Insights

Deutsch Kerrigan Article /

New Federal Law Aims to Expand Protections for Pregnant Workers’ Health and Economic Well-Being

June 29, 2023

Karina Shareen

share this page

New Federal Law Aims to Expand Protections for Pregnant Workers’ Health and Economic Well-Being

On June 27, 2023, a new federal law went into effect requiring employers to provide “reasonable accommodations” to workers and job applicants who need them due to pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions. The Pregnant Workers Fairness Act (PWFA) was first introduced in Congress in 2012 and has been reintroduced in almost every legislative session since. The PWFA passed with bipartisan support in 2022 largely thanks to growing awareness of the country’s worsening maternal health outcomes and increased demand of support for working mothers.

The new law requires “covered employers1” to provide “reasonable accommodations2” to a worker’s known limitations related to pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions unless the accommodation will cause the employer an “undue hardship3." Thanks to the broad language of the PWFA, “related medical conditions” provide protection to women undergoing fertility treatment, as well as those who have postpartum depression and those who have had an abortion or pregnancy loss.

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) is required to publish guidance on how employers should implement the law by the end of the year, including a list of examples of reasonable accommodations, which the public will have a chance to comment on. Examples of “reasonable accommodations” employers can expect to provide include (1) receiving closer parking; (2) the ability to sit or drink water; (3) having flexible hours; (4) receiving additional break time to use the bathroom, eat, and rest; (5) relief from strenuous activities and/or activities that involve exposure to compounds not safe for pregnancy; and (6) receive appropriately sized uniforms and safety apparel.

The new law only bridges a legal gap between the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the Pregnancy Discrimination Act (PDA) in which pregnant women could fall through in the workplace as neither law offers protections for otherwise healthy pregnant workers with pregnancy-related limitations. The PWFA applies only to accommodations and does not replace federal, state, or local laws that are more protective of workers affected by pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions.

The PWFA expands protections for pregnant workers in Louisiana as it applies to more employers in the state. Currently, Louisiana’s Fair Employment Practices Act (FEP) only provides pregnancy accommodation and prohibits employment discrimination related to an employee’s pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical condition for employers with twenty-five (25) or more employees in Louisiana. The PWFA lowers the “covered employers” threshold to include all employers with fifteen (15) employees. Thus, the PWFA provides protection for pregnant workers in Louisiana who work for smaller businesses.

The best way to ensure your business is complying with the PWFA is to:

  1. identify the employee’s known limitations;
  2. identify the change in work the employee needs; and
  3. determine whether the change in work will present an undue hardship. Below are examples of when and how the PWFA should apply:

Fact Pattern 1: A new call center employee needs time off to attend therapy appointments for postpartum depression. The employee has not earned enough sick leave yet to cover the time away for the appointments.

Here, the employee’s known limitation is postpartum depression and the symptoms related to it. The employee needs a change in how work is done because they need to leave to attend healthcare appointments. This employee will be qualified with reasonable accommodation of leave to attend the therapy appointments. Unless there is a different law or employer policy in place that provides for paid leave, the leave would be unpaid, but the employer will have to provide that leave for the employee or another effective accommodation (i.e., advancing sick leave) absent undue hardship.

Fact Pattern 2: A retail worker needs eight weeks of leave to recover from childbirth. The employee does not qualify for Family and Medical Leave (FMLA) leave, and the employer does not offer short term disability leave. The worker will be able to do the job after recovering from childbirth.

Under this fact pattern, the employee’s known limitation is recovery from the physical problems resulting from childbirth. The employee needs a change in working conditions – eight weeks of maternity leave. Pursuant to the PWFA, the employer will have to provide maternity leave absent undue hardship.

Tips for employers to comply with the PWFA:

  • Train supervisors about the PWFA. Employees often go to first level supervisors regarding accommodation requests and supervisors should be trained how to respond.
  • Remember that the worker does not have to have a disability or something severe.
  • Remember that the accommodations provided can be simple.
  • Keep in mind that the employee may need different accommodations as the pregnancy progresses, they recover from childbirth, or the related medical condition improves or gets worse.
  • Reach out for assistance.

The EEOC will begin to accept charges under the PWFA on June 27, 2023. However, for the PWFA to apply the situation complained about in the charge must have happened on June 27, 2023, or later.

[1] “Covered employers” include private and public sector employers with at least fifteen (15) employees, Congress, federal agencies, employment agencies, and labor organizations.

[2] “Reasonable accommodations” are changes to the work environment or the way things are usually done at work.

[3] An “undue hardship” is significant difficulty or expense for the employer.

Firm Highlights

  • Insight

    New Tech Changing Consent Laws?

  • News

    Karina Shareen Named 2026 Top Young Lawyer by Louisiana State Bar Association

  • Insight

    Navigating Louisiana’s New Litigation Landscape: Critical Updates for Insurance Companies

  • Experience

    Summary Judgment Granted Following Successful Challenge to Plaintiff’s Expert

    Doug Vaughn and Peyton Farve obtained a dismissal of a wrongful death product liability lawsuit against an assembly line manufacturer by successfully moving to exclude the plaintiff's expert who had a perfect track record before this case and thereafter obtaining summary judgment on all claims brought by the family of a worker who died after reaching into moving machinery. The case had been pending in federal court in North Mississippi.
  • News

    Deutsch Kerrigan celebrates 100 years of legal leadership across Louisiana and the Gulf Coast

  • Insight

    The Betterment Doctrine and Property Damage Claims

  • News

    Deutsch Kerrigan Recognized in 2026 Chambers USA Rankings

    Deutsch Kerrigan is proud to announce that five of our attorneys and two of our practice areas have been recognized in the 2026 edition of Chambers USA, one of the most prestigious and trusted legal directories in the country. Ranked Practice Areas • Louisiana – Construction (Band 1) • Louisiana – Insurance (Band 2) Ranked Attorneys • Kelly Theard – Construction (Louisiana), Band 1  • Keith Bergeron – Construction (Louisiana), Band 2 • Brian Schaps – Construction (Louisiana), Band 3  • Terrence Brennan – Construction (Louisiana), Senior Statespeople • Frederic Theodore “Ted” Le Clercq – Labor & Employment (Louisiana), Band 4  Chambers USA is widely considered the leading resource for identifying top legal talent. Its rankings are the result of extensive independent research and interviews with clients and legal peers, assessing factors such as legal ability, professional conduct, client service, commercial awareness, and commitment. We are honored to be recognized among the top in our field and remain committed to delivering the high-quality service our clients expect and deserve.
  • Experience

    Successfully Defended Restaurant Operator and Food Distributor Against $50 Million Product Liability Claim

    Anne Medo successfully obtained summary judgment on behalf of a restaurant operator and food distributor in a high-stakes product liability matter involving allegations that contaminated chicken nuggets caused a customer to develop severe medical complications. The plaintiff alleged that consumption of chicken nuggets purchased from a national food chain and distributed by Deutsch Kerrigan’s clients resulted in E. coli and Shigella infections, which he claimed led to significant cardiac issues and a stroke. The plaintiff sought $50 million in damages. Prior to trial, Anne moved for summary judgment, arguing that the plaintiff could not establish the required causal connection between the alleged foodborne illness and his subsequent health conditions. Specifically, the defense highlighted the absence of expert testimony necessary to support the plaintiff’s causation theories. In support of the motion, Anne presented testimony from an infectious disease expert and a cardiologist who opined that the alleged connection between the chicken nuggets and the plaintiff’s severe medical complications could not be established. The court agreed that the plaintiff lacked sufficient evidence to prove causation and granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment, dismissing all claims prior to trial.
  • Experience

    Burnell Joseph v. Atalco Gramercy, LLC et al., No. 3:23-cv-505, United States District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana

    Bob Kerrigan and Jose Ruiz successfully secured summary judgment dismissal for their client, Velan, Inc., in a complex intentional tort and products liability act involving catastrophic injury. The plaintiff, a precipitation batch tank operator working at the Atalco alumina refinery in Gramercy, Louisiana, suffered severe and debilitating chemical burn injuries to his face, eyes, and body when he was sprayed with caustic liquor while working underneath a tank at the refinery. He claimed that the valve that controlled the flow of liquor into the tank was leaking, which allowed the tank to become filled with liquor after it had been previously verified as empty. He filed suit against Velan, Inc., the manufacturer of the valve that controlled the flow of liquor into the tank, alleging that the valve was unreasonable dangerous in accordance with the Louisiana Products Liability Act. He also filed an intentional tort claim against his employer, Atalco Gramercy, LLC, alleging that Atalco knew the valve was leaking and continued to force employees to work underneath the tank. He claimed that under these conditions, an incident such as his was substantially certain to occur. Following the close of discovery, Velan moved for summary judgment dismissal of the plaintiff’s claims was appropriate because: (1) the plaintiff’s injuries were a result of Atalco’s misuse of the valve; (2) the plaintiff lacked the expert testimony needed to prove his theory of liability under the Louisiana Product’s Liability Act; (3) the Velan valve at issue was not unreasonably dangerous as defined by the Louisiana Products Liability Act; and (4) the plaintiff was unable to prove proximate causation needed to establish his case of liability against Velan. The Hon. Brian Jackson found that under the undisputed facts presented by Velan, summary judgment was appropriate and dismissed the plaintiff’s claims against it, with prejudice.
  • Insight

    No Mercy for Employers in Louisiana Supreme Court’s Recent Magill Decision

    In its recent per curiam opinion, Magill v. Werner Enterprises, Inc. of Nebraska[1], the Louisiana Supreme Court has foreclosed a routine defense strategy to shield employers from direct negligence claims. The high court has extended their 2022 decision in Martin v. Thomas[2], and now allows plaintiffs to pursue direct negligence claims against an employer despite the employer’s stipulation that its employee was in the course-and-scope of employment and caused the accident. Essentially, employers who fail to implement better employment practices will permit plaintiffs to ramp up potential exposure with evidence, if such exists, that heretofore they were routinely barred from introducing at trial. The Supreme Court’s Magill holding should encourage employers to update where needed their policies and procedures pertaining to hiring, training, supervising, and entrusting duties and property to employees, not only for the safety of their employees and customers in this state, but also eliminate employer’s exposure to direct negligence claims. Prior to Martin, a litigation strategy had taken shape where employers stipulated to 1) an employee being in course-and-scope of employment at the time of the accident, 2) that the employee was at fault for the accident being caused, or 3) both. By stipulating these facts, employers were largely able to exclude evidence of any direct negligence on part of the employer and/or narrow the scope of trial to only a contest of the plaintiff’s injuries. The Supreme Court in Martin held that despite an employer admitting their employee was in course and scope when the accident occurred, plaintiffs could pursue direct negligence claims against the employer—as the issue of liability had not been admitted. Accordingly, employers found success by admitting both course and scope and liability—as seen in the Western District of Louisiana’s holding in Ferguson v. Swift Transp. Co. of Arizona[3]. In Ferguson, the defendants stipulated that their employee was acting in course-and-scope at the time of the accident and their employee was 100% at fault for the accident being caused. Due to the employer’s stipulation of fault, Judge Wicks of the Western District of Louisiana held that Martin did not apply and that plaintiffs could not pursue direct negligence claims. In Magill, the Louisiana Supreme Court provided scarce reasoning for their decision. The high court simply affirmed the District Court’s expansion of the holding in Martin and that the employer’s reliance on the Western District’s Ferguson holding was a misapplication of Louisiana law. The Supreme Court also cited the decision in Tardo v. Farrell.[4] where the Fifth Circuit held that even if an employer and employee stipulate to course and scope and fault, those admissions do not eliminate direct-negligence claims because those claims remain separate issues for the trier of fact. The Fifth Circuit notably stated, “the societal decisions as to who actually pays does not change the manner of assessing fault to all parties as required by law.” This statement raises concern, as plaintiffs may now attempt to challenge employer stipulations that historically narrowed trials. The Supreme Court did not explain its reliance on Tardo, so future litigation will likely clarify the decision’s full impact. Under Magill, plaintiffs are permitted to pursue direct negligence claims against the employer despite the employer admitting that their employee was acting in course and scope at the time of the accident and their employee was 100% at fault for the accident being caused. The full effect of the Supreme Court’s decision remains to be seen. In praxis, Magill will permit plaintiffs to put on evidence of direct negligence by an employer in front of a jury who cannot assign fault—as fault has already been stipulated to by the defendants. Employers now face the practical risk that plaintiffs will encourage juries to increase damages as a form of punishment against an employer that admits fault but contests the nature and extent of the plaintiff’s injuries. Employers should use this moment to rigorously review and strengthen policies and procedures related to hiring and training in order to limit exposure when plaintiffs assert direct-negligence claims.  [1] Magill v. Werner Enterprises, Inc. of Nebraska, 2025-00892 (La. 11/12/25) [2] Martin v. Thomas, 21-01490 (La. 6/29/22), 346 So.3d 238 [3] Ferguson v. Swift Transp. Co. of Arizona, 17-1570, 2023 WL 173413 (W.D. La. Jan. 12, 2023) [4] Tardo v. Ferrell, 25-123 (La. App. 5 Cir. 5/28/25), 2025 WL 1516837 (unpublished).