression. Unlike the ADA, which applies to disabilities that substantially limit one or more major life activities, the PWFA applies to temporary and minor conditions.

Upon receiving a request under the PWFA, an employer has a duty to engage in the interactive process, similar to that under the ADA, with some key differences. For example, under the ADA an employer may seek documentation to support an accommodation if the need is not obvious. By contrast, the PWFA only permits employers to request documentation to support an accommodation if it is reasonable under the circumstances.

Common examples of accommodations under the PWFA include additional restroom breaks, additional food and water breaks, sitting or standing modifications, and leave for medical appointments.

The PWFA also departs from the ADA in that it permits temporary suspension of essential job functions provided the employee can perform the function in the near future and be reasonably accommodated.

Early PWFA Lawsuits

Most of the early litigation related to the PWFA has targeted the basic obligations under the PWFA, including the interactive process, forcing leave when other accommodations may suffice, and strict adherence to attendance requirements.

For example, the EEOC filed a for violations of the PWFA when the employer forced a pregnant employee to take leave after requesting accommodations to sit, take short breaks, and work part time. When the employee ultimately told the employer she could not return to work without lactation breaks, among other things, the employer fired her. The case ultimately settled, with the employer paying the employee $90,000 and also agreeing to take other corrective remedial measures related to its policies under the PWFA and ADA.

The EEOC filed a lawsuit against an Alabama employer alleging violations of the PWFA because the employer refused to excuse a pregnant worker’s absences for pregnancy-related conditions, including medical appointments. The lawsuit also alleged that the employer required the employee to work forced overtime even though the employee’s physician advised that she work no more than 40 hours per week. The case was ultimately settled for $55,000, with the employer also agreeing to update its policies.

In another example, an employer was sued by the EEOC when, according to the EEOC, the employer forced a pregnant worker to take leave when she requested an accommodation to another role that would not require her to lie on her stomach and required the employee to return to her role without modification, resulting in her resignation. This case remains ongoing.

More recently, the EEOC sued an employer in Florida alleging an employer failed to provide reasonable accommodations to a class of pregnant workers based on the employer’s strict policy that required employees to resign if they missed two weeks or more of work and did not qualify for leave under the Family and Medical Leave Act.

While not filed under the PWFA, in March 2026, an Ohio jury returned a $22.5 million verdict against an employer who denied a pregnant worker’s accommodation request under the ADA to work from home following surgery during a high-risk pregnancy. The employer originally placed the employee on leave, which resulted in the employee returning to work. After about two weeks, the employer reconsidered and granted the employee’s accommodation request, however, the employee miscarried the same day, resulting in a wrongful death lawsuit and the subsequent $22.5 million verdict. While the PWFA was not in effect at the time of the events giving rise to the lawsuit, it would apply to this scenario had it occurred after its enforcement.

Lessons from the First Wave of PWFA Litigation

Employers should avoid:

• Using leave as the default accommodation when another reasonable accommodation may be available.
• Applying rigid attendance policies.
• Failing to engage in the interactive process.
• Treating pregnancy accommodations solely through an ADA lens.

Some of these lessons can be implemented by training managers to be aware that pregnancy and pregnancy-related conditions may trigger requirements under the PWFA and to recognize accommodation requests and escalate appropriately. Employers should also ensure that any policies, including inflexible leave or attendance policies, have been updated to address the unique requirements of the PWFA. Finally, employers should be wary of transposing ADA requirements under the PWFA, especially as it relates to documentation.