Implementation of the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act

AGENCY:

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.

ACTION:

Final rule and interpretive guidance.

SUMMARY:

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission is issuing this final rule and interpretive guidance to implement the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act, which requires a covered entity to provide reasonable accommodations to a qualified employee's or applicant's known limitations related to, affected by, or arising out of pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions, unless the accommodation will cause an undue hardship on the operation of the business of the covered entity.

DATES:

This final rule and interpretive guidance is effective on June 18, 2024.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Sharyn Tejani, Associate Legal Counsel, Office of Legal Counsel at 202-900-8652 (voice), 1-800-669-6820 (TTY), sharyn.tejani@eeoc.gov. Requests for this final rule and interpretive guidance in an alternative format should be made to the Office of Communications and Legislative Affairs at (202) 921-3191 (voice), 1-800-669-6820 (TTY), or 1-844-234-5122 (ASL video phone).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Introduction

The Pregnant Workers Fairness Act (PWFA) requires a covered entity to provide reasonable accommodations to a qualified employee's or applicant's known limitations related to, affected by, or arising out of pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions, absent undue hardship on the operation of the business of the covered entity. The PWFA at 42 U.S.C. 2000gg-3(a) directs the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC or Commission) to promulgate regulations to implement the PWFA.

The Commission issued its notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) on August 11, 2023, and invited public comment on this proposal from August 11, 2023, through October 10, 2023. Members of the public submitted approximately 98,600 comments to the EEOC during this 60-day period. Several of those comments were signed by multiple individuals; thus, the total number of comments was over 100,000.

Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 2000gg-3(a), the Commission is issuing this final regulation and an appendix entitled “Appendix A to Part 1636—Interpretive Guidance on the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act” (Interpretive Guidance). As explained in the NPRM, the Interpretive Guidance (a proposed version of which was included in the NPRM) will become part of 29 CFR part 1636. The Interpretive Guidance represents the Commission's interpretation of the issues addressed within it, and the Commission will be guided by the regulation and the Interpretive Guidance when enforcing the PWFA.

General Information on Terms Used in the Regulation and Interpretive Guidance

The PWFA at 42 U.S.C. 2000gg(3) uses the term “employee (including an applicant)” in its definition of “employee.” Thus, throughout the statute, this preamble, the final regulation, and the Interpretive Guidance, the term “employee” should be understood to include “applicant” where relevant. Because the PWFA relies on Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII), as amended by the Pregnancy Discrimination Act of 1978 (PDA), 42 U.S.C. 2000e et seq. for its definition of “employee,” that term also includes “former employee,” where relevant.

The PWFA defines “covered entity” using the definition of “employer” from different statutes, including Title VII. Thus “covered entities” under the PWFA include public and private employers with 15 or more employees, unions, employment agencies, and the Federal Government. In this preamble, the final regulation, and the Interpretive Guidance, the Commission uses the terms “covered entity” and the term “employer” interchangeably.

To track the language of the statute more closely and improve readability, the Commission made three global changes from the proposed rule and proposed appendix to the final rule and Interpretive Guidance. First, the Commission removed most instances of the words “applicant” and “former employee” from the regulation and the Interpretive Guidance; based on the statute and Title VII, the term “employee” covers “applicant” and “former employee” when relevant. Second, the Commission replaced the word “worker” with the word “employee” throughout the regulation and the Interpretive Guidance. Third, the Commission removed sections of the proposed rule that pertained solely to employees covered by the Congressional Accountability Act of 1995 because the Commission does not have authority to regulate those employees (former §§ 1636.2(c)(2) and 1636.5(b)).

The Interpretive Guidance contains numerous examples to illustrate provisions in the regulation. The Commission received some comments identifying instances where these examples, in an effort to be simple and short, oversimplified situations related to pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions. For example, the Commission used the term “bed rest” in some examples; that is a colloquialism for several actions that would be better described as “rest and reduced activity.” The Commission agrees that in a real situation, there may or may not be more complexity and that describing a restriction may require different or more facts than are in an example. However, the purpose of these examples is to illustrate legal points, to suggest practical actions for covered entities and employees, and to encourage voluntary compliance with the law. Thus, while the Commission has made some changes to the examples in response to these comments, it also has retained simple language in many examples to allow for ease of reading and to keep the focus of the examples on the PWFA's legal interpretation. The Commission notes that, depending on the facts in the examples, the same facts could lead to claims also being brought under other statutes that the Commission enforces, such as Title VII and the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA), as amended by the ADA Amendments Act of 2008 (ADAAA or Amendments Act), 42 U.S.C. 12101 et seq. Moreover, the situations in specific examples could implicate other Federal laws, including, but not limited to, the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993, as amended (FMLA), 29 U.S.C. 2601 et seq.; the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970, as amended (OSH Act), 29 U.S.C. 651 et seq.; and the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (FLSA), 29 U.S.C. 201 et seq., as amended by the Providing Urgent Maternal Protections for Nursing Mothers Act (PUMP Act), Public Law 117-328, Div. KK, 136 Stat. 4459, 6093 (2022). Additionally, although some examples state that the described actions “would violate” the PWFA, additional facts not described in the examples could change that determination.

Finally, the Commission notes that the examples are illustrative. They do not and are not intended to cover every limitation or possible accommodation under the PWFA.

1636.1 Purpose

The Commission made several minor changes to the Purpose section of the regulation to follow the language in the statute more closely. Specifically, the phrase “related to, affected by, or arising out of pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions” was added after “known limitations” throughout this paragraph, and the descriptions of the retaliation and coercion provisions were slightly modified.

1636.2 Definitions—General

The Commission received numerous comments regarding the proposed general definitions. For example, many comments encouraged the Commission to clarify that restaurant workers are covered by the PWFA. Several comments also suggested the Commission clarify that the requirements for protection under the FMLA (in terms of how long an employee must work for an employer and the number of hours) do not apply under the PWFA and suggested the Commission clarify that employees need not work for an employer for any specific period of time in order to be covered by the PWFA.

The PWFA relies on definitions from Title VII to describe when an employer is covered and who is protected by the law. Employers are covered by the PWFA if they have 15 or more employees, regardless of the industry. Thus, restaurant workers who work for restaurants with 15 or more employees are covered. Because the PWFA's approach to coverage and protection follows Title VII, rather than the FMLA, employees are covered even if they have not worked for a specific employer for a specific length of time.

In the general definitions section of the rule, the Commission added “or the employee of a political subdivision of a State” in § 1636.2(b)(3) and (c)(4) to better describe the employees covered by the Government Employee Rights Act of 1991 (GERA), 42 U.S.C. 2000e-16c(a).

1636.3 Definitions—Specific to the PWFA

1636.3(a) Known Limitation

The rule reiterates the definition of “known limitation” from 42 U.S.C. 2000gg(4) and then provides definitions for the operative terms.

1636.3(a)(1) Known

The Commission did not change the definition of “known” from the proposed rule. Under that definition a limitation is “known” to a covered entity if the employee, or the employee's representative, has communicated the limitation to the covered entity.

1636.3(a)(2) Limitation

The proposed rule restated the definition of limitation from the statute and added that the physical or mental condition may be a modest or minor and/or episodic impediment or problem, that it included when an employee affected by pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions had a need or a problem related to maintaining their health or the health of the pregnancy, and that it included when an employee affected by pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions sought health care related to pregnancy, childbirth, or a related medical condition itself.

The Commission received several comments supporting the definition of “limitation” and suggesting that the word “need” be added to the second sentence (in addition to “impediment” or “problem”) so that it would read: “Physical or mental condition is an impediment, problem, or need that may be modest, minor, and/or episodic.” The Commission declines to make this change because this sentence as it exists (which uses the term “impediment” or “problem”) is sufficiently broad, and the third sentence of the definition of “limitation” covers when the employee has a “need or a problem related to maintaining their health or the health of the pregnancy.”

The Commission received a few comments asserting that this definition was too broad and that it should be more restrictive. The Commission disagrees. As discussed in the NPRM, the PWFA was intended to cover all types of limitations, including those that are minor and those that are needed to maintain the employee's health or the health of the pregnancy. Thus, creating a higher threshold would not be in keeping with this rationale, would be contrary to congressional intent, and would impede a qualified employee's ability to stay on the job.

A handful of comments asked for clarification as to whether the language in the NPRM required employers to provide reasonable accommodations to an employee when an employee's partner, spouse, or family member—and not the employee themselves—has a physical or mental condition related to, affected by, or arising out of pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions. It does not. To respond to these comments, the Commission has included in the final rule's definition of “limitation” that the limitation must be of the specific employee in question. This is essentially the same language that was in the NPRM with regard to related medical conditions in § 1636.3(b).

The Commission has made one minor change in the language of this provision in the regulation. To track the language of the statute in 42 U.S.C. 2000gg(4), the Commission has changed the last sentence of the definition of “limitation” regarding the ADA so that it now mirrors the language in the statute (“whether or not such condition meets the definition of disability”).

In the Interpretive Guidance, the Commission has added information in section 1636.3(a)(2) Limitation calling attention to the possible overlap between the PWFA and the ADA and noting that in these situations the qualified employee may be entitled to an accommodation under either statute, as the protections of both may apply. The Commission has added information consistent with the changes in the regulation described above to state that the limitation must be of the specific employee in question and that the PWFA does not create a right to reasonable accommodation based on an individual's association with someone else with a PWFA-covered limitation or provide accommodations for bonding or childcare. To make the language in the Interpretive Guidance consistent with the regulation, the Commission has modified language in the Interpretive Guidance regarding accommodations for health care to clarify that accommodations may be needed to attend health care appointments for a variety of reasons. Finally, the Commission has modified language from the proposed appendix regarding the PWFA and the lack of a “severity” requirement to avoid giving the mistaken impression that the ADA has such a requirement.

Comments and Response to Comments Regarding the Commission's Proposed Description of “Related to, Affected by, or Arising Out of”

Some comments supported the Commission's reading of the language “related to, affected by, or arising out of,” stating that the Commission's reading was textually accurate in that nothing in the statutory language requires that the pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions be the sole or original cause of the limitation. Other comments stated that the language in the NPRM explaining “related to, affected by, or arising out of,” especially when combined with the definition of “related medical conditions,” could require accommodations for known limitations caused by any physical or mental condition that has any real, perceived, or potential connection to—or impact on—an individual's pregnancy, fertility, or reproductive system. These comments asked the Commission to alter the NPRM language to counter this interpretation. Some comments asked for additional clarification regarding the language “related to, affected by, or arising out of.”

The PWFA uses the language “related to, affected by, or arising out of” to explain the connection between the physical or mental condition and pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions. As such, the statute does not require that pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions be the sole, the original, or a substantial reason for the physical or mental condition, and the Commission does not have the authority to change this term.

To help respond to these comments, in the Interpretive Guidance in section 1636.3(a)(2) under Related to, Affected by, or Arising Out of, the Commission has added that “related to, affected by, or arising out of” are inclusive terms and that a pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical condition does not need to be the sole, the original, or a substantial cause of the physical or mental condition at issue for the physical or mental condition to be “related to, affected by, or arising out of” pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions. This is in keeping with the dictionary definition of “related to,” which is generally defined as “connected with” or “about” something. It also is consistent with the meaning of “affected by,” as the dictionary definition of the word “affect” is “to cause,” “to produce,” or “to influence” something. Finally, it aligns with the meaning of “arising out of,” because the dictionary definition of “arise” includes “to begin to occur or exist” or “to originate from a source.”

The Interpretive Guidance in section 1636.3(a)(2) under Related to, Affected by, or Arising Out of further explains that determining whether a physical or mental condition is “related to, affected by, or arising out of” pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions should typically be straightforward, particularly in cases where an individual is currently pregnant, is experiencing childbirth, or has just experienced childbirth. Pregnancy and childbirth cause systemic changes that not only create new physical and mental conditions but also can exacerbate preexisting conditions and can cause additional pain or risk. Thus, a connection between an employee's physical or mental condition and their pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions will be readily ascertained when an employee is currently pregnant or is experiencing or has just experienced childbirth.

The Commission has maintained the list of situations in the Interpretive Guidance in section 1636.3(a)(2) under Related to, Affected by, or Arising Out of that show the connection between pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions and the limitation with some minor changes. The Interpretive Guidance also maintains the discussion that some conditions (like lifting restrictions) can occur whether or not an employee is affected by pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions and that the Commission anticipates that confirming that a physical or mental condition is related to, affected by, or arising out of pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions will usually be straightforward and can be accomplished through the interactive process. The Commission has added information to the Interpretive Guidance explaining that there may be situations where a physical or mental condition may no longer be related to, affected by, or arising out of pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions, and that in those situations, an employee may seek an accommodation under the ADA. The Commission also has added that there may be situations where the physical or mental condition exacerbates an existing condition that is a disability under the ADA, and in those situations, an employee may be entitled to an accommodation under either the ADA or the PWFA.

1636.3(b) Pregnancy, Childbirth, or Related Medical Conditions

The NPRM explained that the phrase “pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions” appears in Title VII's definition of “sex,” as amended in 1978 by the PDA. Because Congress chose to write the PWFA using the same phrase as in Title VII, as amended by the PDA, and is presumed to have known the meaning given that phrase by the courts and the Commission for over 40 years, the Commission gave the phrase “pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions” the same meaning under the PWFA as under Title VII. When Congress chooses to “use[ ] the same language in two statutes having similar purposes, . . . it is appropriate to presume that Congress intended that text to have the same meaning in both statutes.”

The PWFA's legislative history supports the Commission's reading of the phrase “pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions” to have the same meaning as the phrase in Title VII. The U.S. House of Representatives Report accompanying the PWFA recounts the legislative steps Congress has taken to protect workers affected by pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions. In 1964, Congress passed Title VII, which included protection from discrimination based on sex. In 1972, the EEOC interpreted the prohibition on sex discrimination to include pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions. In 1976, the Supreme Court determined that pregnancy discrimination was not covered by Title VII. In 1978, responding to that decision, Congress passed the PDA “to codify the EEOC's original interpretation of Title VII.” Courts' subsequent interpretations of the disparate treatment standard in the PDA, however, left “[n]umerous [g]aps” in protections, and the Supreme Court's 2015 decision in Young v. United Parcel Service, Inc., 575 U.S. 206 (2015), created a standard that did not adequately protect the workers that the PDA covered, according to the PWFA House Report. The House concluded that, “[t]o remedy the shortcomings of the PDA, Congress must step in and act.” Congress' discussion of the PDA and identification of shortcomings in the PDA as a reason for enacting the PWFA show that in the PWFA, Congress sought to protect the same workers who are protected by the PDA. By using Title VII's longstanding definition of “pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions” for the PWFA, the Commission is following both the text of the statute and its legislative history.

Comments Regarding Temporal Proximity to a Current or Recent Pregnancy

Some comments requested that the Commission limit the definition of “pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions” under the PWFA to situations that met their definition of close temporal proximity to a current or recent pregnancy. These comments also noted that many of the conditions listed in the NPRM as conditions that could qualify as “pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions” also could impact individuals who have never been pregnant or could first arise years before or after pregnancy. Relatedly, several comments suggested that only conditions related to a current or recent pregnancy (which the comments defined as one occurring 6 or fewer months earlier) could be “related medical conditions.”

Response to Comments Regarding Temporal Proximity to a Current or Recent Pregnancy

The Commission declines to adopt the changes suggested by these comments, as they seek to create a definition of “pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions” that is not supported by Title VII case law or the Commission's Enforcement Guidance on Pregnancy Discrimination and Related Issues. Further, adopting such a bright-line temporal rule would improperly exclude many employees, such as employees with postpartum limitations, who may require pregnancy-related accommodations. That said, “related medical conditions” must be related to the pregnancy or childbirth of the specific employee in question, and whether a specific condition is related to pregnancy or childbirth is a fact-specific determination that will be guided by existing Title VII precedent and prior relevant Commission guidance.

Comments Regarding the List of Conditions Included in the Regulation as Examples of “Pregnancy, Childbirth, or Related Medical Conditions”

Multiple comments supported the Commission's definition of “pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions” and supported the inclusion of the list of numerous possible “related medical conditions” in the regulation. Comments argued that the Commission's reading of “related medical conditions” best effectuates the purpose and goals of the PWFA; is consistent with longstanding law, legislative history, agency interpretation, medical understanding, and common sense; and appropriately supplements the protections currently afforded under the PDA.

By contrast, several comments stated that the language in the NPRM explaining the term “related medical conditions” could require accommodations for any physical or mental condition that has any real, perceived, or potential connection to—or impact on—an individual's pregnancy, fertility, or reproductive system. These comments asked the Commission to alter the language in the proposed rule to counter this interpretation.

Other comments stated that the broad, non-exhaustive list of “related medical conditions” exceeded the Commission's delegated authority as intended by Congress and that such a list would, based on sex, improperly privilege employees with gynecological conditions, or disadvantage other employees with analogous conditions, and thus potentially illegally discriminate under Title VII or the Equal Protection Clause.

Response to Comments Regarding the List of Conditions Included in the Regulation as Examples of “Pregnancy, Childbirth, or Related Medical Conditions”

Generally, the question of whether a condition constitutes “pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions” in a particular case will be fact-specific and guided by existing Title VII precedent and relevant prior Commission guidance. To assist in making that determination, the Commission made clarifying changes and additions to the language in this section of the regulation and has added more information in the Interpretive Guidance in section 1636.3(b) Pregnancy, Childbirth, or Related Medical Conditions.

First, the Commission removed the phrase “relate to, are affected by, or arise out of” with regard to “related medical conditions” in the proposed § 1636.3(b) in order to track the language of the statute and reflect more closely language in the Commission's prior enforcement guidance that explains the extent of the PDA and the definition of “pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions.” This sentence now says “[r]elated medical conditions are medical conditions relating to the pregnancy or childbirth of the specific employee in question.”

Second, the Commission reorganized the list of conditions in § 1636.3(b) to follow more closely the organization of the Commission's Enforcement Guidance on Pregnancy Discrimination explaining the definition of “pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions,” so that the two resources are consistent.

Third, the Commission addressed concerns raised in the comments that conditions in the list of “related medical conditions” would “always” be “related medical conditions” and thus limitations related to, affected by, or arising out of those conditions would automatically be entitled to coverage under the PWFA. The Commission responded to these concerns and requests by changing the language in § 1636.3(b) so that the list is now explained as conditions that “are, or may be,” “related medical conditions.”

Fourth, the Commission added that the pregnancy or childbirth must be “of the specific employee in question.” This language was already in the NPRM—in that the NPRM made clear that related medical conditions must be related to the pregnancy or childbirth of the specific employee in question—and has been added to the definition of “limitation” as well.

In the Interpretive Guidance in section 1636.3(b) Pregnancy, Childbirth, or Related Medical Conditions, the Commission has added information regarding the Commission's expectation that it will be readily apparent that certain medical conditions ( e.g., lactation, miscarriage, stillbirth, having or choosing not to have an abortion, preeclampsia, gestational diabetes, and HELLP (hemolysis, elevated liver enzymes and low platelets syndrome)) have a relation to pregnancy or childbirth; and that, similarly, a connection between a medical condition and pregnancy or childbirth will often be evident when a new medical condition occurs or an existing medical condition is exacerbated or poses a new risk during a current pregnancy, childbirth, or postpartum period.

The Commission disagrees that creating a list of potential “related medical conditions” that are or may be related to pregnancy or childbirth exceeds the Commission's authority. The list includes related medical conditions that courts and the Commission, in its Enforcement Guidance on Pregnancy Discrimination, have determined can, but are not always required to be, related medical conditions, as well as a non-exhaustive list of other conditions that, depending on the situation, can be related to pregnancy or childbirth. The list clearly states that it consists of examples that “are or may be” related medical conditions in a specific case. In each case, a determination that a medical condition is related to pregnancy or childbirth is fact-specific and contingent on whether the medical condition at issue is related to the pregnancy or childbirth of the specific employee in question. The Commission notes that regardless of whether pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions are at issue, the provision of 42 U.S.C. 2000gg-5(a)(2) stating that nothing in the PWFA shall be construed “by regulation or otherwise, to require an employer-sponsored health plan to pay for or cover any particular item, procedure, or treatment” applies.

The Commission also disagrees that accommodations under the PWFA will potentially discriminate based on sex. The PWFA only provides accommodations to qualified employees with limitations related to, affected by, or arising out of pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions. This is in keeping with courts that have found that laws and other policies that provide leave for workers affected by pregnancy do not discriminate based on sex. Additionally, in Young v. United Parcel Service, the Supreme Court found that an employer could be required by the PDA to provide an accommodation for pregnant workers even if the employer's general policy did not provide for accommodations for workers except in certain situations. The accommodations provided under the PWFA are similar in purpose and effect to those that could have been obtained in Young. And, just as the accommodations contemplated by the Court in Young did not violate Title VII, neither do accommodations under the PWFA.

Moreover, Congress expressly intended that in some cases, the PWFA would require accommodations for a qualified employee's limitations related to, affected by, or arising out of pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions, even if such accommodations are not available to other employees. In fact, Congress observed that the PDA's comparator requirement “is a burdensome and often impossible standard to meet” and thus is “insufficient to ensure that pregnant workers receive the accommodations they need.”

Comments and Response to Comments Requesting Deletions, Additions, or Other Modifications to the List of Examples of “Pregnancy, Childbirth, or Related Medical Conditions”

Many comments requested deletions, additions, or other modifications to the list of examples of “pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions” provided in the proposed definition at § 1636.3(b). The Commission declines to modify the provided list. As previously explained, the list of examples of “pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions” is non-exhaustive and includes conditions that are commonly—but not always—associated with pregnancy or childbirth. The list neither requires blanket accommodation for every condition listed nor precludes accommodations for conditions that are not listed. Additionally, because “pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions” has the same definition as in Title VII, as amended by the PDA, this phrase's use in the PWFA necessarily will continue to reflect Title VII case law regarding that phrase.

Comments and Response to Comments Regarding Coverage of Specific Conditions—Menstruation

A number of comments argued for or against the inclusion of menstruation in the list of “related medical conditions.” While the limited number of Federal courts that have addressed the issue of whether menstruation falls within the Title VII definition of “related medical conditions” have not always held that it does, read together, the majority of these cases illustrate that, at a minimum, menstruation is covered under Title VII when it has a nexus to a current or prior pregnancy or childbirth. Accordingly, as with many conditions that can be “related medical conditions,” this determination will be made on a case-by-case basis.

Comments and Response to Comments Regarding Coverage of Specific Conditions—Lactation

One comment claimed there was a split between courts on the issue of whether lactation falls within the scope of the PDA, stating that some courts, including the Fourth and Sixth Circuits, found that it does not, while other courts have found that it does. One case cited by the comment, however, does not address coverage of lactation as a related medical condition under Title VII. The case of Derungs v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 374 F.3d 428 (6th Cir. 2004), involved a question of whether a store's ban on public breastfeeding was discriminatory under a State public accommodation statute where that statute did not include protection on the basis of “pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions.” Another case cited by the comment, Barrash v. Bowen, 846 F.2d 927 (4th Cir. 1988) (per curiam), is similarly inapposite. In Barrash, the Fourth Circuit held that a Federal Government employee who challenged her termination of employment on grounds of unauthorized absence as violative of her constitutional and contractual rights was not entitled to 6 months of leave in order to breastfeed her baby. That court's statement, that “[u]nder the [PDA] . . . , pregnancy and related conditions must be treated as illnesses only when incapacitating,” was subsequently recognized by the same court as “ dicta without any citation of authority.” By contrast, EEOC v. Houston Funding II, Ltd., held that lactation is a related medical condition of pregnancy for purposes of the PDA because it is the “physiological process of secreting milk from mammary glands and is directly caused by hormonal changes associated with pregnancy and childbirth” and is “a physiological result of being pregnant and bearing a child.” Hicks v. City of Tuscaloosa agrees with Houston Funding that lactation is a related medical condition and therefore covered under the PDA. Thus, Derungs and Barrash do not foreclose a finding that lactation can be a “related medical condition” under Title VII and do not undercut the Commission's conclusion that lactation can be a related medical condition under the PWFA.

Comments and Response to Comments Regarding Coverage of Specific Conditions—Infertility and Fertility Treatments

Some comments agreed with the Commission's inclusion of infertility and fertility treatments in the list of covered conditions in the regulation. By contrast, other comments stated that the Title VII case law on infertility is inconsistent and thus infertility and fertility treatments should not be included in the list of potentially covered conditions in the regulation. The Commission concludes that, as with other conditions, and consistent with case law and its prior policy, whether infertility and fertility treatments are covered by the PWFA will be based on the particular circumstances of the situation, thus potentially allowing for reasonable accommodations for treatment for infertility when an employee with the capacity to become pregnant is trying to get pregnant.

In Johnson Controls, the Supreme Court struck down an employer policy that discriminated between workers based on childbearing capacity and held that the PDA prohibits discrimination based on potential pregnancy. In accordance with Johnson Controls, discrimination based on the potential to be pregnant, not only current pregnancy, is covered by Title VII and the PDA. Because Title VII, as amended by the PDA, can cover potential pregnancy, several courts have found that it protects against discrimination for those undergoing in vitro fertilization (IVF) or infertility treatments related to becoming pregnant because these actions are related to the capacity to become pregnant. By contrast, notably in the insurance context where the challenged restriction excluded all types of infertility treatments from coverage, regardless of the insured employee's capacity to become pregnant, courts have found such policies did not violate the PDA. Those cases do not stand for the proposition that fertility treatments are never covered by the statutory phrase “pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions,” but instead hold that the particular claims in those cases fail based on the lack of differential treatment based on sex. The Commission's Enforcement Guidance on Pregnancy Discrimination summarizes the law in this regard:

Employment decisions related to infertility treatments implicate Title VII under limited circumstances. Because surgical impregnation is intrinsically tied to a woman's childbearing capacity, an inference of unlawful sex discrimination may be raised if, for example, an employee is penalized for taking time off from work to undergo such a procedure. In contrast, with respect to the exclusion of infertility from employer-provided health insurance, courts have generally held that exclusions of all infertility coverage for all employees is gender neutral and does not violate Title VII. Title VII may be implicated by exclusions of particular treatments that apply only to one gender.

Thus, depending upon the facts of the case, including whether the infertility treatments are sought by an employee with the capacity to become pregnant for the purpose of becoming pregnant, accommodations for an employee due to physical or mental conditions related to, affected by, or arising out of infertility or fertility treatments may be provided under the PWFA, absent undue hardship.

Comments and Response to Comments Regarding Coverage of Specific Conditions—Contraception

Some comments agreed with the Commission's inclusion of contraception in the regulation. By contrast, some comments stated that the Commission had not properly interpreted Federal case law related to the coverage of contraception and that the Eighth Circuit's holding in In re Union Pacific Railroad Employment Practices Litigation forecloses accommodations related to contraception under all circumstances.

The Commission disagrees that reasonable accommodations regarding contraception for an employee who has the capacity to become pregnant are foreclosed in all cases by In re Union Pacific. As stated above, the Supreme Court has held that Title VII “prohibit[s] an employer from discriminating against a woman because of her capacity to become pregnant.” Consistent with this holding, the Eighth Circuit and other courts, like the Commission, have long recognized that the protections of Title VII extend to employees based on the employees' potential or intent to become pregnant.

As stated in the Enforcement Guidance on Pregnancy Discrimination, interpreting In re Union Pacific as holding that contraception is never related to pregnancy for purposes of the PDA because it is used prior to pregnancy would be inconsistent with Johnson Controls and many other cases.

In the Commission's view, In re Union Pacific is best understood as a case about a specific health insurance policy that excluded coverage of both prescription and non-prescription contraceptive methods that were used to prevent pregnancy, regardless of the sex of the employee who used them. The gender-neutral nature of the insurance exclusion was central to In re Union Pacific' s holding that the insurance policy did not constitute disparate treatment under Title VII. This is similar to the reasoning of courts that have found that denial of insurance coverage for infertility generally, which can affect employees regardless of their capacity to become pregnant, does not violate the PDA, while still leaving open the possibility that the PDA could be violated if an employee was penalized for using leave for IVF treatments. As with infertility, the failure of particular Title VII claims related to contraception based on the lack of gender-based differential treatment does not mean that contraception can never be covered by the statutory phrase “pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions.”

As stated in the Commission Decision on Coverage of Contraception, the PDA can cover discrimination regarding contraception when, unlike the facts in In re Union Pacific, the challenged restriction regarding contraception coverage is limited to those who have the capacity to become pregnant. Thus, in the Commission Decision on Coverage of Contraception, the exclusion of prescription contraception violated the PDA's prohibition on sex discrimination because prescription contraception could only be used by those who have the capacity to become pregnant. Other courts similarly have concluded that an insurance policy's exclusion of contraception coverage that only can be used by those with the capacity to become pregnant violates the PDA.

Finally, Congress chose to write the PWFA using the same phrase as in Title VII, as amended by the PDA, and directed the Commission to issue regulations. Congress is presumed to have known the meaning previously given to “pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions” by courts and the Commission, as well as the established principles of statutory construction. This includes the Commission's interpretation in its 2000 Commission Decision on Coverage of Contraception and in its 2015 Enforcement Guidance on Pregnancy Discrimination. Therefore, it is reasonable to conclude that Congress expected the Commission to interpret the language in the PWFA consistently with its interpretation of the same language in the PDA.

Thus, under the PWFA, depending on the facts, a limitation related to contraception that affects the individual employee's potential pregnancy can be the basis for a request for an accommodation. Whether a particular set of facts will support the necessary nexus between contraception and an individual employee's potential pregnancy is a determination that will be made on a case-by-case basis.

Comments and Response to Comments Regarding Coverage of Specific Conditions—Other Conditions

Some comments requested that specific conditions be added to the list in the regulation. However, inclusion on the list does not make it more or less likely that a specific condition in a specific situation will be considered pregnancy, childbirth or a related medical condition—it is a fact-specific determination. Some comments requested that the Commission opine on whether specific conditions (including ones on which neither the courts nor the Commission have yet opined) would be covered under “related medical conditions” under the PWFA. Especially in the situations where the courts and the Commission have not yet spoken, the Commission believes that this is something best left to development on a case-by-case basis within specific factual contexts.

Inclusion of Abortion in the Definition of “Pregnancy, Childbirth, or Related Medical Conditions”

Preliminary Considerations

The Commission received approximately 54,000 comments (most of which were form or slightly altered form comments from individuals) urging the Commission to exclude abortion from the definition of “pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions.” The Commission also received approximately 40,000 comments (most of which were form or slightly altered form comments from individuals or sign-on letters) supporting the inclusion of abortion in the definition of “pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions.”

Many of the comments urging the Commission to exclude abortion from the definition of “pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions” expressed the view that abortion is the destruction of a human life, that it is objectionable for moral or religious reasons, and that it is not health care. The Commission recognizes these are sincere, deeply held convictions and are often part of an individual's religious beliefs. The Commission also received many comments that expressed deeply held beliefs, including religious beliefs, that abortion is a necessary part of health care and that an employer's religious beliefs should not dictate an employee's ability to receive a reasonable accommodation under the PWFA.

In the final regulation, the Commission includes abortion in its definition of “pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions,” as proposed in the NPRM and consistent with the Commission's and courts' longstanding interpretation of the same phrase in Title VII. The Commission responds to comments regarding this issue below. Preliminarily, the Commission provides the following context to clarify the limits of the PWFA.

First, the PWFA is a workplace anti-discrimination law. It does not regulate the provision of abortion services or affect whether and under what circumstances an abortion should be permitted. The PWFA does not require any employee to have—or not to have—an abortion, does not require taxpayers to pay for any abortions, and does not compel health care providers to provide any abortions. The PWFA also cannot be used to require an employer-sponsored health plan to pay for or cover any particular item, procedure, or treatment, including an abortion. The PWFA does not require reasonable accommodations that would cause an employer to pay any travel-related expenses for an employee to obtain an abortion. Given these limitations, the type of accommodation that most likely will be sought under the PWFA regarding an abortion is time off to attend a medical appointment or for recovery. The PWFA, like the ADA, does not require that leave as an accommodation be paid leave, so leave will be unpaid unless the employer's policies provide otherwise.

Second, the PWFA provides a mechanism for a qualified employee with a known limitation related to, affected by, or arising out of pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions to receive workplace accommodations. The term “abortion” is included in the regulation's definition of “pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions” for the limited purpose of determining whether an employee qualifies for a workplace accommodation under the PWFA. As shown in the public comments, beliefs about when an abortion may be morally or religiously permissible, even within religious traditions, are not monolithic.

Third, despite the large number of comments that the Commission received, the Commission's historical experience, in more than four decades of enforcing Title VII, is that very few employers have actually faced a situation where an employee is expressly requesting leave for an abortion and the employer declines to grant the leave on religious or moral grounds. Since 1978, Title VII has required that employers who provide sick leave provide that leave in a non-discriminatory manner to women affected by pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions. This includes, and has included since 1978, allowing employees affected by pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions to use employer-provided leave in order to have time off to have an abortion. Yet the public comments the Commission received did not cite any Title VII cases that ruled against the employer where a request for leave for an abortion was at issue, and the comments did not provide evidence that the Title VII requirement has caused problems for employers in the past. Nonetheless, under the framework of this final rule, accommodations related to abortion—like all accommodations—remain subject to applicable exceptions and defenses, including both those based on religion and undue hardship.

With this background, the Commission responds to the comments it received.

Interpretation of “Pregnancy, Childbirth, or Related Medical Conditions” as Consistent With Its Meaning in Title VII

Comments Regarding the Commission's Proposed Definition of “Pregnancy, Childbirth, or Related Medical Conditions” as Reflected in Statutory Text

Comments regarding the Commission's decision to include “abortion” in the definition of “pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions” made several arguments related to the statutory text of the PWFA and Title VII.

Many comments in favor of the Commission's inclusion of abortion in the proposed definition of “pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions” asserted that its inclusion accurately reflects the statutory text of the PWFA; that the phrase “pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions” is taken directly from Title VII and uses identical language; that the identical language in the PWFA and Title VII must be interpreted consistently; that Congress' drafting the PWFA against the backdrop of Title VII strongly suggests that its use of Title VII's language would require the language to have the same meaning in the PWFA, absent a clear indication to the contrary; and that in enacting the PDA, Congress expressly stated that the statute applied to employees who obtained abortions, confirming its statutory intent to prohibit discrimination against employees for obtaining abortion care, and that Congress' use of the term in the PWFA is consistent with that underlying interpretation.

Other comments favoring the Commission's inclusion of abortion in the definition of “pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions” stated that its inclusion is important for consistency and clarity, noting that both employers and employees have relied on the Commission's longstanding inclusion of this interpretation in guidance to understand what constitutes “pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions”; that applying the same definition under the PWFA provides important consistency when litigation is brought under Title VII and the PWFA simultaneously; and that the PWFA's drafters intentionally drew specific terms from Title VII and the ADA to ensure employees and employers would have a clear understanding of the meaning of those terms.

By contrast, many comments opposing the Commission's proposed definition stated that abortion could not be included in the definition of “pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions” because the PWFA's text does not mention abortion; that Congress' intent to include abortion in the definition of “pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions” cannot be inferred simply because the PWFA uses the same language as Title VII; that the PWFA does not direct the Commission to construct a broad definition of “related medical conditions”; and that the inclusion of “pregnant workers” in the statute's title should exclude employees who end their pregnancies via an abortion. Comments also stated that, under canons of statutory interpretation, the general term “or related medical conditions” is best read to cover only those concepts akin to the specific terms it follows—and that abortion is not related to “pregnancy” or “childbirth.”

Comments opposed to the Commission's inclusion of abortion in the proposed definition of “pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions” also asserted that under the text of the PWFA, employers should be required only to accommodate employees who are currently pregnant or who give birth. For instance, comments asserting that under the PWFA a “related medical condition” must be related to a current or recent pregnancy or childbirth analogized the PWFA's accommodation provision to the accommodation provisions under Title VII and the ADA, which apply when an employee has a sincerely held religious belief or practice, or a disability, respectively.

Comments also asserted that abortion is the opposite of pregnancy and childbirth. For instance, comments stated that an abortion is unlike pregnancy because it is a procedure that ends a pregnancy and the possibility of childbirth from that pregnancy; and that pregnancy is not a medical condition to be treated with an abortion.

Comments opposed to the Commission's inclusion of abortion in the definition of “pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions” also maintained that “related medical conditions” should be construed narrowly under the PWFA. For instance, some comments stated that Congress' inclusion of the term “childbirth” meant that abortion could not be included in the regulation; that a broad definition of “related medical conditions” would render the term “childbirth” superfluous; and that the PWFA's definition should only refer to involuntary, detrimental impacts of pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions. Comments stated that, in including contraception and abortion, the Commission's definition goes beyond medical conditions to cover medical interventions; these comments argued, for example, that the act of obtaining reproductive health care—including contraception and abortion—is not, by definition, a medical, physical, or mental condition, and thus it cannot be a PWFA limitation.

Response to Comments Regarding the Commission's Proposed Definition of “Pregnancy, Childbirth, or Related Medical Conditions” as Reflected in Statutory Text

The Commission agrees with comments expressing support for inclusion of abortion in the proposed definition of “pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions” for which a qualified employee could receive an accommodation, absent undue hardship.

In interpreting a statute, an agency must start with its text. The PWFA does not define the phrase “pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions.” For nearly 45 years, however, consistent with the plain language of the statute, congressional intent, and Federal courts' interpretation of the statutory text, the Commission has interpreted “pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions” in Title VII to include the decision to have—or not to have—an abortion and to prohibit discrimination in employment practices because an employee had or did not have an abortion. Based on well-established rules of statutory interpretation, the Commission properly interprets “pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions” to have the same meaning in the PWFA as it does under Title VII. As the Supreme Court has stated, “When administrative and judicial interpretations have settled the meaning of an existing statutory provision, repetition of the same language in a new statute indicates, as a general matter, the intent to incorporate its administrative and judicial interpretations as well.” The Commission concludes that it would not be consistent with Congress' intent, as expressed in its choice of this statutory language for the PWFA, to construct a broader or narrower definition of “pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions” than under Title VII. Rather, following the canons of statutory interpretation, the Commission is using the definition that already exists for this identical phrase under Title VII. Indeed, it is likely that defining this phrase differently than it has been defined in a parallel statute would exceed the Commission's congressionally delegated authority.

As set out in the NPRM, Congress previously used the phrase “pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions” when, in enacting the PDA, it amended Title VII to explicitly state that Title VII's prohibition against sex discrimination includes a prohibition against discrimination on the basis of “pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions.” The legislative history of the PDA expressly stated that the PDA's protections applied to situations involving abortions, and indeed, the statutory text enacted by Congress explicitly excluded certain abortion procedures from health insurance requirements, since the statute would otherwise have been read to require their coverage, while still requiring coverage in certain limited circumstances.

Congress' express purpose in enacting the PWFA was to supplement Title VII's protections for qualified employees affected by pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions; in other words, the same employees protected by Title VII, as amended by the PDA. To that end, Congress' approach in both laws was to ensure that employers are not required to pay for abortions for their employees but that employees are not discriminated against in the workplace for having them. Further, the Commission agrees with the comments that using the same definition that the Commission and courts have used for the same phrase in Title VII provides important clarity and consistency for employers and employees.

Using the same definition also provides clarity and consistency for courts and harmonizes the two statutory schemes. Title VII and the PWFA cover the same employers and employees. Having two definitions of the same term would cause confusion for courts and potentially require them to reach conflicting decisions. Moreover, as cases under the PWFA may, depending on the circumstances, also be brought under Title VII, courts could be asked to decide cases involving both Title VII's prohibition of discrimination based on “pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions” and the PWFA's reasonable accommodation provision.

Even if the Commission were authorized to ignore the courts' and its own prior longstanding, consistent interpretation of “pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions,” the Commission would reach the same conclusion that the 1978 Congress did—that the phrase “pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions” includes choosing to have or not to have an abortion, based on the plain meaning of the phrase “pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions.” By definition, individuals who are choosing whether or not to have an abortion are pregnant. And the condition of being pregnant does not depend on the ultimate outcome of the pregnancy, as highlighted by Congress extending coverage to “childbirth” separate from “pregnancy.” Thus, the term “pregnancy” naturally includes all of those limitations arising out of the pregnancy itself, regardless of whether any particular pregnancy ends in miscarriage, live birth, an abortion, or any other potential outcome. If an employee is denied an accommodation because they are seeking an abortion, or not seeking an abortion, that employee has necessarily been denied an accommodation on account of their current pregnancy. Accordingly, the decision to have or not to have an abortion falls squarely within the ordinary meaning of the phrase “pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions.”

Given how courts and the Commission have defined “pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions” in Title VII, the Commission disagrees that the PWFA and its implementing regulation only would apply to qualified employees who are currently pregnant or who recently gave birth, thus implicitly excluding abortion. First, such an interpretation would exclude qualified employees who have had miscarriages or are otherwise no longer pregnant, which appears to be inconsistent with the text of, and does not appear to be the intent of, either the PWFA or the PDA. As stated above, by definition, qualified employees who seek an abortion are either currently or recently pregnant. Finally, the Commission sees no evidence that the inclusion of “childbirth” evinces congressional intent to construct a narrower definition of “related medical conditions” under the PWFA than under Title VII, as both statutes contain this identical language. As stated above, both the legislative history and the explicit exclusion of certain abortion procedures from health insurance requirements under the PDA evince Congress' intent to include abortion in the definition of “pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions” under Title VII.

Comments Regarding the Commission's Proposed Definition of “Pregnancy, Childbirth, or Related Medical Conditions” as Reflected in the Statutory Intent and Structure of the PWFA

Many comments regarding the Commission's proposed inclusion of abortion in the definition of “pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions” made arguments related to the statutory intent and structure of the PWFA.

Comments in favor of the inclusion of abortion in the definition of “pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions,” including from Members of Congress, asserted that the Commission's inclusion of abortion in the definition is consistent with the PWFA's statutory intent and structure; that Congress' express purpose in enacting the PWFA was to supplement Title VII's protections; that Congress adopted the PWFA to remedy gaps in existing legal protections, including in Title VII, and it understood how “pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions” is interpreted by the courts; that Congress understood that the PWFA could include possible accommodations related to an abortion, as evidenced by the statements of legislators who opposed the PWFA, showing that they understood it could require accommodations related to an abortion; that Congress recognized the PWFA as an opportunity for Congress to finally fulfill a promise of Title VII; and that Congress intentionally included “related medical conditions” in the PWFA to encompass conditions beyond simply pregnancy and childbirth.

Many comments in favor of the inclusion of abortion expressed that including abortion furthers Congress' policy goal of protecting pregnant workers from harm; that it accurately reflects the range of needs and conditions that workers may experience that require reasonable workplace accommodations in relation to pregnancy; that abortion care is a safe, common, and essential component of reproductive health care; that decisions regarding abortion are private medical matters and should be made by patients in consultation with their clinicians and without undue interference by outside parties; and that providing accommodations for abortion would mean that employees would not have to risk their health, lives, or livelihoods to access care. Many such comments focused on specific positive health and social outcomes that employees would enjoy if they had access to accommodations for abortion, such as the ability to maintain personal bodily autonomy; to choose when to have or not have children; to receive necessary health care in the event of intimate partner violence, rape, incest, fetal anomalies, and exposure to teratogenic medications; and to receive necessary health care in the event of pregnancy complications that may be so severe that abortion is the only measure that will preserve a pregnant employee's health or save their life—including placental abruption, bleeding from placenta previa, preeclampsia or eclampsia, and cardiac or renal conditions.

Comments opposed to the inclusion of abortion in the definition of “pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions” asserted that including abortion does not reflect Congress' generally expressed intent for the PWFA. For instance, comments stated that the PWFA's intent only is to ensure that pregnant and postpartum women can receive reasonable accommodations to safely work; that the PWFA's intent only is to support mothers during pregnancy and childbirth and only to protect and benefit the health of mothers and their fetuses, as well as to provide accommodations for miscarriage, stillbirth, treatment of an ectopic pregnancy, or emergency treatment intended to preserve the life of the pregnant employee, but not an abortion; that the Commission's interpretation turns the PWFA into a general reproductive health care statute, defying Congress' intent; that the PWFA was intended by its supporters to be like the ADA, which the comments construed not to require accommodations for abortion; that Congress did not intend to make forays into controversial social policy by enacting the PWFA; that including abortion ignores that Congress cited statistics about working mothers in support of the PWFA and talked about the health of the mother and baby; and that Congress does not hide “elephants in mouseholes,” and abortion is an elephant in the mousehole of “pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions.”

Some comments opposed to the inclusion of abortion also asserted that the definition does not reflect congressional intent as expressed by the PWFA's structure. These comments noted that Congress chose not to amend Title VII by incorporating the PWFA. Such comments inferred from this choice that Congress implicitly declined to import Title VII's definition of “pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions” and its abortion-related requirements into the PWFA. These comments stated that the PWFA does not specifically require the same definition of “pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions” as Title VII, as it does with other terms from the ADA and Title VII, and if Congress wanted the Commission to provide examples of “related medical conditions” it would have expressly said so.

Finally, some comments opposed to the proposed definition stated that Title VII's insurance exclusion provision, which addresses abortion and has been used to suggest that Title VII otherwise covers abortion, is different from the PWFA's similar exclusion provision.

Response to Comments Regarding the Commission's Proposed Definition of “Pregnancy, Childbirth, or Related Medical Conditions” as Reflected in the Statutory Intent and Structure of the PWFA

As stated above, the Commission's inclusion of abortion in the definition of “pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions” is supported by the plain text of the statute and by statutory intent and structure and is in keeping with the well-established rules of statutory construction. Congress chose to write the PWFA using an identical phrase, “pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions,” from Title VII and did not define the phrase in the PWFA. Nor did it place any limitations or rules of construction on the definition of the phrase in the PWFA. Accordingly, the Commission gives the phrase the same meaning under the PWFA as it has under Title VII for nearly 45 years. The Commission agrees that the PWFA's focus is accommodation, but, as the text of the PWFA and the ADA state and the Supreme Court has reiterated, accommodations are a form of nondiscrimination. Thus, the fact that the PWFA provides accommodations does not make it a different type of statute from Title VII. Additionally, although Congress specifically incorporated certain definitions into the PWFA from the ADA and Title VII, such as those for “reasonable accommodation,” “undue hardship,” “employer,” and “employee,” in those situations, the terms appear in more than one other statute enforced by the Commission, and some of their definitions vary across statutes. In incorporating certain terms, the Commission understands Congress' intent as specifying which definition it chose to adopt in the PWFA to avoid confusion. By contrast, there is only one other statute that the Commission enforces that uses the phrase “pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions,” and that is Title VII, as amended by the PDA. Therefore, Congress' intent to use the Title VII definition in the PWFA is clear.

Further supporting the Commission's interpretation of the phrase “pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions” is the fact that the PWFA passed as part of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2023 (CAA), in which Congress included several provisions explicitly limiting the use of Federal funds for abortion. Where Congress includes particular language in one section of a law but omits it in another, it is generally presumed that Congress acts intentionally and purposely in including or excluding certain language. Given that Congress explicitly included exclusions regarding abortion in certain sections of the CAA but omitted any such exclusion in the PWFA, the Commission concludes that the omission was an intentional act.

The Commission's interpretation also is consistent with the legislative history of the PDA, the statute that is the source of the phrase, “pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions.” The Congressional Conference Report accompanying the PDA provides: “Because [the PDA] applies to all situations in which women are `affected by pregnancy, childbirth, and related medical conditions,' its basic language covers decisions by women who chose to terminate their pregnancies. Thus, no employer may, for example, fire or refuse to hire a woman simply because she has exercised her right to have an abortion.” By including the same key phrase in the PWFA and not articulating a different meaning than in the PDA, Congress is presumed to know and intend that the same definition will be applied. And given the longstanding and public interpretation of this phrase, by both the Commission and the courts, the Commission disagrees that adopting the same interpretation as Title VII amounts to Congress “hiding” an elephant in a mousehole.

Furthermore, the second sentence of the PDA states that employers do not have to pay for health insurance benefits for abortion, except where necessary to preserve the life of the mother or where medical complications have arisen from an abortion. The inclusion of this limited language regarding abortion coverage, coupled with clear statements in the legislative history, supports the conclusion that Congress intended for Title VII, as amended by the PDA, to protect employees against discrimination based on abortion and that Congress provided an exception, largely motivated by religious freedom concerns, for employers to opt out of providing health benefits to cover the procedure itself. Of note, the PWFA has a similar structure—it requires employers not to discriminate against protected qualified employees by failing to provide them reasonable accommodations, but it does not require, or permit the Commission to require, “an employer-sponsored health plan to pay for or cover any particular item, procedure, or treatment.”

As a matter of the PWFA's plain text, therefore, the Commission determines that the decision to have, or not to have, an abortion is encompassed within the phrase “pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions.” Because this conclusion follows from the statutory text, the Commission does not believe that other concerns raised by commenters are relevant. The Commission's determination is not based on the potential health or social outcomes related to abortion; rather, the Commission's determination is based on the statutory text. Moreover, it bears emphasizing that this rulemaking does not require abortions or affect the availability of abortion; it simply ensures that employees who choose to have (or not to have) an abortion are able to continue participating in the workforce, by seeking reasonable accommodations from covered employers, as needed and absent undue hardship.

Comments Regarding the Commission's Proposed Definition of “Pregnancy, Childbirth, or Related Medical Conditions” and Statements From Members of Congress and the White House About the PWFA

Some comments pointed to statements made by Members of Congress to either support or dispute the idea that the definition of “pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions” in the PWFA includes abortion. Comments also noted the absence of certain statements from Members of Congress and the White House.

First, comments that supported the inclusion of abortion in the definition of “pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions” pointed to statements by opponents of the bill, whose opposition was based on the lawmakers' views that abortion would be covered. Some comments also pointed to an amendment proposed by Senator James Lankford that the Senate rejected, which stated that “[t]his division shall not be construed to require a religious entity described in Section 702(a) of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to make an accommodation that would violate the entity's religion” as evidence that Senators knew that abortion would be covered.

Comments that did not support the inclusion of abortion in the definition of “pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions” pointed to statements made during floor debate by two of the co-sponsors of the PWFA in the Senate, Senator Robert P. Casey, Jr. and Senator William Cassidy. These comments also mentioned that, in a statement on the House floor, Representative Jerrold Nadler, lead sponsor of the PWFA, explained that the PWFA should be interpreted consistently with Title VII, stating: “The Pregnant Workers Fairness Act aligns with Title VII in providing protections and reasonable accommodations for `pregnancy, childbirth, and related medical conditions,' like lactation.”

Second, comments that disagreed with the Commission's proposed inclusion of abortion in the definition of “pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions” pointed to statements made by Senator Steven Daines and Senator Cassidy after the Senate voted to add the PWFA to the CAA, both of which stated that accommodations related to abortion should not be covered. In addition, comments that disagreed with the Commission's position pointed to the lack of statements by supporters of the bill in Congress and the White House, and by advocacy groups, regarding its coverage of abortion. Comments stated that the PWFA would not have enjoyed bipartisan support, if the intent of the law were to include abortion, and including abortion as a related medical condition in the rule would make the political parties less likely to work together.

Response to Comments Regarding the Commission's Proposed Definition of “Pregnancy, Childbirth, or Related Medical Conditions” and Statements From Members of Congress and the White House About the PWFA

The PWFA's text, structure, and intent support the Commission's proposed definition. Even if the Commission's interpretation were inconsistent with the cited statements of individual Members of Congress during the PWFA's passage, statements made by individual Members of Congress during floor debate do not justify a departure from an interpretation that Congress, courts, and the Commission have consistently adhered to since the PDA was enacted more than four decades ago. Again, the Commission's interpretation must start with the text of the statute. Relying on the text, rather than the individual statements of Members of Congress, follows the Supreme Court's requirements when interpreting a statute; as the Court has noted, “[p]assing a law often requires compromise, where even the most firm public demands bend to competing interests. What Congress ultimately agrees on is the text that it enacts, not the preferences expressed by certain legislators.”

In addition, the Commission does not agree that the PWFA's legislative history counsels for a different interpretation of “pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions” than in the PDA. For example, according to the House PWFA Committee Report, Members knew that abortion would be covered as a pregnancy-related condition for which some employers would need to provide accommodation. Additionally, the Commission's definition is consistent with the full floor statement of Senator Casey and the comment that the Senator submitted during the public comment period. Consistent with the statutory text and Congress' intent, the PWFA does not impose a categorical mandate on an employer to provide leave for an abortion. Leave, like any accommodation, is subject to applicable exceptions and defenses, including both those based on religion and on undue hardship. Nothing in the PWFA requires an employer to pay for an abortion or provide health care benefits for abortion in violation of State law.

Finally, numerous legislators submitted comments during the public comment period that supported or opposed the inclusion of abortion in the definition of “pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions.” As these were statements made by Members of Congress after the passage of a bill, the Commission gave them due consideration as statements of the views of each particular Member who signed them.

In response to the comments regarding the political process, the Commission cannot speculate on counterfactual scenarios such as what might have triggered a filibuster of the PWFA in Congress, nor what would diminish bipartisan support for future legislation. And the Commission cannot reinterpret the definition of “pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions” based on the purported absence of certain statements by Members of Congress, advocates, or the executive branch during the bill's passage.

As explained above, the Commission must rely on the plain text of the statute. Given the meaning of the words that Congress chose to use in the PWFA, and the Commission's and courts' long history of interpreting those identical words to include abortion, the Commission will interpret those words the same way in the PWFA.

Comments Regarding the Commission's Proposed Definition of “Pregnancy, Childbirth, or Related Medical Conditions” and Administrative and Judicial Interpretation

Many comments in favor of the Commission's inclusion of abortion in the definition of “pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions” asserted that the Commission's inclusion of abortion in the definition accurately reflects longstanding judicial and administrative interpretations under Title VII. Comments stated that the Commission's interpretation is correct and consistent with decades of authority under Title VII, including legislative history, Federal case law, and Commission guidance; that existing case law supports the Commission's interpretation that Title VII protects employees from discrimination for contemplating or obtaining an abortion or refusing to submit to an employer's demand that they obtain an abortion; and that the Commission's Enforcement Guidance on Pregnancy Discrimination reaffirmed that choosing whether to have or not to have an abortion is covered under the PDA.

Some comments opposed to the Commission's proposed inclusion of abortion in the definition of “pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions” asserted that the Commission's definition is contrary to judicial and administrative interpretations under Title VII.

Some comments disputed the Commission's statement that existing case law under Title VII supports the Commission's definition, claiming that the decisions do not apply to the PWFA and are distinguishable; that there is not a widespread judicial consensus about the meaning of “related medical conditions”; and that the Commission should not rely on lower court decisions.

Some comments took issue with the Commission's reliance on its 2015 Enforcement Guidance on Pregnancy Discrimination to interpret the phrase “pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions” under the PWFA, as the Enforcement Guidance on Pregnancy Discrimination does not receive binding judicial deference; only addresses pregnancy discrimination, not accommodation; and was issued many years after the PDA's enactment.

Response to Comments Regarding the Commission's Proposed Definition of “Pregnancy, Childbirth, or Related Medical Conditions” and Administrative and Judicial Interpretation

The Commission disagrees with the comments that dispute the case law it cited and its reliance on its Enforcement Guidance on Pregnancy Discrimination. The Title VII decisions the Commission cited involve situations where employers discriminated against employees because they contemplated having, or chose to have, an abortion. These decisions include Doe v. C.A.R.S. Protection Plus, a Third Circuit decision relating to leave holding that an employer may not discriminate against an employee because she had an abortion. As stated above, refusal to provide reasonable accommodation is a form of discrimination. Finally, the Commission's reliance on its Enforcement Guidance on Pregnancy Discrimination is appropriate because it represents and demonstrates the consistent position of the Commission. It is immaterial that the guidance was voted on and approved by the Commission years after the passage of the PDA, especially given that the year after the PDA was enacted, the Commission issued its Questions & Answers about the PDA stating that abortion is covered under the PDA and prohibiting discrimination in employment practices because an employee had or did not have an abortion. Thus, the Enforcement Guidance on Pregnancy Discrimination reconfirmed and still reflects the Commission's decades-long position.

Comments Regarding the Commission's Proposed Definition of “Pregnancy, Childbirth, or Related Medical Conditions” and Other Laws

Some comments pointed to other laws to dispute the Commission's definition of “pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions.” The comments pointed to the provisions in annual appropriations legislation, for example, the Hyde and Weldon Amendments, limiting the use of Federal funds for abortion except in certain circumstances. The comments also stated that Congress has never passed a law explicitly promoting the right to abortion. Similar comments noted that some States such as West Virginia and Louisiana have adopted their own versions of the PWFA, and no court appears to have interpreted State or local PWFAs to include abortion. Comments also stated that the Commission should clarify whether its regulation supersedes abortion funding restrictions in the Hyde Amendment and similar amendments, and how the Federal Government will ensure that Federal agencies do not pay for abortion accommodations and ensure that the same rules that apply to the ADA regarding taxpayer funding for abortion apply to the PWFA.

Response to Comments Regarding the Commission's Proposed Definition of “Pregnancy, Childbirth, or Related Medical Conditions” and Other Laws

In interpreting the identical language from Title VII in the context of the PWFA, the Commission cannot infer congressional intent in a manner contrary to the plain text interpretation, particularly not based on what Congress could have said, but chose not to say. There is no evidence to suggest that the other Federal statutes cited by the comments should be considered by the Commission as interpreting the PWFA, nor is there any persuasive reason to give controlling weight to these statutes (instead of interpreting the PWFA consistently with Title VII, as Congress intended). Rather, the fact that Congress chose to provide express exclusions related to abortion in the cited statutes, including in the CAA, but did not choose to do so in the PWFA, suggests that if Congress wanted to exclude abortion from the definition of “pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions” in the PWFA, it would have done so expressly.

Moreover, the PWFA, as interpreted by the Commission in this rule, does not in any way promote abortion; it simply provides for the possibility of an accommodation related to a qualified employee seeking an abortion, absent undue hardship, and there is only a narrow context in which this protection would likely apply—when an employee is seeking leave—given the prohibitions of 42 U.S.C. 2000gg-5(a)(2). The PWFA also provides for accommodations for employees who choose not to have an abortion, absent undue hardship.

Further, the interpretation of State laws is not as persuasive as the interpretation of Title VII when Congress used the same words in both Federal statutes. Comments addressing State laws did not address whether cases regarding abortion arose under these PWFA-analogous laws. As stated above, despite the large number of comments on this issue, the Commission's practical experience under Title VII shows that litigation regarding this issue is not common. Finally, as stated previously, the Commission's rule does not require any employer to pay for an abortion.

Comments Regarding the Commission's Proposed Definition of “Pregnancy, Childbirth, or Related Medical Conditions” and the Dobbs Decision

Some comments stated that the Supreme Court's decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Org., 597 U.S. 215 (2022), which concluded that there is no Federal constitutional right to abortion and overruled Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973), and Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992), affects the Commission's rulemaking.

First, some comments said that, because the PWFA was enacted soon after the Court issued its Dobbs decision, Congress should have stated more clearly in the PWFA any protection for an employee seeking an accommodation related to an abortion, if that was its intent. Second, some comments asserted that, because of the Dobbs decision, abortion is a State issue, not a Federal issue, that there is no Federal right to abortion, that including abortion accommodations in the PWFA would circumvent Dobbs, and that under Dobbs, abortion is not health care. Comments also stated that the Title VII case law cited by the Commission involved substantial reliance on the constitutional right to abortion now undone by Dobbs.

Response to Comments Regarding the Commission's Proposed Definition of “Pregnancy, Childbirth, or Related Medical Conditions” and the Dobbs Decision

Given the language that Congress used in the PWFA and the use and interpretation of that same language in Title VII, the Dobbs decision does not suggest a different definition of the phrase “pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions.” First, Congress is not required to speak directly to a specific issue when it legislates. “In some cases, Congress intends silence to rule out a particular statutory application, while in others Congress' silence signifies merely an expectation that nothing more need be said in order to effectuate the relevant legislative objective.” Congress' choice to use the same phrase in the PWFA as in Title VII, coupled with Congress' decision to enact limitations with respect to abortion in other portions of the CAA but not in the PWFA, supports the Commission's interpretation that “pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions” has the same meaning in the PWFA that it does in Title VII, and it includes abortion. Thus, the conclusion the Commission draws from Congress' lack of an explicit mention of abortion in the PWFA is that Congress did not express its intent for the phrase to have any different meaning than it has under Title VII.

As stated at the beginning of this discussion, the Commission's rule does not regulate abortion or abortion procedures, nor does it require an employer to pay for, promote, or endorse abortion. Additionally, although Dobbs held that the U.S. Constitution's Due Process Clause does not provide a right to abortion, that interpretation of the Constitution does not address Congress' authority to regulate potential employment discrimination by providing for reasonable accommodations for pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions absent undue hardship, as Congress has done in the PWFA. Dobbs did not involve, and the Court did not discuss, employment protections under Title VII, and Dobbs did not purport to interpret the meaning of the phrase “pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions” in Title VII. Ultimately, Dobbs concerned a matter of constitutional interpretation and not one of statutory interpretation, and the cases cited by the Commission in support of the inclusion of abortion in the definition of “pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions” may still be relied on. Indeed, Congress enacted the PWFA after the Dobbs decision and chose to retain the phrase “pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions” that it had used in Title VII without any modification or instruction. Thus, even if Dobbs could be construed as an invitation for Congress to reevaluate that language from Title VII, Congress did not do so.

Comments Regarding the Commission's Proposed Definition of “Pregnancy, Childbirth, or Related Medical Conditions” and Policy Arguments Regarding Abortion

Many comments supported the inclusion of abortion in the definition of “pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions” for various policy reasons. As discussed at length above, such reasons included, for example, stating that it would help employees access essential health care and have autonomy about their reproductive decisions.

By contrast, other comments stated that, as a policy matter, the Commission should not include abortion in the definition of “pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions.” First, some comments speculated that including abortion in the definition will result in employers encouraging their pregnant workers to have abortions. Some of these comments suggested that employers might even require pregnant workers to take leave to have an abortion instead of another available accommodation. Second, some comments stated that there should be no accommodations for abortion because, according to the comments, abortion causes mental health issues for women.

Response to Comments Regarding the Commission's Proposed Definition of “Pregnancy, Childbirth, or Related Medical Conditions” and Policy Arguments Regarding Abortion

As explained above, the Commission must rely on the plain text of the statute. Given the words that Congress chose to use in the PWFA, and the Commission's and courts' long history of interpreting those identical words to include abortion, the Commission will interpret those words the same way in the PWFA. The Commission disagrees with commenters who argued that excluding abortion from the definition serves the policy goals expressed by Congress in the PWFA. On the contrary, as discussed above, the Commission concludes that including abortion in the definition best serves the policy goals expressed by Congress in the PWFA in that it will allow qualified employees with known limitations related to pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions to obtain accommodations to address their needs, absent undue hardship. While the comments make policy arguments opposed to the inclusion of abortion in the definition of “pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions,” these policy objections are not a reason for the Commission to change its interpretation and deviate from the text of the statute and established rules of statutory construction. Additionally, the Commission notes that some of the claims in the comments that argued against abortion for policy reasons have been disputed by health care professionals.

With regard to concerns that employers will force their employees to have abortions, Title VII prohibits covered entities from taking adverse employment actions against an employee based on their decisions to have, or not to have, an abortion. Consistent with this interpretation, the Commission's definition of “pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions” includes both having an abortion and choosing not to have an abortion, thus protecting pregnant employees who decide to continue their pregnancies.

Comments Regarding the Commission's Proposed Definition of “Pregnancy, Childbirth, or Related Medical Conditions” and the Interaction Between State Laws Regarding Abortion and the PWFA

Some comments asserted that covered entities cannot be required to provide accommodations relating to an abortion because some State laws prohibit abortion under certain circumstances. Some comments also noted that some State laws provide that an individual may sue another individual for conduct that aids in the performance of an abortion in violation of State law. A few comments stated that the rule will compel State and local governments to provide accommodations contrary to State law, and that doing so transgresses limits of federalism; one comment asserted that certain Senators were concerned about litigation against the States and voted to remove the PWFA's text that waives State immunity to lawsuits.

Response to Comments Regarding the Commission's Proposed Definition of “Pregnancy, Childbirth, or Related Medical Conditions” and the Interaction Between State Laws Regarding Abortion and the PWFA

The Commission does not agree with comments that the inclusion of abortion in the definition of “pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions” requires covered entities, including State and local governments, to violate State laws that limit access to abortion, nor does the rule transgress limits of federalism. The rule does not prescribe when, where, or under what circumstances an abortion can be obtained or what procedures may be used. If the issue of a PWFA accommodation regarding abortion arises, it will likely concern only a request by a qualified employee for leave from work. Accordingly, State laws that regulate the provision of abortions in certain circumstances do not conflict with covered entities' obligations under the PWFA.

Any potential interaction or conflict between PWFA and State laws, including State laws that allow civil suits to challenge actions that private individuals claim aid in the provision of an abortion, will be addressed on a case-by-case basis. Of note, the PWFA does not require an employer to pay for an abortion, and neither does the regulation.

The Commission agrees that State and local governments are covered employers and are required to provide accommodations under the PWFA, absent undue hardship. As stated above, any potential interaction or conflict between a State law and the PWFA will be addressed on a case-by-case basis. Further, States and local governments that are covered by the PWFA are covered by Title VII, which has protected employees' rights to be free from discrimination in employment for having, or for not having, an abortion for nearly 45 years, and yet comments on this topic did not point to a situation where a State was forced to violate its own laws. Finally, Congress did not vote to remove the section of the PWFA that waives State sovereign immunity; that provision is in 42 U.S.C. 2000gg-4.

Ultimately, whether any particular action taken by an employer pursuant to the PWFA could potentially implicate State law is dependent on the content of each individual State's laws, including how those laws are interpreted by each State's courts. As noted above, commenters did not identify any real-world scenarios in which Title VII's protections for employees' rights with regard to abortion have led to employer concerns about liability under State law. To the extent any such issues arise in connection with the PWFA, the Commission believes they are best addressed on a case-by-case basis, particularly given the State- and fact-specific nature of these issues.

Comments Regarding the Commission's Proposed Definition of “Pregnancy, Childbirth, or Related Medical Conditions” and the Major Questions Doctrine

Some comments argued that to include abortion in the definition of “pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions” implicates the major questions doctrine.

In claiming that the major questions doctrine applies, comments stated that abortion has been a heated political topic or a source of moral controversy; that the Dobbs majority and dissent both found abortion to have important economic consequences; and that the possibility of reasonable accommodations for an abortion meets the threshold of deep political significance, implicating the major questions doctrine. Comments also stated that the Commission must show that the decision to allow for possible reasonable accommodations for an abortion, absent undue hardship, was clear in the text of the PWFA at the time of enactment; that if Congress wanted to put paid abortion leave into the PWFA, it would have done so explicitly; and that the Commission may not issue regulations with vast political significance unless clearly directed by Congress.

By contrast, other comments disputed whether the major questions doctrine applies to the PWFA and the Commission's definition of “pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions.” For instance, one detailed comment noted that the Supreme Court has limited the major questions doctrine to a narrow category of extraordinary paradigm cases that are very different from the posture of the PWFA rulemaking. The comment stated that none of the indicia of a major question exist in this rulemaking—the Commission is merely interpreting a phrase the same way it did in Title VII, with no change to the prevailing interpretation of this longstanding statutory text. Additionally, the comment asserted the rule does not address questions of such vast economic and political significance as to raise a presumption against congressional delegation of authority and the comment supported the rule as an exercise of agency authority to interpret and implement a statute, using the same long-established textual interpretation as in a related statute.

Response to Comments Regarding the Commission's Proposed Definition of “Pregnancy, Childbirth, or Related Medical Conditions” and the Major Questions Doctrine

The Commission disagrees that inclusion of abortion in the definition of “pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions” implicates the major questions doctrine. The inclusion of abortion in the definition of “pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions” is for the limited purpose of qualifying for a workplace accommodation under the PWFA, which is subject to defenses and case-by-case assessment. Moreover, the Commission anticipates that any requests for accommodations related to abortion will typically involve the provision of unpaid leave. Thus, including abortion in the definition of “pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions” is not the type of “extraordinary case[ ]” that implicates the major questions doctrine. The Commission is simply implementing Congress' intent by confirming that the term “related medical conditions” has the same meaning given to the term in Title VII for over four decades. Thus, the Commission is effectuating a policy decision made by Congress itself, not claiming a “newfound power” that would “represent[ ] a transformative expansion in its regulatory authority” or “make a radical or fundamental change to a statutory scheme.” And no court has applied the major questions doctrine to the Commission's identical interpretation of Title VII's identical text.

The provision of possible reasonable accommodations for known limitations related to an abortion does not have the type of economic impact found in other cases that successfully invoked the major questions doctrine. Because the PWFA prohibits any requirement “by regulation or otherwise . . . [for] an employer-sponsored health plan to pay for or cover a particular item, procedure, or treatment,” the Commission anticipates that most requests for accommodations related to an abortion will involve only the provision of leave, which will likely be unpaid. Thus, any economic impact will be minimal.

Further, the Commission's use of the term does not “effec[t] a `fundamental revision of the statute, changing it from [one sort of] scheme of . . . regulation' into an entirely different kind”; rather, it implements a new statute by harmonizing the meaning of “pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions” in Title VII and the PWFA. The “consistency of [an agency's] prior position is significant” when it comes to the major questions doctrine, because “[i]t provides important context” about what Congress “understood” the statute to permit. “Congress must be taken to have been familiar with the existing administrative interpretation.” The relevant statutory language—“pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions”—has a well-documented, consistent, and historical definition, and the Commission is within its authority to use that definition in implementing a new statute.

By contrast, were the Commission to stray from Title VII's interpretation of “pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions” for the purpose of adopting a definition that excluded abortion, the Commission would be taking a novel stance, contrary to the language of the PWFA and the intent expressed by Congress in using the language of Title VII.

Comment Regarding the Commission's Proposed Definition of “Pregnancy, Childbirth, or Related Medical Conditions” and Separation of Powers Concerns

One comment raised a constitutional objection to the Commission's structure, asserting that the President can remove Commissioners “only for cause.”

Response to Comment Regarding the Commission's Proposed Definition of “Pregnancy, Childbirth, or Related Medical Conditions” and Separation of Powers Concerns

The Commission disagrees that there is any constitutional defect in the agency's structure, and, in any event, the comment provides no basis to believe that anything about the rule or its implementation would be different if the Commission had a different structure.

1636.3(c) Employee's Representative

Several comments suggested additions to the definition of “employee's representative,” including “union representative,” “co-worker,” and “manager.” The Commission has added “union representative” to the list, which is further illustrated in Example #31. The addition reflects an important kind of representative and differs from the other illustrative third parties listed. The Commission has not made further changes to the list. The list in the proposed regulation mirrors that set out in ADA policy and is not exhaustive. Further, the Commission believes that the addition of “manager” would not add clarity to the definition and would risk confusing management officials about their roles and obligations under the PWFA.

Other comments proposed changing “other representative” to what they believe to be more descriptive language, such as “any other person who communicates.” The Commission is maintaining “representative” because it is the language used in the statute.

Several comments recommended that the rule require the employee's representative to have the employee's permission to communicate the employee's limitation. The Commission expects that normally the representative will have the employee's permission but notes that there may be situations, for example when the employee is incapacitated, where that may not be possible. The Commission has added this information in the Interpretive Guidance in section 1636.3(c) Employee's Representative. The Commission declines to delineate a specific form or manner for an individual to be considered a representative because this would unnecessarily increase the burden on employees and potentially delay the processing of an accommodation request. The PWFA intends to make seeking and obtaining an accommodation efficient and effective. Requiring an employee to submit evidence of their authorization to enable a third party to request an accommodation on their behalf would thwart the PWFA's efforts to make such communication a simple task.

Several comments proposed that once the employee's representative has made the need for an accommodation known, the employer must then engage in the interactive process directly with the employee. Again, the Commission expects that this will be the normal situation but notes, for example, that when the employee is incapacitated or the representative is the employee's attorney, the employer may need to continue to engage with the representative rather than the employee. The Commission has added information to this effect in the Interpretive Guidance in 1636.3(c) Employee's Representative. Finally, the Commission has removed the word “known” before “limitation” in the Interpretive Guidance for this section because the limitation is not “known” until it has been communicated.

1636.3(d) Communicated to the Employer

The Commission received numerous comments regarding the definition of “communicated to the employer,” what information the employee should have to provide to the employer, with whom the employee should communicate, and what the employer can or cannot require the employee to do after the initial request.

Several comments correctly pointed out that the statutory definition of “communicated to the employer” in the PWFA does not include a description or requirement of how the employee must request a reasonable accommodation. Thus, the Commission has moved the information regarding how an employee requests a reasonable accommodation (formerly in proposed § 1636.3(d)(3)) to the section of the rule regarding reasonable accommodations (§ 1636.3(h)(2)). Although these sections are now separate and therefore follow the statutory text more closely, they have many important commonalities. Specifically, both communicating to the employer regarding the limitation and requesting a reasonable accommodation should be simple processes that do not require any specific language; both can be made to the same people at the covered entity at the same time; and for both there are limitations as to the information the covered entity can require. In practice, the Commission recognizes that in most cases these communications will occur simultaneously: an employee will communicate about their limitation in the process of informing the employer that they need an adjustment or change at work for reasons related to the limitation.

Thus, the final regulation's definition of “communicated to the employer” consists only of § 1636.3(d) introductory text and (d)(1) and (2) from the NPRM. Paragraph (d)(3), with some modifications, has been moved to § 1636.3(h)(2).

Section 1636.3(d) of the proposed regulation stated that “communicated to the employer” means to make known to the covered entity either by communicating with a supervisor, manager, someone who has supervisory authority for the employee (or the equivalent for an applicant), or human resources personnel, or by following the covered entity's policy to request an accommodation. Several comments suggested that this list include someone “who directs the employee's tasks” in order to better reflect circumstances where a workplace may not use a supervisory structure or specific job titles. The Commission agrees that this additional language will help employees and covered entities better understand that such communication also is appropriately directed to those individuals whom an employee would normally consult if they had a question or concern. Thus, the final rule includes the addition of “or who regularly directs the employee's tasks.” Some comments also suggested that the Commission clarify that the entity with whom the employee may communicate could include any agents of the employer such as a search firm, staffing agency, or third-party benefits administrator. The Commission has included that information in the Interpretive Guidance in section 1636.3(d) Communicated to the Employer and 1636.3(h)(2) How To Request a Reasonable Accommodation and has covered these entities in the regulation by adding “another appropriate official,” a term that also serves to cover other entities with authority for the employee who may not have one of the titles used in the rest of this portion of the regulation.

Paragraph (d)(1) has not changed from the NPRM. In paragraph (d)(2), the Commission has added that the communication regarding the limitation need not use specific words in order for it to be considered “communicated to the employer.” The Commission also has changed the structure of this sentence so that it matches that of paragraph (d)(1) and refers to the communication, rather than what a covered entity may or may not require and has slightly changed the wording of the prohibitions. For example, the proposed rule said, “any specific format” and the final rule says, “in a specific format”; and the proposed rule said, “any particular form” and the final rule says, “on a specific form.”

In the Interpretive Guidance in section 1636.3(d) Communicated to the Employer and 1636.3(h)(2) How To Request a Reasonable Accommodation, the Commission has combined the information for § 1636.3(d) and (h)(2) to emphasize that the communication of the limitation and the request for an accommodation will usually happen at the same time, that both should be simple tasks, and that both are governed by the same rules regarding with whom the employee may communicate, and the lack of a requirement for any specific words or forms (§ 1636.3(d)). The Commission also has added information explaining that, because many situations that may qualify for coverage under the PWFA could be classified as either a “limitation” (a physical or mental condition related to, affected by, or arising out of pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions) or “pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions,” employees do not need to identify a specific part of the regulation under which they believe they are entitled to coverage in order to make a request. Employers should not decide that an employee is not covered by the PWFA or otherwise restrict an employee's rights under the PWFA because the employer thinks the employee has improperly labeled something a “limitation” when it is better characterized as a “related medical condition,” or the reverse. For example, if an employee needs bed rest because they are pregnant and have placenta previa, the placenta previa could be the “physical or mental condition” related to, affected by, or arising out of pregnancy, or the placenta previa could be a “related medical condition” to pregnancy and the physical or mental condition could be the need to limit walking or standing. In either instance, the employee is covered by the PWFA and can request an accommodation.

The Interpretive Guidance in section 1636.3(d) Communicated to the Employer and 1636.3(h)(2) How To Request a Reasonable Accommodation also has been modified to explain that an employee is not required to identify the statute under which they are requesting a reasonable accommodation ( e.g., the ADA, the PWFA, or Title VII). Doing so would require that employees seeking accommodations use specific words or phrases, which the regulation prohibits.

Finally, the Commission has added information to the Interpretive Guidance that explains the types of people with whom the employee may communicate as set out in the final rule. The Commission has moved the examples that were in § 1636.3(d) in the NPRM to section 1636.3(h)(2) How To Request a Reasonable Accommodation in the Interpretive Guidance and has added an explanation at the start of the list of examples regarding the communications, rather than having an explanation after each example.

1636.3(e) Consideration of Mitigating Measures

The Commission received very few comments concerning mitigating measures. The language in the final rule is unchanged from the proposed rule and is the same as the language in the ADA regulation, except that the Commission made a minor edit for accuracy to remove the word “known” from § 1636.3(e)(1). This edit is necessary because the consideration of mitigating measures would only affect the determination of whether an employee has a limitation and not whether that limitation is “known.” The Commission further changed language in the Interpretive Guidance in section 1636.3(e) Consideration of Mitigating Measures slightly to point out that the ameliorative effects of mitigating measures can be considered when determining the appropriate reasonable accommodation.

1636.3(f) Qualified Employee

1636.3(f)(1) With or Without Reasonable Accommodation

The Commission received very few comments concerning the definition of “qualified employee” as an employee who, with or without reasonable accommodation, can perform the essential functions of the job. The final rule maintains the language from the proposed rule, which uses the language from the ADA.

The Commission also did not receive many comments regarding the definition of “qualified” for the reasonable accommodation of leave and has maintained that definition and the language in § 1636.3(f)(1) and in the Interpretive Guidance in section 1636.3(f)(1) under “Qualified” for the Reasonable Accommodation of Leave. The Commission addresses other comments it received regarding leave as a reasonable accommodation in the preamble in section 1636.3(h) under Particular Matters Regarding Leave as a Reasonable Accommodation.

1636.3(f)(2) Temporary Suspension of an Essential Function(s)

The Commission received numerous comments regarding the definition of “qualified” with regard to the temporary suspension of essential function(s), the definition of “temporary,” the definition of “in the near future,” how different periods of temporary suspension of essential function(s) should be considered, whether more than one essential function can be suspended, and the meaning of “can be reasonably accommodated.”

Preliminarily, it is important to emphasize that the definition of “qualified” that includes the temporary suspension of an essential function is taken directly from the text of the statute. It is not a creation of the Commission, and the Commission could not ignore it or read it out of the statute, as some comments suggested. Second, as noted in the NPRM, this definition of “qualified” is relevant only when an employee cannot perform one or more essential functions of the job in question, with or without a reasonable accommodation, due to a known limitation. It is not relevant in any other circumstance. If the employee can perform the essential functions of the position with or without a reasonable accommodation, the first definition of “qualified” applies ( i.e., able to do the job with or without a reasonable accommodation). Third, this definition is relevant solely to determining whether an employee is “qualified.” An employer may still defend the failure to provide a reasonable accommodation based on undue hardship. Thus, the Commission responds to concerns regarding the possible disruption of production or scheduling or difficulties in accommodating the temporary suspension of an essential function(s) that a certain employer may face in the discussion of undue hardship (in the preamble in section 1636.3(j)(3) Undue Hardship—Temporary Suspension of an Essential Function(s)) rather than in the discussion of the definition of “qualified.”

1636.3(f)(2)(i) Temporary

The Commission received several comments regarding the definition of “temporary.” Some asserted that the Commission's definition was subsumed by the definition of “in the near future,” while others argued that the definitions of “temporary” and “in the near future” should be the same. The Commission has not changed the definition of “temporary.” As Congress set out two terms (“temporary” and “in the near future”), the Commission should define both and not assume that they are the same. The definition that the Commission proposed in the NPRM for “temporary” is consistent with the dictionary definition of this term and the legislative history of the provision.

1636.3(f)(2)(ii) In the Near Future

The Commission's proposed definition of “in the near future” had four parts: (1) how long this would be for a current pregnancy (generally 40 weeks); (2) how long this should be for conditions other than a current pregnancy (generally 40 weeks); (3) how leave should not count in the determination of the time for which an essential function(s) is temporarily suspended; and (4) how to address successive periods of suspension of essential function(s). As discussed below, the Commission is maintaining the provisions in the NPRM for issues 1, 3, and 4.

Comments and Response to Comments Regarding the Definition of “In the Near Future”

The NPRM proposed that for both a current pregnancy and conditions other than a current pregnancy it would be presumed that the employee could perform the essential functions of the position “in the near future” if they could do so within generally 40 weeks.

Many comments supported the idea that for a current pregnancy, an employee would be considered qualified if they could perform the essential function(s) generally within 40 weeks of the suspension of the essential function(s). As these comments pointed out, this would allow a pregnant employee the ability to continue working and earning a paycheck during their pregnancy, even if due to a known limitation they had to temporarily suspend an essential function(s). As one comment noted, a shorter time could lead to “dangerous and perverse consequences” such as employees “saving up” their ability to request the temporary suspension of essential function(s), leading to potential risks to their health or the health of their pregnancy early in the pregnancy, or employees being temporarily excused from essential function(s) early in their pregnancy only to have to resume them later in their pregnancy in order to keep earning a paycheck.

Several comments argued against the definition of “generally 40 weeks” for a current pregnancy, stating that such a long time was not within the intent of Congress, was outside the scope of the Commission's regulatory authority, and was not in keeping with how courts have defined this term in cases regarding leave and the ADA.

For conditions other than a current pregnancy, including post-pregnancy, the NPRM also proposed “in the near future” to mean generally 40 weeks. Several comments, based on the health care studies cited in the NPRM, recommended that for post-pregnancy reasons the definition of “in the near future” should be 1 year. These comments also recommended that the definition of “in the near future” for lactation-related accommodations that require the temporary suspension of an essential function(s) be 2 years, based on the recommendation of the American Academy of Pediatrics.

Other comments pointed out that although pregnancy has a generally accepted length, other conditions do not. As a result, these comments asserted, an individualized assessment, akin to when a person with a disability is having surgery and then must go on leave, is more appropriate. Other comments suggested that the definition should be less than 6 months, based on an ADA case cited in the House Report on the PWFA.

In the final rule, the Commission has changed the provision in the regulation defining “in the near future” at § 1636.3(f)(2)(ii) so that the determination will be made on a case-by-case basis. This determination, however, includes the concept from the NPRM's definition of “in the near future,” which explained that, if the employee is pregnant, it is assumed that the employee could perform the essential function(s) in the near future because they could perform the essential function(s) within generally 40 weeks of their suspension.

The Commission is retaining “generally 40 weeks” in the final regulation's definition of “in the near future” for pregnant employees for several reasons. First, one of the purposes of the PWFA is to provide pregnant employees with the ability to keep working while they are pregnant in order to protect their economic security as well as their health and the health of their pregnancy. Given the established length of pregnancy, this goal cannot be met if the employee is not considered qualified simply because they have to suspend an essential function(s) for generally 40 weeks. Second, Congress did not provide a definition for “in the near future” but did give the Commission rulemaking authority for the statute. Defining terms within a statute that have not been defined by Congress is well within the rulemaking authority of the agency directed by the law to write rules for it. Furthermore, as explained below, courts have generally determined that indefinite amounts of time cannot be “in the near future.” Because pregnancy by definition is not indefinite, defining “in the near future” to be the length of a pregnancy is consistent with the views of courts and with the purpose of the PWFA.

Those who opposed generally 40 weeks as the definition of “in the near future” for pregnant employees did not explain how a shorter definition would impact pregnant employees or why the definition should change from workplace to workplace, given the established length of pregnancy. Given that there is a history of employers failing to provide pregnant employees light duty positions to the severe detriment of those employees, even after the Supreme Court's decision in Young v. United Parcel Service, and Congress' awareness of this problem, the Commission believes it is necessary to define “in the near future” for the PWFA's second definition of “qualified” as the full length of a pregnancy. The Commission agrees with comments stating that a shorter period of time could create situations where an employee continues to perform an essential function(s) in order to save time when they are not required to perform the essential function(s) for later in their pregnancy or following childbirth, thus imperiling their health or the health of the pregnancy, or where an employee is forced to return to the performance of an essential function(s) later in their pregnancy, despite the health risks. The Commission reiterates that this rule does not mean that a pregnant employee is automatically entitled to the temporary suspension of one or more essential functions for 40 weeks, or that the employee will need the suspension of one or more essential functions for 40 weeks. The temporary suspension must be able to be reasonably accommodated, and the employer retains the ability to establish that the reasonable accommodation causes an undue hardship.

The Commission agrees that there should not be a presumptively consistent measure of the term “in the near future” for issues other than current pregnancy. The physical or mental conditions related to, affected by, or arising out of pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions faced by employees other than those who are currently pregnant certainly may be serious and may, in some cases, mean that an employee may seek to have one or more essential functions of the job temporarily suspended. Unlike a current pregnancy, however, there is not a consistent measure of how long these diverse conditions generally will last or, thus, of what “in the near future” might mean in these instances.

In explaining the inclusion of this additional definition of “qualified,” the House Report analogized the suspension of an essential function under the PWFA to cases under the ADA regarding leave. Thus, ADA leave cases provide some helpful guideposts for employers and employees to understand this term in the context of whether an employee is “qualified” under the PWFA in situations not involving a current pregnancy. First, an employee who needs indefinite leave (that is, leave for a period of time that they cannot reasonably estimate under the circumstances) cannot perform essential job functions “in the near future.” Similarly, a request to indefinitely suspend an essential function(s) cannot reasonably be considered to meet the standard of an employee who could perform the essential function(s) “in the near future.” However, the Commission notes that the temporary suspension of an essential function(s) is not “indefinite” simply because the employee cannot pinpoint the exact date when they expect to be able to perform the essential function(s) or can provide only an estimated range of dates. Nor do these circumstances mean that the employee cannot perform the job's essential functions “in the near future.”

Beyond an agreement that an indefinite amount of time does not meet the standard of “in the near future,” courts' definitions of how long a period of leave may be under the ADA and still be a reasonable accommodation (thus, allowing the individual to remain qualified) vary. The Commission believes, however, that depending on the facts of a case “in the near future” may extend beyond the 6-month limit suggested by some comments under the PWFA for three reasons.

First, what constitutes “in the near future” may differ depending on factors including, but not limited to, the known limitation and the employee's position. For example, an employee whose essential job functions require lifting during only the summer months would remain qualified even if unable to lift during a 7-month period over the fall, winter, and spring months because the employee could perform the essential function “in the near future” (in this case, as soon as the employee was required to perform that function). Second, the determination of whether the employee could resume the essential function(s) of their position in the near future is only one aspect of establishing that an employee is qualified despite not being able to perform an essential function(s). If the temporary suspension cannot be reasonably accommodated or if the temporary suspension causes an undue hardship, the employer is not required to provide a reasonable accommodation. Third, as detailed in the NPRM, especially in the first year after giving birth, employees may experience serious health issues related to pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions that may prevent them from performing the essential function(s) of their positions. Accommodating these situations and allowing employees to stay employed is one of the key purposes of the PWFA. To assist employers and employees in making this determination, the Commission has added several examples in the Interpretive Guidance in section 1636.3(f)(2) Qualified Employee—Temporary Suspension of an Essential Function(s) regarding “in the near future” and non-pregnancy conditions.

Additionally, the Commission disagrees that the terms “temporary” and “in the near future” should be defined using the definition of “transitory” under the ADA. Congress knew of this definition but decided not to incorporate it into the PWFA and used different terms (“temporary” and “in the near future,” not “transitory”).

Comments and Response to Comments Regarding Leave Not Being Part of the Calculation of the Temporary Suspension of an Essential Function(s)

The Commission did not receive many comments regarding whether leave should be counted as part of the definition of “qualified” for the suspension of an essential function(s). Those comments it did receive supported the Commission's view that it should not be counted; the Commission has maintained that position.

Comments and Response to Comments Regarding Resetting the Clock for the Temporary Suspension of an Essential Function(s)

The Commission received several comments regarding the proposal that the clock for determining “in the near future” should reset after childbirth. Some comments supported this for the reasons set out in the NPRM, specifically, that a pregnant employee cannot know whether or for how long they will need the temporary suspension of an essential function(s) after they give birth. Further, not resetting the clock could create the same issues discussed above of creating dangerous or perverse incentives for employees to “save” the temporary suspension of an essential function(s) for later in their pregnancy or post-pregnancy, even when it could lead to potential risks to their health or the health of their pregnancy. Conversely, several comments argued that allowing the clock to reset would permit employees to “stack” the temporary suspension of essential functions to get more than 40 weeks of an essential function(s) suspended. Given that the definition of “in the near future” for non-pregnancy issues has changed, this is less of a concern for the final rule. Additionally, as stated above, employees are not automatically granted 40 weeks of suspension of an essential function(s) during pregnancy under the regulation. Rather, they are merely considered “qualified.” Many employees will need less than 40 weeks of a temporary suspension of an essential function(s).

The Commission also received comments recommending that resetting the clock be added to the regulation itself. Because this general rule—that the determination of “qualified” is made at the time of the employment decision —applies to all accommodations, the Commission has not added it to this part of the regulation. The Commission has included this general rule in the Interpretive Guidance in section 1636.3(f) Qualified Employee and has added a specific reference to when essential functions are being temporarily suspended to state that determining “in the near future” should start at the time of the employment decision in the Interpretive Guidance in section 1636.3(f)(2)(ii) In the Near Future.

The Commission also received comments interpreting the statute to say that only one essential function could be temporarily suspended in a given pregnancy. The Commission disagrees. First, the Commission notes that in interpreting acts of Congress, “words importing the singular apply to several persons, parties, or things” unless the context indicates otherwise. Further, such a rule would undercut the purpose of the PWFA and lead to lengthy delays for litigation about what specific essential function was being suspended and whether it was the same or a different function. Such a rule also does not reflect that a pregnant employee may need more than one essential function suspended or different essential functions suspended at different times.

1636.3(f)(2)(iii) Can Be Reasonably Accommodated

The Commission received a few comments on its proposed definition of “can be reasonably accommodated” that claimed that the NPRM had conflated this provision with undue hardship. Other comments suggested that this provision required a new definition, with a lower standard than “undue hardship,” that a covered entity could meet to show that the temporary suspension of the essential function(s) could not be reasonably accommodated. The Commission disagrees with these comments and is retaining the definition of this section set forth in the NPRM. The Commission expects that the language that the temporary suspension of an essential function(s) “can be reasonably accommodated” will be interpreted similarly to the idea that an individual is “qualified” if they can do the job with or without a reasonable accommodation. If, under the first definition of “qualified,” an employee cannot perform the essential functions of the position without a reasonable accommodation, and there is no reasonable accommodation, the employee is not qualified. Similarly, if the temporary suspension of the essential function(s) cannot be “reasonably accommodated,” the employee is not qualified. Thus, the definition of “can be reasonably accommodated” provides suggested means by which the temporary suspension of an essential function(s) can be reasonably accommodated. Whether granting the accommodation would impose undue hardship on the operation of the business of the covered entity is a separate analysis. The Commission has removed the reference to undue hardship from this section in the Interpretive Guidance in order to avoid any confusion.

The Commission made a few changes to the examples in this section in the Interpretive Guidance. The Commission deleted former Example #7 from this section. In former Examples #8 and #9 (now Examples #1 and #2), the Commission added: facts to clarify that there is work for the employees to accomplish; the phrase “affected by, or arising out of” after “related to”; and that the employees need an accommodation “due to” their limitation. The Commission removed the sentences regarding undue hardship in order to focus the examples on the issue of “qualified.” The Commission also added three additional examples to this section.

1636.3(g) Essential Functions

The NPRM adopted the definition of “essential functions” contained in the ADA regulation and sought comment on whether there were additional factors that should be considered in determining whether a function is “essential” for the purposes of the PWFA. Several comments suggested clarifications or departures from the definition of “essential functions” set forth in the ADA. These suggestions included proposed additions to the overall definition of “essential functions”; a request to add a factor to § 1636.3(g)(1) to further explain when a particular function is “essential”; and requests to delete, add, combine, or reorganize the factors in § 1636.3(g)(2) that can establish whether a particular function is “essential.”

First, a few comments suggested adding language to § 1636.3(g) that would define essential functions as discrete tasks and clarify that essential functions are not conditions of employment regarding when, where, and how discrete tasks are performed. The Commission declines to adopt this proposal. The term “essential functions” in the PWFA is the same term used in the ADA, and therefore the definition of “essential functions” in the ADA regulation is instructive. The Commission concludes that the suggested departure from the language and definition used in the ADA regulation is not appropriate. Although in the Commission's view, conditions of employment that are completely divorced from any job duties ( e.g., a requirement of “regular attendance” or “in-person work”) are not essential functions in and of themselves, certain essential functions may need to be performed in a particular manner, time, or location. For example, a neurosurgeon hired to perform surgeries may have to perform those surgeries in a sterile operating room; a receptionist hired to greet clients and answer calls during business hours may need to be available at certain times of day; and a truck driver responsible for transporting hazardous materials may need to use a specific type of vehicle. The final regulation, therefore, maintains the ADA regulatory language from 29 CFR 1630.2(n)(1).

Second, the Commission received comments requesting that it add a factor to those listed in § 1636.3(g)(1) examining whether the function was essential during the limited time for which the accommodation is needed. As described in the next paragraph, the Commission has added this consideration to § 1636.3(g)(2). Because the list of factors in § 1636.3(g)(1) is non-exhaustive, the Commission has retained the factors in § 1636.3(g)(1).

Third, the Commission received comments requesting modification, addition, reorganization, or deletion of factors in § 1636.3(g)(2) that can be used to show a function is “essential.” Because the factors in § 1636.3(g)(2) are not exhaustive, the Commission declines to delete any factors, as this could incorrectly suggest that those factors are not relevant to PWFA accommodations. Additionally, the Commission declines to reorder any factors to emphasize their importance, as the factors in § 1636.3(g)(2) are not set forth in order of importance and the significance of any particular factor will vary by case. However, in response to comments that essential functions may change over time (or even by season), and that variations in essential functions are particularly important where the need for accommodation is temporary (as is the case for most known limitations), the Commission has made changes to § 1636.3(g)(2)(iii) to clarify that seasonal or other temporal variations in essential functions should be considered.

Some comments asked for clarification on whether the employer's judgment on essential functions is given priority and whether an employer's framing of the essential job functions can undermine or limit an individual's right to accommodation under the PWFA. First, as in the ADA, an employer's judgment as to which functions are “essential” is given due consideration among various types of relevant evidence but is not dispositive. Therefore, evidence that is contrary to the employer's judgment may be presented and used to demonstrate the employer's judgment is incorrect. To this point, the Commission also has revised the language in the Interpretive Guidance in section 1636.3(g) Essential Functions to reinforce that the listed factors in § 1636.3(g)(2) are non-exhaustive and fact-specific, which further underscores that no single factor is dispositive, that not all factors apply in each case, and that additional factors may be considered.

Finally, some comments questioned the effect of a temporary suspension of an essential function(s) as a reasonable accommodation on future determinations of whether the function was essential. Temporary suspension of an essential function(s) as a reasonable accommodation pursuant to the PWFA does not mean that the function(s) is no longer essential. Whether something is an essential function(s) remains a fact-specific determination, and the employer's temporary suspension of a job function(s) does not bar the employer from contending that the function(s) is essential for other accommodation requests in the future.

1636.3(h) Reasonable Accommodation—Generally

1636.3(h)(1) Definition of Reasonable Accommodation

The Commission received very few comments regarding the definition of reasonable accommodation, which uses the language from the ADA with certain changes to account for the differences in statutes. The Commission is retaining the definition of reasonable accommodation from the NPRM, with the following technical edits to § 1636.3(h)(1): insertion of the term “qualified” in the definition of reasonable accommodation relating to applicants; and removal of the term “qualified” and addition of the phrase “as are enjoyed by its other similarly situated employees without known limitations” in the definition of reasonable accommodation related to benefits and privileges of employment. These technical edits are necessary so that the definition of reasonable accommodation parallels the ADA definition, as required by the PWFA.

The Commission also has moved the explanation of how to request a reasonable accommodation, which was formerly part of § 1636.3(d), to § 1636.3(h)(2). As a result, the parts of § 1636.3(h) have been renumbered so that the definition of reasonable accommodation is at § 1636.3(h)(1)(i) through (iv), and information regarding the interactive process is located at § 1636.3(h)(3).

1636.3(h)(2) How To Request a Reasonable Accommodation

The final rule contains a new section, § 1636.3(h)(2), that explains how an employee may request a reasonable accommodation. This information was proposed to appear at § 1636.3(d).

The Commission received several comments regarding this section when it was part of the “Communicated to the Employer” definition in the NPRM. First, comments expressed concern that the Commission's original language (that this was the process to “request” a reasonable accommodation) would add a requirement that employees phrase this as a “request” and that employees may not know that they have the right to make such a request. The Commission declines to change this provision. The examples in the NPRM (now Examples #6 to #11 in the Interpretive Guidance in section 1636.3(h)(2) How To Request a Reasonable Accommodation ) do not require that the communication be phrased as a request. Additionally, “request for accommodation” is the language the Commission uses in its ADA guidance, and the Commission believes that changing the language on this point would create confusion. However, to respond to the comments, the Commission has added in the Interpretive Guidance in section 1636.3(h)(2) How To Request a Reasonable Accommodation that a request for a reasonable accommodation need not be formulated as a “request.”

Second, many comments suggested alternative language to proposed § 1636.3(d)(3)(i) and (ii) (§ 1636.3(h)(2)(i) and (ii) in the final rule), stating that the emphasis should be that the limitation necessitates a change (rather than the employee needing a change), that the rule should require a limitation “or” needing a change (rather than “and”), or that communicating the limitation was sufficient. The Commission declines to make these changes. First, the Commission does not think it is appropriate or accurate to require that the limitation “necessitates” a change; this may increase the burden on what an employee would have to show and would complicate what should be simple communication. Second, while the Commission agrees that the statute provides for accommodations for known limitations, having the process start simply because the employee communicated a known limitation could lead to situations where the accommodation process begins when it was not the employee's intention, or it could lead to covered entities assuming that an accommodation is necessary which could result in violations of 42 U.S.C. 2000gg-1(2).

Finally, some comments recommended including that the employee must connect the need for the change with the limitation. The Commission agrees with this change and has added that idea to § 1636.3(h)(2) (“needs an adjustment or change at work due to the limitation”). As with the ADA and as shown in Examples #6 to #11, this is a simple communication that does not require specific words.

The Commission also has moved the point that was in § 1636.3(b) in the proposed regulation—that the employee need not mention a specific medical condition from the list in § 1636.3(b), or indeed any medical condition, or use medical terms—to § 1636.3(h)(2)(ii) so that all of the information about requesting an accommodation is in one place.

Many comments addressed with whom the employee must communicate in order to start the process. As with the definition of “Communicated to the Employer” (§ 1636.3(d)), the employer should permit an employee to request an accommodation through multiple avenues and means. Thus, the individuals at the covered entity to whom an employee may communicate to start the reasonable accommodation process are the same as those in § 1636.3(d), and the Interpretive Guidance language for that provision applies to requesting a reasonable accommodation as well. Some comments recommended against allowing for a broad range of individuals at the covered entity who could receive such requests because those who receive such requests require training; other comments stated that an employer should be able through its policy to limit the individuals who can receive such a request. The Commission did not make changes to support these views because the steps to request a reasonable accommodation should not be made more difficult and the individuals identified in § 1636.3(d) should be able to receive and direct the requests if they are not able to grant them independently.

Several comments also addressed whether the employer could require the process to start by the employee filling in a form and whether, if the employer had a process, the employee was required to follow it so that a request would be considered only when made to the entity identified in the employer's policy. The Commission did not adopt either of these views. First, requiring an employee to create a written request or to follow a specific provision to begin the reasonable accommodation process is contrary to the idea that this should not be a difficult or burdensome task for employees. Second, as one comment pointed out, some employees, such as those facing intimate partner violence, may be cautious or afraid of putting into writing their need for an accommodation. Third, many of the limitations and accommodations under the PWFA will be small or minor; the Commission expects that most accommodations will be provided following nothing more than a conversation or email between the employee and their supervisor, and there will not be any other forms or processes. If an employer does have a process to confirm what was stated in the initial request and that process uses a form, the form should be a simple one that does not deter the employee from making the request and does not delay the provision of an accommodation.

Alleviating Increased Pain or Risk to Health Due to the Known Limitation

First, the Commission received numerous comments recommending that the amelioration of pain or risk be added to the list in § 1636.3(h) for the definition of the term “reasonable accommodation.” The Commission is not making this change. The statute at 42 U.S.C. 2000gg(7) states that the term “reasonable accommodation” shall have the same meaning under the PWFA as it has in the ADA and the regulation under the PWFA. Section 1636.3(h) uses the same definition as in the ADA and adds one paragraph regarding the temporary suspension of essential functions, which is necessary pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 2000gg(6). As explained in the NPRM and in the Interpretive Guidance in section 1636.3(h) under Alleviating Increased Pain or Risk to Health Due to the Known Limitation, accommodations to alleviate increased pain or risk fit under the current paragraphs in § 1636.3(h)(1)(i) through (iv). This includes situations where an employee can do the essential functions of the position, and the accommodation is to alleviate increased pain or risk due to the known limitation. This is because the reasonable accommodations operate to “remove[ ] or alleviate[ ]” a covered individual's “barriers to the equal employment opportunity,” which may include making reasonable accommodations that mitigate the increased pain or a health risk a qualified employee experiences related to, affected by, or arising out of pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions when performing their job.

Second, the Commission received several comments suggesting an edit to § 1636.3(i)(2) in the proposed regulation, which listed examples of possible reasonable accommodations. The comments pointed out that “adjustments to allow an employee or applicant to work without increased pain or risk to the employee's or applicant's health or the health of the employee's or applicant's pregnancy” are the only accommodations listed that are expressly required to be “due to the employee's or applicant's known limitation,” even though that is obviously true for any of the other listed accommodations. The Commission agrees and has made this edit.

Third, the Commission received numerous suggestions of additional examples to include in this section to illustrate modifications to alleviate increased pain or risk. The Commission has added additional examples and information in the Interpretive Guidance in section 1636.3(h) under Alleviating Increased Pain or Risk to Health Due to the Known Limitation, including, as suggested by some comments, examples involving exposure to chemicals, commuting, excessive heat, and contagious diseases. The Commission also has deleted one example.

Finally, the Commission received some comments expressing concern that the proposed appendix examples' focus on what was and what was not related to, affected by, or arising out of pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions would lead to employers focusing on this issue, requiring documentation regarding this issue, and denying accommodations. These comments also pointed out that, given pregnancy's effect on the whole body, the situations set out in the examples, especially former Examples #10 and #13 (now Examples #12 and #15 in the Interpretive Guidance in section 1636.3(h) under Alleviating Increased Pain or Risk to Health Due to the Known Limitation), were unrealistic and could cause covered entities and employees to waste time trying to determine whether a limitation was related to, affected by, or arising out of pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions. The Commission appreciates the concerns raised regarding these examples. At the same time, it is important that covered entities and employees understand the principles illustrated in the examples so that voluntary compliance with the PWFA is maximized. The Commission has edited these examples to account for these concerns by, for example, changing or deleting language regarding the limitations that in the example may not have been related to, affected by, or arising out of pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions. Finally, in order to highlight different reasons for accommodations, the Commission has changed one of the examples to include lactation.

Ensuring That Employees Are Not Penalized for Using Reasonable Accommodations

The Commission received many comments agreeing with the general principle that covered entities must ensure that their workplace policies or practices do not operate to penalize employees for utilizing accommodations under the PWFA. Many of these comments also asked for additional clarification and examples.

First, numerous comments suggested that the Commission explicitly state that the general rule that a covered entity does not have to waive a production standard as a reasonable accommodation does not apply when an employee has received the temporary suspension of an essential function(s) as a reasonable accommodation and the production standard would normally apply to the performance of that function. Applying such a production standard when the essential function(s) is temporarily suspended would penalize the employee for using the reasonable accommodation. The Commission agrees and has made this clarification in the Interpretive Guidance in section 1636.3(h) under Ensuring That Employees Are Not Penalized for Using Reasonable Accommodations.

One comment recommended clarifying that the definition of “production standards” includes not penalizing an employee for lower “productivity,” “focus,” “availability,” or “contributions” if the employee's lower production in those areas is due to the employee's reasonable accommodation. The Commission agrees. For example, if, as a reasonable accommodation, an employee is not working overtime, and “availability” or “contribution” is measured by an employee's working overtime, an employee should not be penalized in these categories. This concept has been added to the Interpretive Guidance in section 1636.3(h) under Ensuring That Employees Are Not Penalized for Using Reasonable Accommodations.

A few comments noted that in addition to potentially violating 42 U.S.C. 2000gg-1(5) and 2000gg-2(f), penalizing an employee for using a reasonable accommodation could violate 42 U.S.C. 2000gg-1(1), because by doing so the covered entity would not be providing an effective accommodation. The Commission agrees and has made this change in the Interpretive Guidance in section 1636.3(h) under Ensuring That Employees Are Not Penalized for Using Reasonable Accommodations.

Several comments suggested examples for this section focusing on no-fault attendance policies and electronic productivity monitoring. The Commission added two examples to this section and moved Example #30 from the NPRM (now Example #22) to this section with some edits. The Commission also added language to the Interpretive Guidance in section 1636.3(h) under Ensuring That Employees Are Not Penalized for Using Reasonable Accommodations about the types of rules that may need to be considered.

One comment stated that allowing employers to not pay for break time was, in effect, penalizing employees for taking those breaks. For the reasons explained in the section on leave, the Commission is adhering to the approach under the ADA that whether or not leave or breaks are paid depends on how the employer normally treats such time away from work and the requirements of other laws.

A final set of comments on this issue requested clarification regarding whether specific situations would be seen as penalizing an employee for using a reasonable accommodation. Specifically, comments asked whether pay could be lowered or whether merit-based incentives tied to the performance of the essential function(s) could be omitted if the employee was not performing an essential function(s). One comment asked whether an employee could be required to work extra time to make up for time spent on breaks.

Whether these situations regarding the temporary suspension of an essential function(s) would be viewed as penalizing a qualified employee in violation of the PWFA depends on certain factors. As stated in § 1636.4(a)(4), if a covered entity is choosing between accommodations, it must select the one that provides the qualified employee with equal employment opportunity, which includes no reduction in pay, advancement, or bonuses. If the only accommodation available for the temporary suspension of the essential function(s) requires the temporary reassignment of the qualified employee to a job that pays less, and the employer's practice in these situations is to lower the pay of employees temporarily assigned to such a position, the employer may make the temporary reassignment and the PWFA does not prohibit the employer from reducing the qualified employee's pay. Both conditions must be true: (1) that there is no other reasonable accommodation that does not pose an undue hardship and (2) that this is the employer's normal practice in these situations. Similarly, an employer could limit bonuses related to the performance of an essential function(s) that has been temporarily suspended if there is not another accommodation that provides equal employment opportunity, and this is the employer's normal practice in these situations.

For situations where the reasonable accommodation is additional breaks, a qualified employee may be given the opportunity to make up the additional time and may choose to do so. However, if making up the time renders the accommodation ineffective (for example, because the breaks are due to fatigue), the employer may not require the qualified employee to do so.

Personal Use

The Commission received very limited comments on this section. The Commission has made one minor change to the language in the Interpretive Guidance for this section (removing reference to a “white noise machine”).

Particular Matters Regarding Leave as a Reasonable Accommodation

The Commission received numerous comments on its discussion of leave as a reasonable accommodation, including requests for clarification regarding the purpose and length of leave as a reasonable accommodation, as well as the application of the undue hardship standard to leave. Other comments recommended changes to the rules for paid leave and the continuation of health insurance while on leave. Some suggested that the PWFA explicitly provide coverage for “extended leave.”

As set out in the NPRM, the Commission has long recognized the use of leave as a potential reasonable accommodation under the ADA. Leave as a reasonable accommodation under the PWFA can be for any known limitation and includes leave for health care and treatment of pregnancy, childbirth, and related medical conditions and recovery from pregnancy, childbirth, and related medical conditions. The Commission declines to include the term “extended leave” in the regulation or Interpretive Guidance. The amount of leave under the PWFA depends on the employee and the known limitation and thus the term “extended” in this context does not have a uniform definition. In response to a few comments, the Commission has changed the language in § 1636.3(i)(3)(i) slightly to specifically provide that leave is available to recover from any related medical condition. This was implied by the language in the NPRM, which stated that leave for recovery was available and described an explicitly non-exhaustive list of specific conditions. The Commission has also removed the word “receive” before “unpaid leave” in § 1636.3(i)(3)(i) to be consistent with how it refers to unpaid leave.

Two groups of comments sought clarifications regarding leave and undue hardship. First, some comments agreed with proposed § 1636.3(i)(3)(iv), which states that concerns about the length, frequency, or unpredictable nature of leave are questions of undue hardship. However, the comments also suggested that the Commission make clear that it is not merely the fact that leave is long, frequent, or unpredictable that makes it an undue hardship. Rather, those factors may be considered to the extent that they impact the established undue hardship considerations. Thus, the fact that leave is unpredictable is not sufficient—standing alone—to make it an undue hardship; rather, the employer would have to show the unpredictable leave caused significant difficulty or expense on the operation of the business. The Commission agrees with these comments. Because this concept sets out how undue hardship and leave should interact, the Commission has determined that it is more appropriately discussed in the Interpretive Guidance rather than the regulation itself. Section 1636.3(i)(3)(iv) has, therefore, been removed from the regulation and the issue is instead discussed in the Interpretive Guidance in section 1636.3(h) under Particular Matters Regarding Leave as a Reasonable Accommodation.

The other set of comments regarding undue hardship stated that the mere fact that an employee has taken leave should not be determinative in assessing undue hardship, but rather the impact of that leave should be determined by using the undue hardship factors in § 1636.3(j)(2). The Commission agrees and has added this information to the Interpretive Guidance in section 1636.3(h) under Particular Matters Regarding Leave as a Reasonable Accommodation because proposed § 1636.3(i)(3)(iv) has been removed from the regulation.

Many comments recommended that, instead of looking to an employer's policies for individuals in similar situations, paid leave and continuation of health insurance should be designated as possible accommodations under the PWFA. The Commission declines to make this change. The current language in the Interpretive Guidance in section 1636.3(h) under Particular Matters Regarding Leave as a Reasonable Accommodation is the same as under the ADA. The PWFA at 42 U.S.C. 2000gg(7) provides that the term “reasonable accommodation” should have the same meaning as in the ADA and the PWFA regulations. Thus, the Commission is maintaining this definition.

Finally, a few comments recommended that a short amount of leave ( e.g., 2 days) could be a reasonable accommodation while the covered entity determines what other reasonable accommodations are possible or during the interactive process. The response to this suggestion is discussed in the preamble in section 1636.3(h) under Interim Reasonable Accommodations.

All Services and Programs

The Commission received very limited comments on this section. The Commission has added language in the Interpretive Guidance in section 1636.3(h) under All Services and Programs to clarify that the term “all services and programs” includes situations where a qualified employee is traveling for work and may need, for example, accommodations at a different work site.

Interim Reasonable Accommodations

The Commission received numerous comments regarding interim reasonable accommodations, including requests to provide examples of when interim reasonable accommodations are needed, recommendations that the provision be strengthened or made mandatory, discussion of the provision of leave as an interim reasonable accommodation, and suggestions of alternative definitions for “interim reasonable accommodations.”

Some comments provided helpful real-world examples of when interim reasonable accommodations are needed. For example, one comment stated that after asking for an accommodation, some pregnant employees are required to “continue to lift, push, and pull heavy objects” and “drive when not fit to do so” in violation of the recommendations of their health care providers as they wait for the decision about their reasonable accommodation from their employer. The same comment noted that some employees have been fired while waiting to hear whether they can receive a reasonable accommodation because the employee cannot do the job without one. Another comment described a situation where an employee was put on leave after asking for a reasonable accommodation because the request occurred on a Friday afternoon, the employee was scheduled to work on Sunday, and the staff to address the provision of reasonable accommodations were not available until the beginning of the next week. A comment from an organization noted that employees call their hotline after weeks of waiting for a response on a request for an accommodation, and during that time “they must continue to perform duties that put their health or the health of their pregnancy at risk so they can earn a paycheck and maintain their health insurance.”

The Commission understands the dilemma facing both employers and employees in circumstances where the accommodation is needed immediately but cannot be provided immediately. Requiring an employee to take leave (whether paid or unpaid) in this situation can be harmful to the employee, either because it will require the employee to exhaust their paid leave or because it will require an employee to go without income. In the face of these reasonable reactions to what is, based on comments received, a common situation, the Commission has added information regarding interim reasonable accommodations to the Interpretive Guidance in section 1636.3(h) under Interim Reasonable Accommodations.

An interim reasonable accommodation can be used when there is a delay in providing the reasonable accommodation. For example, an interim reasonable accommodation may be needed when there is a sudden onset of a known limitation under the PWFA, including one that makes it unsafe, risky, or dangerous to perform the normal tasks of the job, when the interactive process is ongoing, when the parties are waiting for a piece of equipment, or when the employee is waiting for the employer's decision on the accommodation request.

Interim reasonable accommodations are not required. However, providing an interim reasonable accommodation is a best practice under the PWFA and may help limit a covered entity's exposure to liability under 42 U.S.C. 2000gg-1(1) and § 1636.4(a)(1) (“An unnecessary delay in providing a reasonable accommodation to the known limitations related to pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions of a qualified employee may result in a violation of the PWFA if the delay constitutes a failure to provide a reasonable accommodation.”). Furthermore, depending on the circumstances, requiring an employee to take leave as an interim reasonable accommodation may violate 42 U.S.C. 2000gg-2(f). To help illustrate these principles, the Commission has added additional examples regarding this issue to the Interpretive Guidance in section 1636.3(h) under Interim Reasonable Accommodations.

Finally, in response to several comments, the Commission declines to define “interim reasonable accommodation” differently than “reasonable accommodation.” The term “reasonable accommodation” is already defined under the ADA and the PWFA. The Commission declines to create a new definition for such a similar term because it will create confusion.

1636.3(i) Reasonable Accommodation—Examples

The Commission received numerous requests for additional examples and suggested edits for existing examples in this section. In response, the Commission has added a few examples to explain specific points, using a variety of employees to illustrate that the PWFA applies to all types of occupations and professions. Further, the Commission has made minor edits to the language in the examples from the NPRM to standardize the language and format used in these examples. For example, the Commission added “affected by, or arising out of” after “related to,” added “pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions,” and added that the adjustment or change at work is “due to” the limitation.

The Commission did not receive comments related to § 1636.3(i)(1) from the NPRM. Comments the Commission received regarding § 1636.3(i)(2) and (4) from the NPRM are discussed below. Comments regarding § 1636.3(i)(3) from the NPRM (addressing leave as a reasonable accommodation) are discussed supra in the preamble in section 1636.3(h) under Particular Matters Regarding Leave as a Reasonable Accommodation. Comments received regarding § 1636.3(i)(5) from the NPRM (regarding the suspension of an essential function(s) as a reasonable accommodation) are discussed supra in the preamble in section 1636.3(f)(2) Temporary Suspension of an Essential Function(s) and infra in the preamble in section 1636.3(j)(3) Undue Hardship—Temporary Suspension of an Essential Function(s).

1636.3(i)(2) List of Possible Accommodations

The Commission received a few comments recommending that in addition to listing telework in § 1636.3(i)(2), the Commission include “remote work” and the ability to change work sites and add that telework is a possible accommodation to avoid heightened health risks, such as from communicable diseases. The Commission has added remote work and change in worksites to the non-exhaustive list of possible accommodations in § 1636.3(i)(2) and to the Interpretive Guidance. The Commission also deleted the word “additional” before “unpaid leave” in § 1636.3(i)(2) because unpaid leave can be an accommodation whether or not it is additional.

In the Interpretive Guidance in section 1636.3(i) Reasonable Accommodation—Examples, the Commission added within the possible accommodation of “frequent breaks” the situation where the regular location of the employee's workplace makes nursing during work hours a possibility because the child is within close proximity. This concept has also been added to the regulation in § 1636.3(i)(4)(iii). It also is described, in more detail, infra in the preamble in section 1636.3(i)(4) Examples of Reasonable Accommodations Related to Lactation in the Commission's response to the comments for § 1636.3(i)(4).

1636.3(i)(4) Examples of Reasonable Accommodations Related to Lactation

As an initial matter, some comments suggested the Commission include additional conditions related to lactation, such as “difficulty with attachment” or “inability to pump milk,” in the illustrative, non-exhaustive list of related medical conditions in § 1636.3(b). As explained elsewhere, the Commission has not added or deleted any terms from its non-exhaustive list. The fact that these terms have not been added to the non-exhaustive list in § 1636.3(b) should not be interpreted to deny coverage for those conditions.

With regard to § 1636.3(i)(4), many comments expressed concern over the wording used in proposed § 1636.3(i)(4) which, in describing examples of accommodations related to lactation, referenced the Providing Urgent Maternal Protections for Nursing Mothers Act (PUMP Act) (Pub. L. 117-328, Div. KK, 136 Stat. 4459, 6093). Specifically, comments cautioned that the existing language could inadvertently create the impression that the PUMP Act does not require certain measures to ensure an adequate lactation space. To clarify this matter, the Commission has incorporated the suggested edits, both removing the introductory phrase in § 1636.3(i)(4)(ii) (“Whether the space for lactation is provided under the PUMP Act or paragraph (i)(4)(i) of this section”) and adding the phrase “shielded from view and free from intrusion,” which is utilized in the PUMP Act, in an effort to emphasize the PUMP Act's requirements and what can be a reasonable accommodation under the PWFA. For the same reason, the Commission has added the phrase “a place other than a bathroom,” also from the PUMP Act, to § 1636.3(i)(4)(ii).

Also related to the PUMP Act, some comments asserted that leave and breaks under the PWFA could improperly exceed those provided under the PUMP Act. The Commission does not agree. The PUMP Act provides covered employees with a reasonable break each time the employee has a need to express milk, for up to 1 year after giving birth. There is not a maximum number of breaks. The frequency, duration, and timing of breaks can vary; thus, there is no defined number of breaks under the PUMP Act.

Another comment suggested that the Commission should not include accommodations related to lactation because the PUMP Act provides for breaks to pump at work and should be the exclusive mechanism for accommodations related to lactation. The Commission declines to make this change. The PUMP Act applies to almost all employees covered under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, as amended (FLSA), 29 U.S.C. 201 et seq., with exemptions created for specifically identified transportation-related jobs, and allows for employers with 50 or fewer employees to seek an exemption based on undue hardship. The PWFA applies to all employers with 15 or more employees. Congress passed both laws at the same time and decided which entities would be covered; the Commission has a responsibility to follow the text of the statute it has been charged with enforcing. Furthermore, an employer that is covered under the PWFA but not under the PUMP Act does not automatically have to provide a reasonable accommodation related to pumping; under the PWFA, the covered entity, regardless of size or industry, does not have to provide the accommodation if it causes an undue hardship in the specific situation. Additionally, while the PWFA provides that it does not “invalidate or limit the powers, remedies, or procedures under any Federal law . . . that provides greater or equal protection for individuals affected by pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions,” nothing in the PWFA prohibits it from providing more or additional protections.

Other comments suggested adding a new subsection, § 1636.3(i)(4)(iii), to specify additional examples of reasonable accommodations related to lactation such as modifications that would remove barriers to breastfeeding or pumping and avoid or alleviate lactation-related health complications. The Commission does not find the proposed additions, which reiterate the broader goals of the law, necessary in the list of accommodations. However, the Commission has added language in a new paragraph (i)(4)(iv) to § 1636.3 to clarify that the types of accommodations listed in this section are not the only ones available for lactation.

Some comments urged the Commission to make clear that it could be a violation of the PWFA to “prohibit an employee from pumping milk in a space where they otherwise have permission to work or to be present” unless it creates an undue hardship, and that coworker discomfort about being in the same room while an employee is pumping is not a valid ground for failing to provide an accommodation. The Commission is not making this addition. While it may be that the situation described in this comment could be a reasonable accommodation, as set out in § 1636.4(a)(4), an employer has the ultimate discretion in choosing between effective accommodations. The Commission agrees that generally coworker discomfort does not establish undue hardship and has added that point in the Interpretive Guidance in section 1636.3(j)(1) Undue Hardship — In General.

Another comment suggested that the Commission explicitly state that certain accommodations, such as telework, are not available for lactation. The Commission declines to add which accommodations may cause an undue hardship in a specific situation, as such a determination is fact-specific. Under the PWFA, as under the ADA, employers should conduct an individualized assessment in response to each request for a reasonable accommodation.

Some comments recommended that the Commission also include nursing at work for those circumstances where the employee works in close proximity to their child and can easily nurse during the workday. The Commission agrees that in situations where the regular location of the qualified employee's workplace makes nursing during work hours a possibility because the child is in close proximity, allowing breaks for nursing would be a possible reasonable accommodation ( e.g., an employee who regularly works from home and has their child at home or an employee whose child is at a nearby or onsite daycare center). The Commission has added this to the regulation in § 1636.3(i)(4)(iii). The Commission cautions that this provision is intended to address situations where the qualified employee and child are in close proximity in the normal course of business. It is not intended to indicate that there is a right to create proximity to nurse because of an employee's preference. Of course, there may be known limitations that would entitle a qualified employee to the creation of proximity as a reasonable accommodation, absent undue hardship ( e.g., a limitation that made pumping difficult or unworkable).

Some comments sought reassurances that lactation accommodations also may include not only breaks to pump, but also refrigeration to store milk. Section 1636.3(i)(4)(ii) specifically references refrigeration for storing milk.

1636.3(j) Undue Hardship and 1636.3(j)(1) Undue Hardship—In General

The Commission did not receive comments regarding § 1636.3(j)(1), which defines “undue hardship” using the language from the ADA. The Commission has not made changes to the regulation on this point. Because undue hardship under the PWFA is defined as in the ADA, the Commission has added information from the appendix to 29 CFR part 1630 (Interpretive Guidance on Title I of the Americans With Disabilities Act) regarding undue hardship generally to the PWFA Interpretive Guidance in section 1636.3(j)(1) Undue Hardship—In General so that information is easily available to covered entities and employees.

1636.3(j)(2) Undue Hardship Factors

The Commission did not receive comments that disagreed with the Commission's use of the ADA's undue hardship factors in the PWFA and has maintained the proposed language in the final regulation.

The Commission received many comments regarding what facts should and should not be considered when an employer is determining undue hardship.

First, the Commission received many comments discussing how previously granted accommodations should affect the undue hardship analysis. Undue hardship is a broad concept in terms of what may go into determining whether a particular reasonable accommodation imposes a significant difficulty or expense. An employer may consider the current impact of cumulative costs or burdens of accommodations that have already been granted to other employees or the same employee when considering whether a new request for the same or similar accommodation imposes an undue hardship. However, as the comments emphasized, and the Commission has stated, “[g]eneralized conclusions will not suffice to support a claim of undue hardship. Instead, undue hardship must be based on an individualized assessment of current circumstances that show that a specific reasonable accommodation would cause significant difficulty or expense.” Additionally, in some circumstances, rather than supporting a possible contention of an undue hardship based on cumulative burden, the fact that an employer has provided the same or similar accommodations in the past can weigh against an argument that granting it will impose an undue hardship. Ultimately, whether a particular accommodation will impose an undue hardship for an employer is determined on a case-by-case basis. This information has been added to the Interpretive Guidance in section 1636.3(j) under Undue Hardship—Consideration of Prior or Future Accommodations.

Second, several comments stated that an employer should not be able to rely solely on the fact that an employee previously received an accommodation to assert undue hardship. The Commission agrees and reiterates that although an employer may consider the impact of prior accommodations granted to the employee currently seeking an accommodation, the mere fact that an employee previously received an accommodation or, indeed, several accommodations, does not establish that it would impose an undue hardship on the employer to grant a new accommodation. This information has been added to the Interpretive Guidance in section 1636.3(j) under Undue Hardship—Consideration of Prior or Future Accommodations.

The Commission received several comments regarding whether or how other employees should play a role in the undue hardship determination. The factors considered in the undue hardship analysis under the PWFA mirror those under the ADA. Accordingly, an employer cannot assert undue hardship based on employees' fears or prejudices toward the individual's pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical condition, nor can an undue hardship defense be based on the possibility that granting an accommodation would negatively impact the morale of other employees. Employers, however, may be able to show undue hardship where the provision of an accommodation would be unduly disruptive to other employees' ability to work. This information has been added to the Interpretive Guidance in section 1636.3(j)(1) Undue Hardship—In General.

A few comments requested more examples of when an employer does meet the burden of showing undue hardship. An additional example has been added in the Interpretive Guidance in section 1636.3(j)(2) Undue Hardship Factors and the examples from the proposed appendix have been edited to include additional facts to help better explain why the situation creates an undue hardship.

Undue Hardship and Safety

A few comments asked for clarification on which standard applies when an employee requests an accommodation that the covered entity asserts would cause a safety risk to co-workers or clients and whether there is a “direct threat” affirmative defense as in the ADA. Congress did not include a “direct threat” defense in the PWFA. Thus, as explained in the NPRM, the undue hardship analysis is the controlling framework for evaluating accommodation requests by employees with limitations related to, affected by, or arising out of pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions, including with regard to considerations of safety. Additionally, as stated in the NPRM, Title VII's bona fide occupational qualification (BFOQ) standard, rather than the PWFA's undue hardship standard, applies to assertions by employers that employees create a safety risk merely by being pregnant. The Commission has included this information in the Interpretive Guidance in section 1636.3(j) under Undue Hardship and Safety.

1636.3(j)(3) Undue Hardship—Temporary Suspension of an Essential Function(s)

The Commission received numerous comments describing the potential difficulties that employers may face in providing accommodations to employees who temporarily cannot perform one or more essential functions, pointing to specialized functions in certain industries and the burden of training employees. The Commission understands that in certain situations, providing the accommodation of the temporary suspension of an essential function(s) may cause an undue hardship. The difficulties addressed in the comments can be raised under the undue hardship defense and are all part of the individualized assessment under the PWFA. The Commission notes that employees seeking accommodations under the PWFA are not unlike other employees who are temporarily unable to perform one or more essential functions for various reasons and have received job modifications without a significant difficulty imposed on business operations under similar circumstances.

The Commission received a comment suggesting the deletion of § 1636.3(j)(3)(iv) (“Whether the covered entity has provided other employees in similar positions who are unable to perform the essential function(s) of their position with temporary suspensions of essential functions”) because, the comment asserted, it inappropriately imports a “comparative” approach into the PWFA, which was enacted in part to address similar challenges experienced under Title VII. In the Interpretive Guidance in section 1636.3(j)(3) Undue Hardship—Temporary Suspension of an Essential Function(s), the Commission clarifies that under § 1636.3(j)(3)(iv) an employer not having provided an accommodation previously does not tend to demonstrate that doing so now, for the qualified employee with a known limitation, would cause an undue hardship because making a change to a workplace procedure or rule can itself be a reasonable accommodation. Instead, if this factor is relevant, it will tend to demonstrate the lack of an undue hardship. For example, if an employer has consistently provided light duty assignments to those who are temporarily unable to perform a certain essential function(s) for reasons other than pregnancy, it will be difficult for the employer to prove that it is an undue hardship to provide a light duty assignment to a qualified pregnant employee who is similarly unable to perform such an essential function(s).

Finally, the Commission also has added to the Interpretive Guidance in section 1636.3(j)(3) Undue Hardship—Temporary Suspension of an Essential Function(s) that for the undue hardship factor laid out in § 1636.3(j)(3)(ii) (whether there is work for the employee to accomplish), the employer is not required to invent work for an employee.

1636.3(j)(4) Undue Hardship—Predictable Assessments

In response to the Commission's directed question regarding the adoption of the predictable assessment approach and whether the list of accommodations should be modified, a large number of comments agreed with the method, and many suggested expanding the list. Several comments specifically requested the addition of: modifications to uniforms or dress codes; minor physical modifications to a workstation ( e.g., a fan or a chair); permitting the use of a workstation closer to a bathroom or lactation space, or farther away from environmental hazards ( e.g., heat, fumes, or toxins); use of a closer parking space in an employer-provided parking facility; permitting eating or drinking at a workstation or nearby location where food or drink is not usually permitted; rest breaks as needed; and providing personal protective equipment ( e.g., gloves, goggles, earplugs, hardhats, or masks). The Commission acknowledges that several of the recommended additions also are common and simple, and employers should be able to provide these, and, in fact, many accommodations under the PWFA, with little difficulty. However, the Commission declines to make these additions to the list of predictable assessments, because they are not the accommodations frequently mentioned in the legislative history, some may not be easily applied across a broad category of jobs or workplaces, others also are provided under other laws and employee protections, and certain modifications are not so commonly needed. This is not to say that such accommodations should not be granted when requested, but simply that the Commission will not categorize them as the type of change that in “virtually all cases” is a reasonable accommodation that does not create an undue hardship.

In seeking the inclusion of these accommodations as predictable assessments, some comments asserted that other States and localities do not allow employers to assert undue hardship for some of these specific modifications. The Commission acknowledges the similarities between the PWFA and certain State laws, having referenced them in support of the predictable assessment approach. However, given the differences in State laws on this issue, with some having a version of predictable assessments and others having none, the Commission declines to expand the list of predictable assessments.

Some comments recommended that predictable assessments include, specifically, 16 health care appointments. The comments reasoned that this number represents the typical recommended number of prenatal and postnatal care visits for an uncomplicated pregnancy. The Commission is not adding this to the list of predictable assessments because the Commission acknowledges that the timing of an appointment and the length of an appointment may differ for each employee. The Commission also is concerned that setting a number of appointments could erroneously imply that additional appointments would necessarily create an undue hardship. However, the Commission emphasizes that employers should expect such requests, that such requests are covered by the PWFA, and that granting such requests should be a straightforward process, absent undue hardship.

Another comment suggested that 8 weeks of leave to recover from childbirth be added as a predictable assessment, noting that despite the regularity of such a request, it is routinely rejected by employers. The Commission recognizes it is predictable that pregnant employees will need leave to recover from childbirth. However, given the differences in workplaces and the possibility that the employee has access to leave through the FMLA, State law, or an employer's program, the Commission is not making this change.

Citing the number of pregnancies affected by gestational diabetes, one comment recommended the addition of short breaks to monitor blood glucose levels. As with breaks to hydrate, eat, or use the restroom, the Commission recognizes that these types of breaks should be simple for employers to provide. However, because this is a less universal need and was not repeatedly mentioned in the legislative history of the PWFA, the Commission does not believe it is appropriate to include it in the list of predictable assessments.

The Commission also received numerous comments claiming that the identification of predictable assessments violates the statutory text of the PWFA and is beyond the Commission's authority because, according to these comments, “predictable assessments” create a category of “per se” reasonable accommodations. Comments also stated that predictable assessments undercut the individualized assessment principles of the ADA, that there are differences among various jobs and workplaces, and that Congress intended for individualized assessments to be used. The Commission disagrees with these comments as they are misreading the NPRM. As stated in the NPRM, “the adoption of predictable assessments . . . does not change the requirement that, as under the regulation implementing the ADA, employers must conduct an individualized assessment” and “[t]he identification of certain modifications as `predictable assessments' does not alter the definition of undue hardship or deprive a covered entity of the opportunity to bring forward facts to demonstrate a proposed accommodation imposes an undue hardship for its business under its own particular circumstances.”

In a similar vein, the Commission received comments stating that certain industries would have a more difficult time providing the accommodations that the Commission has identified as predictable assessments. As the Commission has stated, in those industries (as in any others), an employer may assert that the requested accommodation causes an undue hardship.

Some comments suggested the Commission include additional language in § 1636.3(j)(4)(i) to encompass circumstances where it may not be reasonable for the employee to “carry” water. The Commission agrees and has added “keep water near” to § 1636.3(j)(4)(i). In explaining the predictable assessments in the Interpretive Guidance, the Commission also has clarified that, depending on the worksite, the employee may be able to eat or drink at their workstation without taking a break.

In the regulation, the Commission has removed the following language from the proposed rule (§ 1636.3(j)(4)): “Although a covered entity must assess on a case-by-case basis whether a requested modification is a reasonable accommodation that would cause an undue hardship . . .”; “[g]iven the simple and straightforward nature of these modifications, they will, as a factual matter, virtually always be found to be reasonable accommodations that do not impose significant difficulty or expense ( i.e., undue hardship)”; and “[i]t should easily be concluded that the following modifications will virtually always be reasonable accommodations that do not impose an undue hardship.” While all of these sentences remain true, including this information in the regulation is repetitive and unnecessary. These concepts have been moved to the Interpretive Guidance in section 1636.3(j)(4) Undue Hardship—Predictable Assessments.

Finally, the Commission made a few minor changes to the language in § 1636.3(j)(4).

Formerly Proposed 1636.3(j)(5) Undue Hardship—Future Accommodations

Several comments recommended that the Commission clarify that the potential for future accommodation requests from other employees cannot serve as a basis for failing to provide an accommodation. The Commission agrees and has added language in the Interpretive Guidance to the effect that an employer may not fail to provide an accommodation based on the possibility—whether speculative or nearly certain—that it will have to provide the accommodation to other employees in the future. Because this point is relevant to how a covered entity should consider other accommodations, it has been added in the Interpretive Guidance in section 1636.3(j) under Undue Hardship—Consideration of Prior or Future Accommodations, which also includes more information about the consideration of prior and future accommodations. Accordingly, § 1636.3(j)(5) of the NPRM has been removed from the regulation.

1636.3(k) Interactive Process

The NPRM largely adopted the explanation of the interactive process in the regulation implementing the ADA.

The Commission has made one change in the regulatory language of § 1636.3(k). The final rule states that the adjustment or change at work must be “due to the limitation.” This is intended to clarify that there is a connection between the limitation and the requested adjustment or change at work.

Numerous comments suggested that the Commission highlight that in many instances the interactive process may occur in a very abbreviated form, given that most accommodations employees are likely to seek under the PWFA are simple and easy to provide and have little to no cost to covered entities, and because the temporary nature of pregnancy, childbirth, and related medical conditions makes expediency in responding to and providing requested accommodations crucial.

The Commission, in enforcing the ADA, has acknowledged that in many instances both the need for an accommodation and the accommodation required will be obvious, leaving “little or no need to engage in any discussion.” In advising Federal agencies on creating their disability reasonable accommodation procedures, the Commission recommends that they process requests “in a manner that imposes the fewest burdens on the individuals . . . and permits the most expeditious consideration and delivery of the reasonable accommodation.” The same is true for the PWFA. Where an employee has requested a simple and easy accommodation under the PWFA, such as using a portable fan in the office, engaging in a lengthy back-and-forth would be unwarranted.

Some comments recommended that the Commission modify its guidance for the interactive process. The modifications, these comments explained, will better ensure that covered entities recognize the differences in the interactive process under the PWFA and the ADA. According to these comments, during the short time the PWFA has been in effect, covered entities have used their ADA policies to process pregnancy-related accommodation requests. Some employers have purportedly required their employees to fill out lengthy forms and medical certifications, which seek unnecessary information, leading to lengthy delays and denials.

The Commission agrees with the suggestions to emphasize that most requests for accommodations under the PWFA can be provided quickly and typically will consist of nothing more than brief conversations or email exchanges and has added language to this effect in the Interpretive Guidance in section 1636.3(k) Interactive Process. However, the Commission disagrees that this is meaningfully different than the ADA; under both statutes, the interactive process should focus on finding an appropriate reasonable accommodation.

In order to further highlight the flexible, individualized nature of the interactive process, in the Interpretive Guidance in section 1636.3(k) Interactive Process the Commission has added information about how the process does not have to follow specific steps and has changed the title of the possible steps in the interactive process in the Interpretive Guidance in section 1636.3(k) to Recommendations for an Interactive Process, while maintaining the substance from the ADA guidance. The Commission also has added that information provided by the employee in the interactive process does not need to be in any specific format, include specific words, or be on a specific form.

The Commission received a few comments regarding the omission of the word “precise” from the description of the interactive process in the proposed appendix. As set out in § 1636.3(a)(2), limitations may be modest, minor, and/or episodic. A limitation also may be a need or a problem related to maintaining the health of the employee or the health of the pregnancy. A process that tries to determine the “precise” limitation is in tension with the idea that limitations can be minor impediments.

Another comment questioned whether the absence of the word “precise” limited whether the covered entity could, for example, require information about how many breaks an employee needs and for how long. It does not. The Commission's view is that under such circumstances, the employer could ask such follow-up questions in order to craft an effective accommodation that is not an undue hardship.

One comment suggested that the Commission clarify that to initiate the interactive process the employee does not need to identify what the specific limitation is, but only that they have such a limitation and need an adjustment or change at work. Section 1636.3(h)(2) describes how an employee begins the reasonable accommodation process.

To ensure that employees and covered entities understand that any medical information obtained during the interactive process under the PWFA is subject to the ADA's confidentiality rules and restrictions on disability-related inquiries, the Interpretive Guidance in section 1636.3(k) Interactive Process includes a brief overview of these topics, with further information provided in the Interpretive Guidance in section 1636.7(a)(1) under Prohibition on Disability-Related Inquiries and Medical Examinations and Protection of Medical Information. Of particular relevance to the PWFA, that an employee is pregnant, has recently been pregnant, or has a medical condition related to pregnancy or childbirth is medical information. The ADA requires that employers keep such information confidential and only disclose it within the confines of the ADA's limited disclosure rules. Similarly, disclosing that an employee is receiving or has requested a reasonable accommodation under the PWFA usually amounts to a disclosure that the employee is pregnant, has recently been pregnant, or has a related medical condition.

Many comments described the difficulty pregnant employees may experience obtaining appointments with health care providers, especially early in pregnancy. To help address this concern, the Commission has added language to the Interpretive Guidance in section 1636.3(k) under Engaging in the Interactive Process to the effect that when a covered entity is permitted to seek supporting documentation from a health care provider under the parameters outlined in § 1636.3(l), the covered entity should be aware that it may take time for the employee to find a health care provider and provide the documentation. Delay caused by the difficulty faced by an employee in obtaining information from a health care provider in these circumstances should not be considered a withdrawal from or refusal to participate in the interactive process. If there is such a delay, an employer should consider providing an interim reasonable accommodation.

Several comments requested that the Commission specifically address the need for reasonable accommodations in unforeseen, urgent, emergency situations when the employee has not already requested a reasonable accommodation. One comment described instances where employees experienced bleeding or passed out due to their pregnancies and had to immediately leave their worksites to obtain emergency care, only to return to work and find they were charged with violating the covered entities' attendance policy. In response, the Commission has added information and an example in the Interpretive Guidance in section 1636.3(k) under Engaging in the Interactive Process. This example involves a situation where the employee, who has not asked for an accommodation or informed their employer that they are pregnant, experiences an emergency that is a physical or mental condition related to, affected by, or arising out of pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions. The example explains that by informing the employer that they are experiencing an emergency related to pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions and need leave immediately, the employee has made a request for a reasonable accommodation. The example goes on to explain that, if it is later determined that the employee is entitled to a reasonable accommodation, the employer should not penalize the employee because the emergency required a pause in the interactive process.

In the Interpretive Guidance, the information regarding delay and emergencies explained in the preceding paragraphs has been added to section 1636.3(k) under the heading formerly titled Failure to Engage in the Interactive Process. To reflect these additions, the title of that heading has been changed to Engaging in the Interactive Process.

One comment asked that the Commission clarify whether the “interactive process” requirements can be met by using software. There are no required steps or methodology for the interactive process; thus, the Commission has not taken a position on whether such a system will meet the requirements of the interactive process. The Commission does remind covered entities that they are responsible for their part of the interactive process, regardless of how they meet that obligation.

A comment requested that the Commission oversee the interactive process between covered entities and employees, suggesting a system of monitoring and evaluation. While the Commission issues guidance, provides technical assistance, and engages in litigation, the Commission is unable to offer the level of monitoring proposed. Generally, the employee and employer are in the best position to understand the limitations, affected job functions, and possible accommodations involved in the interactive process.

Finally, the Commission has included additional examples in the Interpretive Guidance in section 1636.3(k) Interactive Process to illustrate how accommodations may be granted through the interactive process.

1636.3(l) Limits on Supporting Documentation

The Commission received numerous comments about the NPRM's approach to supporting documentation and the extent to which the final regulation should permit covered entities to seek such documentation in support of an employee's request for a reasonable accommodation under the PWFA. The proposed rule provided that a covered entity could require supporting documentation that is reasonable under the circumstances for the covered entity to determine whether to grant the accommodation. Further, the rule provided that when it was reasonable under the circumstances, the employer could only require reasonable documentation.

1636.3(l)(1) Seeking Supporting Documentation Only When Reasonable Under the Circumstances

Comments and Response to Comments That Were Generally Supportive or Generally Unsupportive of the Commission's Approach

The Commission received many comments that were generally supportive of the approach to documentation set forth in the proposed rule, although most had suggestions for further limiting the ability of employers to seek supporting documentation.

Many comments agreed with the Commission that employees who are pregnant may experience limitations and, therefore, require accommodations before they have had any medical appointments, and that it may be difficult for a pregnant employee to obtain an immediate appointment with a health care provider early in a pregnancy, especially for those living in certain regions of the country where there are limited resources for maternal health. These and other comments also provided numerous additional reasons for limiting the amount of documentation that covered entities may seek under the PWFA, including: the burden and corresponding reduction in quality of care that administrative duties (such as paperwork) place on health care professionals; the possibility that the notes doctors provide are “overprotective” and result in a person who wants to work being placed on leave; the costs in time and money employees face when they must obtain medical documentation; the concern that a doctor may feel uncomfortable certifying that a condition is completely due to pregnancy; the fact that these burdens may deter employees who need accommodations from asking for them; and the possibility that employers will not maintain the confidentiality of medical documentation they obtain, among other reasons. These comments agreed with the overall structure of the proposed rule's documentation provision but also offered suggestions for further limiting the circumstances in which documentation could be sought, as explained in more detail below. Some comments, generally supportive of the proposed rule's approach, urged the Commission to ensure that there is a broad understanding among covered entities and employees of the PWFA's rules limiting the ability of covered entities to seek supporting documentation.

Other comments, however, were generally unsupportive of the proposed rule's approach, arguing that before deciding whether to grant requests for reasonable accommodations, employers need to be able to seek supporting documentation beyond what the proposed rule would allow. Such comments expressed concern about employee fraud, including employees who might seek accommodations with no relation to a PWFA-covered limitation. Others said that the proposed rule did not allow employers to request sufficient justification for a requested accommodation and that this aspect of the proposal violated the spirit of mutually beneficial cooperation that the PWFA represents. Concerns about vague requests, employees who did not know what sort of accommodation they needed, and the absence of a concrete rule also were mentioned in these comments.

In drafting the final rule on supporting documentation, the Commission took these comments into consideration, as well as the more specific suggestions discussed below.

Comments and Response to Comments Suggesting That the PWFA's Rule on Supporting Documentation Should Follow the ADA

Some comments that generally were unsupportive of the proposed rule's approach to supporting documentation argued that the PWFA regulation should follow the approach employers use under the ADA. Some argued that this approach should be followed because it provides a familiar bright line that is more useful to employers than a general “reasonableness” standard. These comments also asserted that difficulties pregnant employees have obtaining documentation are faced equally by those with disabilities and, therefore, should not be a factor in the drafting of a final rule.

The Commission disagrees with the comments that argued that it automatically can or should apply the ADA's approach to supporting documentation under the PWFA in all circumstances. The ADA's statutory restrictions on disability-related inquiries apply to all disability-related inquiries, whether or not an employee has a disability, including when such inquiries are made in response to a request for an accommodation under the PWFA, as discussed in detail in the Interpretive Guidance in section 1636.7(a)(1) under Prohibition on Disability-Related Inquiries and Medical Examinations and Protection of Medical Information. These restrictions limit an employer's ability to ask employees questions that are likely to elicit information about a disability to situations when doing so is job-related and consistent with business necessity.

The PWFA does not have a similar statutory provision regarding pregnancy-related inquiries. However, the PWFA does make it unlawful for a covered entity not to make reasonable accommodation to the known limitations related to the pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions of a qualified employee, unless such covered entity can demonstrate that the accommodation would impose an undue hardship. Adopting a reasonableness standard for when employers can seek supporting documentation to determine coverage and the need for an accommodation ensures that covered entities can meet the statute's requirements without overly broad documentation requests that could result in the failure to provide accommodations that should be granted or could lead to claims of retaliation. Additionally, the Commission concludes that it is critical to limit inquiries and the supporting documentation that a covered entity can seek when an employee requests an accommodation under the PWFA so that covered entities do not obtain sensitive information that they do not need when making employment decisions and employees are not dissuaded from asking for accommodations out of concern that such requests will lead to probing questions unrelated to their ability to do the job. Thus, the Commission has retained the reasonableness standard from the proposed rule.

The Commission notes that the rule it is adopting about seeking supporting documentation for the PWFA is similar to the Commission's guidance regarding the ADA in some ways. The most important similarity is that a covered entity is not required to seek supporting documentation from an employee who requests an accommodation under the PWFA, as is true under the ADA. For example, if an employee, early in their pregnancy, informs the employer that they are pregnant, have morning sickness, and need a later start time, the employer and the employee can discuss what type of schedule changes are needed and implement them. Because of the difficulty employees may face in finding care, the fact that many health care providers will not see employees until later in their pregnancies, and the fact that many accommodations under the PWFA will be simple and temporary, the Commission encourages employers to engage in this simple type of interactive process to determine appropriate accommodations under the PWFA.

The final PWFA rule contains five examples of when it is not reasonable under the circumstances to seek supporting documentation. Two of these examples build on the Commission's ADA policy guidance (§ 1636.3(l)(1)(i) (obvious) and (ii) (known)); and a third example is based on disparate treatment principles that apply equally under the ADA (§ 1636.3(l)(1)(v)) (it would not be reasonable under the circumstances to seek documentation when the requested accommodation is available to employees without PWFA limitations pursuant to a covered entity's policies or practices without submitting supporting documentation.). The two other examples involve pregnancy and predictable assessments, and lactation, nursing, and pumping. They are described in detail below.

Reorganization of § 1636.3(l) and Changes in the Language Describing the Reasonableness Standard

The Commission has made several changes in the regulation for § 1636.3(l).

First, the Commission has changed the language in § 1636.3(l)(1) regarding when it is reasonable under the circumstances from “reasonable under the circumstances for the covered entity to determine whether to grant the accommodation” to “reasonable under the circumstances for the covered entity to determine whether the employee has a physical or mental condition related to, affected by, or arising out of pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions (a limitation) and needs an adjustment or change at work due to the limitation.” The Commission believes that, given the context, “to determine whether to grant the accommodation” would be understood to mean “to determine whether the employee has a physical or mental condition related to, affected by, or arising out of pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions (a limitation) and needs an adjustment or change at work due to the limitation.” However, the Commission also recognizes that there may be other factors involved in an effort “to determine whether to grant the accommodation” that do not involve supporting documentation. Thus, the Commission has changed the language to be more precise.

Second, throughout the regulation and the Interpretive Guidance, references to an employer “requiring” documentation in the proposed rule have been changed to an employer “seeking” documentation. This change was made to account for situations where an employer's request for supporting documentation is effectively a requirement even if it does not contain the word “requirement.”

Third, the Commission has moved the information regarding confidentiality from § 1636.3(l)(4) of the proposed regulation to section 1636.7(a)(1) under Prohibition on Disability-Related Inquiries and Medical Examinations and Protection of Medical Information in the Interpretive Guidance. The Commission has made this change because the prohibition on disability-related inquiries and the confidentiality provisions that apply to medical information obtained under the PWFA arise from the ADA, not the PWFA, and therefore are enforceable under the ADA, not the PWFA. Accordingly, they are more appropriately addressed in the Interpretive Guidance's discussion of the application of the ADA's rules and exceptions regarding the confidentiality of medical information than in the PWFA regulation itself.

Fourth, the Commission has moved information regarding how documentation requests that violate § 1636.3(l) also may be a violation of 42 U.S.C. 2000gg-2(f) (§ 1636.5(f) (prohibition on retaliation and coercion)) to the Interpretive Guidance in section 1636.5(f) under Possible Violations of 42 U.S.C. 2000gg-2(f) (1636.5(f)) Based on Seeking Supporting Documentation During the Reasonable Accommodation Process and Disclosure of Medical Information.

Fifth, the final rule contains a new paragraph (new paragraph (l)(4) of § 1636.3) regarding self-confirmation for the purposes of § 1636.3(l)(1)(i), (iii), and (iv). The NPRM stated that, in certain circumstances, an employer could not request documentation to confirm pregnancy when an employee “states or confirms” that they are pregnant. Some comments discussed the question of what kind of confirmation should be allowed and, in particular, when covered entities should be permitted to seek documentation to confirm that an employee is pregnant. Some argued that self-attestation should always suffice, others argued that covered entities should be allowed to seek supporting documentation confirming pregnancy unless the pregnancy is “obvious,” while still others discussed the types of tests that should or should not be allowed to confirm pregnancy. As explained in detail below, the final rule provides two circumstances in which covered entities must accept self-confirmation of pregnancy: when the pregnancy is obvious, or when the request for a change at work involves one of the modifications listed under § 1636.3(j)(4) due to pregnancy. As explained in the Interpretive Guidance in section 1636.3(l)(2) Reasonable Documentation, when the covered entity is permitted to seek confirmation of pregnancy other than through self-confirmation, it may not require a specific test or method.

Additionally, the Commission has included new subsections in the Interpretive Guidance: in section 1636.3(l) under Interaction Between the PWFA and the ADA; and in section 1636.7(a)(1) under The PWFA and the ADA.

Comments and Response to Comments Regarding Examples of When It Is Not Reasonable To Seek Supporting Documentation

As noted above, the NPRM explained that if an employer decided to seek supporting documentation, it was only permitted to do so if it was reasonable under the circumstances in order for the employer to determine whether to grant the accommodation. The NPRM provided four examples of when it is not reasonable under the circumstances.

The Commission received comments seeking additional factual scenarios illustrating circumstances when it would, as well as when it would not, be reasonable under the circumstances to seek documentation. Some of these comments provided suggestions for desired examples. The Commission agrees that further illustrations would be useful and therefore has added further illustrations to the Interpretive Guidance in section 1636.3(l)(1) Seeking Supporting Documentation Only When Reasonable Under the Circumstances.

Other comments suggested that the final rule should state that covered entities that seek documentation must provide paid leave for the employee to obtain the documentation, as well as cover any costs incurred to obtain it. To the extent that these comments intended to suggest that it would not be reasonable under the circumstances to seek documentation unless the covered entity provides paid leave for the employee to obtain the documentation and covers any costs incurred, the Commission disagrees and declines to adopt this suggestion.

Not Reasonable To Seek Supporting Documentation—Obvious

The first example in the proposed rule of when it would not be reasonable under the circumstances to seek supporting documentation is when: (1) the known limitation and need for reasonable accommodation are obvious; and (2) the employee confirms the obvious limitation and need for reasonable accommodation through self-attestation. This example is retained in the final rule, although the language has been modified to reflect changes in the description of what documentation may be sought.

Thus, the language in the final rule regarding this example has been changed from “when the known limitation and the need for reasonable accommodation are obvious and the employee confirms the obvious limitation and need for reasonable accommodation through self-attestation” to “[w]hen the physical or mental condition related to, affected by, or arising out of pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions (a limitation) and the adjustment or change at work needed due to the limitation are obvious, and the employee provides self-confirmation as defined in paragraph (l)(4) of this section.” The Interpretive Guidance for this section, in section 1636.3(l)(1)(i)—Obvious, has generally remained the same with some minor language edits.

Many comments expressed concerns with the meaning of the word “obvious.” Comments noted, among other things, that a rule that envisions employers making decisions based on whether someone is “obviously” pregnant will lead employers to subject employees' bodies to invasive scrutiny. This, in turn, might lead employers to unilaterally impose restrictions based on gendered and racialized stereotypes about what pregnant and postpartum people need. Other comments argued that it is irrelevant whether a pregnancy is “obvious” because if the individual in question is seeking an accommodation for which the employer is permitted to seek documentation, that documentation will automatically include a confirmation that the person is pregnant. Another comment pointed out that it will be very difficult for covered entities to determine if a pregnancy is “obvious,” and that attempting to do so might expose employers to liability if a manager judges incorrectly.

In response to these comments, the Commission first notes that the idea of prohibiting requests for supporting documentation when the condition is “obvious” is similar to the Commission's guidance regarding the ADA although, unlike the ADA, the PWFA regulation includes a self-confirmation requirement. The Commission also has used the concept of “obvious” previously regarding pregnancy discrimination. An “obvious” pregnancy is one where the pregnancy is showing, and onlookers easily notice by observation. Importantly, as several comments noted, not everyone who is pregnant looks the same.

Moreover, the Commission concludes that concerns about this provision encouraging employers to force employees to accept unnecessary accommodations based on stereotypes are misplaced. Whether a pregnancy is obvious will only be relevant after an employee requests a reasonable accommodation. Other parts of the PWFA prohibit employers from requiring employees to accept reasonable accommodations.

The requirement that obviously pregnant employees must self-confirm that they are pregnant (new § 1636.3(l)(4)) is intended to address the concerns expressed by comments about managers being uncertain whether someone is pregnant. Although there may be circumstances in which a pregnant employee asks for an accommodation and considers themselves to be “obviously” pregnant, but the employer disagrees and requests supporting documentation, the Commission believes such cases will be rare. Finally, although the Commission understands concerns about an employer's possible scrutiny of an employee's body, it is impractical to suggest that an employer in such circumstances should not consider the obvious physical condition of the employee requesting accommodation and instead seek documentation.

Some comments also requested more details about and examples of what would be considered an “obvious” limitation and/or an “obvious” need for accommodation (for example, asking when a limitation would be obvious based on something other than physical appearance). These comments suggested, for instance, that if someone self-attested to pregnancy and then was seen frequently vomiting, the limitation (vomiting due to pregnancy) should be considered obvious, and no documentation would be needed because vomiting is a common symptom of pregnancy.

Under these circumstances, the comments suggested, the need for an accommodation of a temporary relocation of a workstation closer to the bathroom also would be obvious. These comments recommended that the Commission, in the final rule, identify the following conditions as “obvious”: morning sickness, edema, fatigue, back pain, medical visits, lifting restrictions, and time to recover from childbirth, among others. Comments additionally recommended that the final rule make clear that the need for accommodation is obvious when a pregnant employee requests removal from exposure to certain harmful chemicals or infectious diseases.

Under the final rule, the first example of when it is not reasonable under the circumstances for an employer to seek supporting documentation is when the employee's limitation (physical or mental condition related to, affected by, or arising out of pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions) and the adjustment or change at work that is needed due to the limitation are obvious and the employee confirms the limitation and the adjustment or change at work needed due to the limitation. As stated in the Interpretive Guidance in section 1636.3(l)(1)(i)—Obvious, the Commission expects this example will usually apply when the employee is obviously pregnant. “Obvious” means that the condition is apparent without being mentioned. In terms of pregnancy itself, this may depend on physical appearance, i.e., whether the pregnancy is “showing.”

In response to comments suggesting that additional circumstances will always fall within the parameters of “obvious” limitations and/or “obvious” accommodations, the Commission does not have enough information to agree with those comments maintaining, for example, that there should be a nationwide standard establishing that it always is obvious that all pregnant employees need accommodations due to lifting restrictions, avoiding certain chemicals, or back pain, such that it would never be reasonable for employers to seek supporting documentation when someone requests accommodation due to these limitations. Although there may be circumstances under which these and other limitations or accommodations are obvious, when accompanied by self-confirmation, the Commission does not view these sorts of limitations or types of accommodations as “obvious” in the way that it is obvious that a pregnant employee late in pregnancy needs a larger uniform or properly fitting safety equipment. Thus, the Commission did not make any changes to the proposed rule based on comments concerning limitations or accommodations that should be considered “obvious.”

Not Reasonable To Seek Supporting Documentation—Known

Although fewer comments mentioned the proposed rule's second example of when it would not be reasonable for a covered entity to seek documentation in support of a request for PWFA accommodation, some did suggest that the term “sufficient information” was too vague and asked if “information” was intended to encompass something broader than “documentation.”

This example is intended to prevent covered entities from seeking supporting documentation unnecessarily. In the NPRM, the Commission explained that information is sufficient if it substantiates that the employee has a known PWFA limitation and needs a change or adjustment at work. The word “information” was intentionally used to make clear that it does not have to be documentation from a health care provider but can be information provided by the employee or their representative, such as a self-confirmation of pregnancy, when permitted, or confirmation from the employee that the need, explained by previously submitted documentation, has occurred again. The example provided in one of the comments illustrates the need for this provision—in this example, an employee who had already provided documentation from her health care provider was required to provide a new doctor's note for each absence due to morning sickness, an impossible requirement given that no one would be able to see a doctor every time they were too nauseous to go to work. If an employee already has provided documentation that because of morning sickness they need to use intermittent leave as necessary for the next 2 months, the covered entity may not seek new documentation from a health care provider every time the employee needs to use leave due to morning sickness.

To ensure that this example is not misunderstood to be broader than intended, the Interpretive Guidance makes clear in section 1636.3(l)(1)(ii)—Known that when it is otherwise reasonable under the circumstances to seek supporting documentation, an employer is not prohibited from doing so simply because the employee has stated that they have a PWFA limitation and need an adjustment or change at work.

The language in the final rule about this example has been changed to follow the language in the final rule regarding the supporting documentation that may be sought and to clarify that the example applies whenever the employer has sufficient information to determine that the employee has a PWFA limitation and needs an adjustment or change at work, regardless of how the employer obtains that information. Thus, the Commission changed “When the employee or applicant already has provided the covered entity with sufficient information to substantiate that the employee or applicant has a known limitation and that a change or adjustment at work is needed;” to “When the employer already has sufficient information to determine whether the employee has a physical or mental condition related to, affected by, or arising out of pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions (a limitation) and needs an adjustment or change at work due to the limitation.” Additionally in the Interpretive Guidance for this section, the Commission has added how this provision may apply to episodic conditions.

Not Reasonable To Seek Supporting Documentation—Predictable Assessments

The proposed rule provided a third example of when it is not reasonable for an employer to seek supporting documentation: when an employee at any time during their pregnancy states or confirms that they are pregnant and seeks one of the modifications described as “predictable assessments” under § 1636.3(j)(4)(i) through (iv).

Many comments suggested that this example be expanded to include modifications beyond those recognized as “predictable assessments” under § 1636.3(j)(4)(i) through (iv). Some of these comments argued that the list should be expanded because the principles underlying whether a particular accommodation warrants medical certification differ from concerns related to undue hardship. The Commission declines to expand this example. The recognized “predictable assessments” reflect a small set of simple, inexpensive, commonly sought accommodations that are widely known to be needed during an uncomplicated pregnancy, and where documentation would not be easily obtained or necessary. In the Commission's view, the examples suggested for the possible expansion of the rule do not fall within this same category, although the Commission agrees that in some situations the modifications offered in the comments would not require supporting documentation and reminds employers that they are not obligated to seek supporting documentation. Moreover, because the proposed list of accommodations that fit within this example are limited to modifications already singled out in § 1636.3(j)(4), the example is clear and easy to apply.

One comment, focused more on the proposed regulation's discussion of predictable assessments in an undue hardship context, noted that employers should be able to seek documentation to confirm that the requested “predictable assessments” modifications are needed due to pregnancy, as opposed to some other reason. The Commission agrees that this example is limited to pregnancy. Thus, under the final rule, the employer is not permitted to seek supporting documentation if the employee asks for one of these modifications due to a physical or mental condition related to, affected by, or arising out of pregnancy (a limitation) and provides self-confirmation as defined in § 1636.3(l)(4).

Not Reasonable To Seek Supporting Documentation—Lactation

The fourth example in the proposed rule regarding when it is not reasonable under the circumstances to seek documentation concerns lactation and pumping. A few comments noted that, as written, the example suggests it is not reasonable to seek additional supporting documentation, as opposed to making clear that no supporting documentation may be requested. The Commission has reworded this example for purposes of clarification, in the final rule, as explained below.

Another comment noted that the example as written was overly broad because it prohibits an employer from asking for documentation anytime the requested accommodation relates to lactation. The comment noted that if, for example, an individual requests to work from home while breastfeeding or requests accommodations due to anxiety over a child's difficulties learning to bottle feed, the employer would be prohibited from seeking supporting documentation regarding such requested accommodations.

The Commission agrees that the language in the proposed rule could be interpreted too broadly. The final rule makes clear that it is not reasonable under the circumstances for a covered entity to seek supporting documentation in response to a request for reasonable accommodations involving lactation and a time and/or place to pump at work or any other modification related to pumping at work. In response to comments raising questions regarding nursing during work hours, the final rule also explains that when the regular location of the employee's workplace makes nursing during work hours a possibility because the child is in close proximity, it would not be reasonable to seek supporting documentation in response to a request for reasonable accommodations involving a time to nurse during work hours. This example does not extend, however, to accommodations involving lactation beyond these modifications. Thus, for example, if a lactating employee requests full-time remote work due to a condition that makes pumping difficult, it may be reasonable for the covered entity to seek reasonable documentation about the limitation and need for remote work, although it is not required to do so.

The final rule is, therefore, modified to clarify that when the reasonable accommodation is related to a time and/or place to pump, or any other modification related to pumping at work, and the employee has provided self-confirmation as defined in paragraph (l)(4), it is not reasonable to request supporting documentation. Likewise, it would not be reasonable to seek documentation when the accommodation is related to a time to nurse when the regular location of the employee's workplace makes nursing during work hours a possibility because the child is in close proximity and the employee has provided self-confirmation of the fact, as defined in paragraph (l)(4). The Commission has added information regarding nursing during work hours in the Interpretive Guidance in section 1636.3(l)(1)(iv)—Lactation and made other minor modifications.

Not Reasonable To Seek Supporting Documentation—Employer's Own Policies or Practices (New § 1636.3(l)(1)(v))

The final rule contains a new example of when it is not reasonable under the circumstances for the employer to seek supporting documentation. New § 1636.3(l)(1)(v) states that seeking supporting documentation is not reasonable under the circumstances when the requested modification is one that employees without known limitations under the PWFA would receive pursuant to the employer's policy or practice without submitting supporting documentation. For example, if an employer has a policy or practice of only seeking supporting documentation for the use of leave if the leave is for 3 or more consecutive days, it would not be reasonable for the employer to seek supporting documentation from someone who needs leave due to a known limitation under the PWFA when they request leave for 2 or fewer days. The Commission has added information from this paragraph in the Interpretive Guidance in section 1636.3(l)(1)(v)—Employer's Own Policies or Practices.

Comments and Response to Comments Regarding Self-Confirmation and Concerns About Fraudulent Requests

Several comments requested that the Commission provide a definition of “self-attestation.” Others argued that, when it comes to pregnancy itself, self-attestation should always be sufficient to avoid deterring requests for accommodations, stigmatizing those who need accommodations due to pregnancy, or violating rights to privacy. Yet other comments agreed that self-attestation of pregnancy should usually be sufficient but suggested that the final rule allow requests for documentation when the employer has reason to believe that there is “abuse.” Some argued that self-attestation of pregnancy should only be adequate when the pregnancy is obvious and, in all other circumstances, documentation of pregnancy should be required. Still others suggested that, while self-attestation was sufficient to establish pregnancy, employers should develop policies to address situations where they have reason to believe an employee who claimed to be pregnant is not being honest.

The Commission agrees that a definition of “self-attestation” is necessary and also has determined that the word “attestation” suggests too formal a requirement. Instead, the final rule uses the term “self-confirmation” and provides a definition at § 1636.3(l)(4). As explained above, the final rule permits self-confirmation of pregnancy when the pregnancy is obvious and at any stage in a pregnancy when the employee is requesting one of the modifications outlined in § 1636.3(j)(4)(i) through (iv) due to pregnancy. When the reasonable accommodation is related to a time and/or place to pump at work, a time to nurse during work hours (where the regular location of the employee's workplace makes nursing during work hours a possibility because the child is in close proximity), or any other modification related to pumping at work, the final rule permits self-confirmation of the fact that the employee is pumping at work or nursing during work hours.

In addition to comments arguing that self-confirmation of pregnancy should not be allowed when an employer has “reason to believe” there is abuse, several comments expressed fear that limiting an employer's ability to seek supporting documentation will lead to fraudulent requests and prevent employers from punishing those who lie about limitations or the need for accommodations.

In response, the Commission notes that the final regulation permits employers to seek supporting documentation when it is reasonable under the circumstances to determine that the employee has a physical or mental condition related to, affected by, or arising out of pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions (a limitation) and needs an adjustment or change at work due to the limitation. Moreover, the PWFA itself does not prohibit employers from taking disciplinary action against those who make false claims about limitations or the need for accommodations. The Commission urges covered entities to follow the advice of the comment proposing that employers should have clear policies in place regarding how to address fraud, dishonesty, and abuse. It is, of course, also the case that an employee may not be punished for seeking an accommodation even if it is ultimately determined that they are not entitled to one under the law.

The Commission declines to implement the suggestion that the final rule include a provision stating it would not violate the PWFA's anti-retaliation and anti-coercion provisions if a covered entity punished someone who falsely claimed to need a reasonable accommodation. The final rule, like the proposed rule, explains the requirements for establishing that a covered entity has retaliated against or coerced someone in violation of the PWFA. Moreover, it would not violate the PWFA to fail to provide an accommodation to an individual who failed to establish they were entitled to one, assuming the covered entity abided by the requirements and prohibitions of the PWFA. Of course, the Commission cautions that neither those seeking accommodations under the PWFA nor those charged with responding to such requests may lie during their interactions.

Comments and Response to Comments Suggesting Other Frameworks for the Final Rule on Supporting Documentation

Another documentation framework suggested by comments was that covered entities may seek supporting documentation except when: (1) the need for accommodation is obvious; and (2) the covered entity's requirement conflicts with their stated policy on non-pregnancy-related requests for accommodations. Another comment argued that while covered entities should not typically be able to seek supporting documentation, they should be able to do so if someone claims to be pregnant but never gives birth or supplies a birth certificate or is requesting accommodations for fertility treatments.

The Commission declines to adopt either of these suggestions. The first suggestion appears to be a combination of the proposed rule's example of “obvious” conditions and an acknowledgment that employers already provide accommodations to employees in certain situations without seeking supporting documentation. The Commission declines to make this change, although the first example of when it would not be reasonable under the circumstances to seek documentation in the final rule is based on the “obvious” conditions and accommodations, as explained above.

The Commission declines to make the changes in the other comment because it does not account for many situations, such as where an employer may need details about a lifting restriction or need for remote work during pregnancy or any type of limitation post-partum.

1636.3(l)(2) Reasonable Documentation

The proposed rule explained that when it is reasonable under the circumstances to require supporting documentation to determine whether to grant the accommodation, the covered entity is permitted only to require “reasonable documentation.” The proposed rule defined “reasonable documentation” as documentation that is sufficient to describe or confirm: (1) the physical or mental condition; (2) that it is related to, affected by, or arising out of pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions; and (3) that an adjustment or change at work is needed.

Many comments argued that the definition of “reasonable documentation” should be revised to state that the documentation does not need to identify the nature of, or provide a detailed description of, the physical or mental condition that is the known limitation. These comments suggested that reasonable documentation be limited to documentation that: (1) confirms the individual has a limitation that is related to, affected by, or arising out of pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions, and (2) explains that a change at work is needed due to the limitation. Some comments expressed concern about protecting the privacy of employees and urged that “reasonable documentation” be limited to the “minimum information” necessary to assess the condition's nexus to pregnancy, childbirth, or a related medical condition. The comments noted, for example, that supporting documentation need not state that an employee has to attend a medical appointment related to a miscarriage, but can simply state that the employee needs to attend a medical appointment during work hours due to pregnancy, childbirth, or a related medical condition and thus needs a modified start time on a particular day; or the employee has a prohibition on lifting more than 50 pounds in connection with a condition related to pregnancy and thus needs an accommodation that eliminates the need to lift more than 50 pounds. In support of this suggestion, the comments explained that asking employees to disclose detailed medical information to their employers, especially information related to reproductive and mental health, which can be particularly sensitive or stigmatizing, may deter employees from seeking accommodations. Comments also noted that limiting reasonable documentation to confirming the related medical condition would help protect patient privacy, which the comments said could be especially important for employees obtaining abortions or facing intimate partner violence.

The Commission agrees that protecting patient privacy is an important goal and that covered entities should be limited to seeking the minimum documentation needed to determine if an employee is entitled to a reasonable accommodation under the PWFA. However, the Commission also recognizes that there may be situations when an employer needs documentation to determine whether the employee has a PWFA limitation and the adjustment or change at work is needed due to the limitation.

To take account of these interests, the Commission made several changes to the definition of “reasonable documentation.”

First, the Commission modified the proposed definition of “reasonable documentation” to clarify that reasonable documentation means “the minimum that is sufficient,” rather than merely stating that reasonable documentation means documentation that is “sufficient.”

Second, because all that is required is the minimum documentation that is sufficient, the Commission has changed the language in the regulation to specify that the supporting documentation need only confirm (rather than “describe or confirm”) the physical or mental condition. The Commission has included the language from § 1636.3(a)(2) in § 1636.3(l)(2)(i) defining a physical or mental condition ( i.e., an impediment or problem that may be modest, minor, and/or episodic; a need or a problem related to maintaining the employee's health or the health of the pregnancy; or an employee seeking health care related to pregnancy, childbirth, or a related medical condition itself). Finally, in the Interpretive Guidance in section 1636.3(l)(2) Reasonable Documentation, the Commission has explained that this confirmation can be accomplished through a simple statement and that it does not need to include a diagnosis.

Third, again because all that is required is the minimum documentation that is sufficient, the Commission has changed the language in the regulation to specify that the supporting documentation need only confirm (rather than “describe or confirm”) that the physical or mental condition is related to, affected by, or arising out of pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions and has explained in the Interpretive Guidance in section 1636.3(l)(2) Reasonable Documentation that pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions need not be the sole, the original, or a substantial cause of the physical or mental condition given that the statutory language only requires that physical or mental condition be “related to, affected by, or arising out of” “pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions.”

Fourth, the final rule provides that the supporting documentation should describe (rather than “describe or confirm”) the adjustment or change needed at work and has added that the adjustment or change needed at work must be “due to the limitation” in order to ensure that the documentation connects the physical or mental condition with the adjustment or change at work.

In the Interpretive Guidance in section 1636.3(l)(2) Reasonable Documentation, the Commission has added information explaining how seeking more documentation than is set out in § 1636.3(l) can violate 42 U.S.C. 2000gg-1(1) (§ 1636.4(a)(3)) (if the employer fails to provide the accommodation based on lack of documentation) and how seeking additional documentation or information beyond what is permitted in § 1636.3(l) when an employee requests a reasonable accommodation may violate the PWFA's prohibitions on retaliation in 42 U.S.C. 2000gg-2(f) (§ 1636.5(f)).

The Commission also has added examples in the Interpretive Guidance in section 1636.3(l)(2) Reasonable Documentation to illustrate when documentation from a health care provider is sufficient.

Generally, as explained in the Interpretive Guidance in section 1636.3(l)(2) Reasonable Documentation, confirming the physical or mental condition requires only a simple statement that the physical or mental condition meets the first part of the definition of “limitation” at § 1636.3(a)(2) ( i.e., the physical or mental condition is: an impediment or problem, including ones that are modest, minor, or episodic; a need or a problem related to maintaining the health of the employee or the pregnancy; or that the employee is seeking health care related to pregnancy, childbirth, or a related medical condition itself). Because the physical or mental condition can be something like fatigue or vomiting, there is no need for the statement to contain a medical diagnosis. Thus, as set out in the Interpretive Guidance in section 1636.3(l)(2) Reasonable Documentation, documentation is sufficient under § 1636.3(l)(2) even if it does not contain a medical diagnosis, as long as it has a simple statement of the physical or mental condition.

The physical or mental condition must be related to, affected by, or arising out of pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions. The supporting documentation need not state that the pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions are the sole, the original, or a substantial cause of the physical or mental condition at issue, because the statute only requires that the physical or mental condition be “related to, affected by, or arising out of pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions.” If relevant, the documentation should include confirmation that the “related medical condition” is related to pregnancy or childbirth.

The documentation should describe what adjustment or change at work is needed due to the limitation. The Interpretive Guidance in section 1636.3(l)(2) Reasonable Documentation provides examples of these.

Other comments pointed out that reasonable documentation should include information about the duration of the limitation. These comments observed that while some limitations may continue for the entire length of a pregnancy, the duration of other limitations, such as a postpartum limitation that requires leave, may be less definite. The comments also noted that the expected duration of the limitation and corresponding accommodation can be a key factor in determining whether the accommodation would impose an undue hardship, or whether an essential function(s) could be performed “in the near future.” The Commission generally agrees with this point but concludes that it would be more useful for covered entities to have information about the expected duration of the needed modification, rather than the duration of the limitation itself. The Commission also believes including information about the duration of the modification could address concerns other comments raised about the need for periodic updates of documentation. If, for example, supporting documentation indicates that a pregnant employee would need an hour of leave every morning due to morning sickness for the first 3 months of the pregnancy, the employer would be permitted to request updated documentation at the end of those 3 months if the employee requested that the accommodation continue. Thus, the Interpretive Guidance states that an estimate of the expected duration of the modification may be part of the supporting documentation sought by the employer, if necessary.

Numerous comments argued that covered entities may not require employees to use a specific form for supporting documentation, as long as the necessary information is provided. These and other comments also expressed concern about employers who require employees seeking accommodations under the PWFA to submit specific forms that call for extensive medical information. One comment submitted, as attachments, several examples of forms that employees requesting accommodations under the PWFA have been required to use. These forms require information beyond the description of “reasonable documentation” presented in the proposed rule and adopted by this final rule. The forms submitted sought extensive information, including: whether the individual had previously requested an accommodation; validation that the individual could perform a long list of essential functions, irrespective of the accommodation being requested; identification of any diagnoses, impairments, or conditions that might affect the individual's ability to perform essential job functions or major life activities; description of side effects of any treatment received; the length of time the impairment or condition had been treated; the expected duration of each impairment or condition; and whether the health care practitioner considered the condition in question to be a disability. The comments also noted that some covered entities reject supporting documentation based on technical issues, such as use of the wrong form.

Other comments argued that instead of prohibiting the use of specific forms to request documentation, the final rule should create a PWFA certification form, similar to the FMLA certification form, that covered entities could use to request documentation and that would provide what comments called a “safe harbor.”

The final rule provides that when a covered entity is permitted to seek supporting documentation under this rule, it may not require that supporting documentation be submitted on a specific form. This is consistent with similar rules under the FMLA and the ADA and recognizes that although employers may seek supporting documentation, they should not burden employees or health care providers with unnecessary technical requirements in their efforts to obtain the information.

Finally, the final rule does not include a “PWFA certification form.” Covered entities should comply with the PWFA's rule on supporting documentation by only seeking supporting documentation when it is reasonable under the circumstances and, in those cases, requesting only reasonable documentation, as defined in the final rule. The Commission fears that designing a PWFA certification form will create an assumption that supporting documentation is necessary in every case. It is not, and indeed it is barred in many circumstances. Employers are not required to obtain documentation for any reasonable accommodation under the PWFA and are encouraged to minimize documentation burdens on employees seeking accommodation under the PWFA whenever possible.

The final rule therefore states, at new § 1636.3(l)(2)(i), that when it is reasonable under the circumstances, as established in paragraph (l)(1), to seek supporting documentation, the covered entity is limited to seeking reasonable documentation. Reasonable documentation means the minimum that is sufficient to: (A) confirm the physical or mental condition ( i.e., an impediment or problem that may be modest, minor, and/or episodic; a need or a problem related to maintaining the employee's health or the health of the pregnancy; or an employee seeking health care related to pregnancy, childbirth, or a related medical condition itself) whether or not such condition meets the definition of disability specified in the ADA; (B) confirm that the physical or mental condition is related to, affected by, or arising out of pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions (together with paragraph (l)(2)(i)(A), “a limitation”); and (C) describe the adjustment or change at work that is needed due to the limitation.

Furthermore, new § 1636.3(l)(2)(ii) states that covered entities may not require that supporting documentation be submitted on a specific form.

1636.3(l)(3) Limitations on a Covered Entity Seeking Supporting Documentation From a Health Care Provider

The proposed rule explained that if a covered entity decides to seek supporting documentation and meets the requirements set forth in the rule, the covered entity may require that the reasonable documentation come from a health care provider. Comments suggested one additional type of health care provider, an industrial hygienist, and also questioned whether “doula” should be included. The Commission has added “industrial hygienist” to the list and has moved the reference to “doula” to a place on the list closer to health care providers who offer similar services. Many comments also recommended that the Commission affirmatively state that the health care provider could be one that provides services through telehealth; the Commission has made that addition in the regulation. The final rule also slightly reorders the listed health care providers so that those focused on mental health care are listed together, adds “psychiatrist,” which was unintentionally left out of the proposed list, and changes the term “providers” in “mental health care providers” to “professionals,” to parallel the term used in the Commission's ADA policy guidance.

Some comments focused on the first part of the proposed rule's list of health care providers, i.e., “A covered entity may require documentation comes from an appropriate health care provider, in a particular situation,” and suggested that the words “appropriate” and “in a particular situation” be removed in the final rule. The comments argued that these words give covered entities unnecessary power over the type of health care provider an employee should visit. The Commission concludes that these qualifiers are unnecessary and that it should be up to the employee seeking care and the health care provider providing care to determine what type of health care provider can best serve the person's needs. The final rule therefore removes these words.

Other comments suggested that the final rule make clear that the treating physician does not need to be the one to provide the reasonable documentation, pointing to privacy concerns in relation to certain kinds of medical care; these comments cited the example of abortion care. The comments stated that a health care provider familiar with the employee's circumstances should be allowed to provide the necessary information even if they are not the person treating the condition in question. As noted above, when an employer is permitted to seek supporting documentation, they are only permitted to seek reasonable documentation, which means the minimum that is sufficient to: (A) confirm the physical or mental condition ( i.e., an impediment or problem that may be modest, minor, and/or episodic; a need or a problem related to maintaining the employee's health or the health of the pregnancy; or an employee seeking health care related to pregnancy, childbirth, or a related medical condition itself) whether or not such condition meets the definition of disability specified in the ADA; (B) confirm that the physical or mental condition is related to, affected by, or arising out of pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions (together with paragraph (l)(2)(i)(A), “a limitation”); and (C) describe the adjustment or change at work that is needed due to the limitation. Any health care provider familiar enough with the individual's circumstances to provide the described information may do so under the final rule, whether or not they are treating the individual for the condition at issue.

Comments and Response to Comments Regarding Prohibition on Examinations by Employer's Health Care Provider

The NPRM stated that it is not practical or necessary for a covered entity to request or require that an employee be examined by a health care provider of the covered entity's choosing.

Most of the comments on this proposal agreed that covered entities should never be able to require individuals requesting accommodation under the PWFA to be examined by a health care provider of the covered entity's choosing. Comments explained that this would cause an unnecessary invasion of privacy, have a chilling effect, burden employees unnecessarily, and cause delay. Some comments noted that such a requirement would have a particularly negative effect on individuals seeking abortion care and women of color who face racism in health care and may be particularly reluctant to go to a new provider selected by their employer. A few comments disagreed with the proposed rule, noting that second opinions should be permitted since they are permitted under the FMLA, that some employees may not have a doctor, and/or that employers who do not want to provide the accommodation supported by the employee's doctor will need to seek the opinion of their own doctor.

The final rule prohibits covered entities from requiring that an employee be examined by a health care provider of the covered entity's choosing. Although such a practice is allowed in certain cases under the ADA and the FMLA, even under those laws the practice is limited. The PWFA covers many common physical or mental conditions for which there will never be a need for a medical diagnosis, and accommodations under the PWFA will usually be temporary. This supports a final rule under the PWFA that prohibits examinations by the employer's health care provider, even in the limited situations in which the practice is permitted under the ADA.

The final rule, for these reasons and to avoid the chilling effect, burdens, and potential delays outlined in the comments, states that a covered entity may not require that the employee seeking the accommodation be examined by a health care provider selected by the covered entity.

1636.3(l)(4) Formerly Proposed Confidentiality/New Final Self-Confirmation of Pregnancy or Lactation

As explained supra in the preamble in section 1636.3(l)(1) Seeking Supporting Documentation Only When Reasonable Under the Circumstances, the final rule at § 1636.3(l)(4) provides a definition for self-confirmation of pregnancy or lactation. The corresponding section in the Interpretive Guidance, 1636.3(l)(4) Self-Confirmation of Pregnancy or Lactation, explains how this is a simple procedure that can occur in the same conversation where the employee requests an accommodation.

The proposed rule, § 1636.3(l)(4), and the corresponding discussion in the proposed appendix, described the ADA's prohibition on disclosure of confidential medical information, including medical information obtained under the PWFA. Because these legal protections arise from the ADA and not the PWFA, the Commission removed reference to them in the PWFA regulation itself. The relevant protections are now described in the Interpretive Guidance in section 1636.7(a)(1) under Prohibition on Disability-Related Inquiries and Medical Examinations and Protection of Medical Information. This section explains, as did the NPRM, that while the PWFA does not have its own provision requiring the protection of medical information, employees covered by the PWFA also are covered by the ADA, and, under the ADA, covered entities are required to keep medical information confidential, with limited exceptions. The NPRM also stated that intentional disclosure of medical information obtained through the PWFA's reasonable accommodation process may violate the PWFA's prohibition on retaliation and/or coercion. Information regarding how the disclosure of medical information also may violate the retaliation provision of the PWFA is in the Interpretive Guidance in section 1636.5(f) under Possible Violations of 42 U.S.C. 2000gg-2(f) (§ 1636.5(f)) Based on Seeking Supporting Documentation During the Reasonable Accommodation Process and Disclosure of Medical Information.

1636.4 Formerly Proposed Prohibited Practices/New Final Nondiscrimination With Regard to Reasonable Accommodations Related to Pregnancy

The Commission changed the title of § 1636.4 in the regulation and the corresponding section of the Interpretive Guidance to match the title of this section in the statute.

1636.4(a) Failing To Provide Reasonable Accommodation

The Commission did not receive comments suggesting changes to § 1636.4(a). The Commission made only one minor change to that part of the regulation, to change the terminology used there (and throughout the preamble, regulation, and Interpretive Guidance) from “denial” of reasonable accommodation to “failure to provide” reasonable accommodation. This better reflects the language in 42 U.S.C. 2000gg-1(1), which makes it “an unlawful employment practice for a covered entity to” “not make reasonable accommodations.” Throughout the preamble, regulation, and the Interpretive Guidance, the Commission uses “failure to provide a reasonable accommodation” and “not make reasonable accommodation” interchangeably. In § 1636.4(a)(1) through (4) in the regulation, in addition to the changes described below, the Commission has added language to the effect that these sections apply to “qualified employees” with “known limitations related to pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions” so that they use the same language as 42 U.S.C. 2000gg-1(1) and § 1636.4(a).

1636.4(a)(1) Formerly Proposed Unnecessary Delay in Responding to a Request for Reasonable Accommodation/New Final Unnecessary Delay in Providing a Reasonable Accommodation

The Commission received several comments regarding the importance of making delay in the provision of a reasonable accommodation actionable.

First, numerous comments recommended that the Commission clarify that “unnecessary delay in responding to the request for a reasonable accommodation” (the language in § 1636.4(a)(1) in the proposed rule) would cover delay in all parts of the reasonable accommodation process, including delay in responding to the initial request, engaging in the interactive process, or providing the reasonable accommodation. The Commission agrees that the intent of the phrase “delay in responding to the request for a reasonable accommodation” encompasses delay in any part of the reasonable accommodation process. To clarify this point, the Commission has changed the language in the rule to “unnecessary delay in providing a reasonable accommodation,” has changed the title of this provision in the Interpretive Guidance in section to 1636.4(a)(1) Unnecessary Delay in Providing a Reasonable Accommodation and has added examples of the different ways this could manifest in the Interpretive Guidance for this section.

Second, one comment recommended clarifying that a delay by a third-party administrator acting for the covered entity is attributable to the covered entity. The Commission agrees and has added that information in the Interpretive Guidance in section 1636.4(a)(1) Unnecessary Delay in Providing a Reasonable Accommodation.

Third, numerous comments suggested adding that the “urgency” of the need for the accommodation be included as a factor, to account for situations where the need for the accommodation is an emergency. The Commission declines to add this as a factor because defining “urgency” would be difficult and could lead to unnecessary litigation regarding whether or not something was “urgent.” However, the Commission has added information regarding emergencies in the Interpretive Guidance in section 1636.3(k) under Engaging in the Interactive Process.

Numerous comments also suggested removing the factor in paragraph (a)(1)(vi) of the proposed rule (the factor in paragraph (a)(1)(vii) of the final rule), which provides that delay in providing a reasonable accommodation is more likely to be excused where an interim reasonable accommodation is offered and that the interim reasonable accommodation cannot be leave, unless certain circumstances apply. Comments argued that the factor in paragraph (a)(1)(vi) of the proposed rule could encourage covered entities to rely on interim accommodations and engage in delay. The Commission recognizes this risk, but, given the numerous comments that argued in favor of requiring employers to provide interim reasonable accommodations, the Commission believes that creating an incentive for the provision of interim reasonable accommodations is important. Responding to the comments, the Commission has limited the use of leave to excuse an unnecessary delay to the situations where an employee requests or selects leave as an interim reasonable accommodation. The Commission also has removed the sentence, “[i]f an interim reasonable accommodation is offered, delay by the covered entity is more likely to be excused” from proposed § 1636.4(a)(1)(vi) (now § 1636.4(a)(1)(vii)). The language in § 1636.4(a)(1) stating that these are factors to be considered in determining whether there has been unnecessary delay already explains this concept.

The Commission has included an additional factor for determining whether delay is unnecessary—how long the accommodation may be required. This factor accounts for situations where the accommodation is a short-term matter, and, by unnecessarily delaying the response, the covered entity, in effect, fails to provide the accommodation. This factor is in keeping with the discussion of delay in the NPRM, which noted that “[g]iven that pregnancy-related limitations are frequently temporary, a delay in providing an accommodation may mean that the period necessitating the accommodation could pass without action simply because of the delay.”

1636.4(a)(2) Refusing an Accommodation

The Commission received a few comments regarding § 1636.4(a)(2), which provides that a qualified employee does not have to accept an accommodation. If the employee cannot perform the essential functions of the position without the accommodation, the employee is not qualified. The proposed rule required employers also to consider whether the employee could be qualified with the temporary suspension of an essential function(s). The comments stated that the proposed rule created a situation where the employee could refuse the reasonable accommodation that allowed them to perform the essential functions of the position because the employee would prefer an accommodation that allowed them to suspend an essential function(s) and this, in effect, would remove the employer's “ultimate discretion” in choosing between effective accommodations. In order to address this issue, the Commission changed this paragraph in the final regulation so that it does not give the impression that an employee can reject a reasonable accommodation that allows them to do the essential function(s) of their position in order to have an essential function(s) of the position temporarily suspended.

1636.4(a)(3) Covered Entity Failing To Provide a Reasonable Accommodation Due to Lack of Supporting Documentation

The Commission has made four changes to this section of the regulation in order to make it align with § 1636.3(l), the provision regarding the limits on supporting documentation, and has reflected these changes in the Interpretive Guidance in section 1636.4(a)(3) Covered Entity Failing To Provide a Reasonable Accommodation Due to Lack of Supporting Documentation. First, the Commission has added as § 1636.4(a)(3)(i) that the covered entity must have sought the supporting documentation. The Commission has maintained as § 1636.4(a)(3)(ii) that seeking supporting documentation must be reasonable under the circumstances as set out in § 1636.3(l)(1). Second, the Commission has added at § 1636.4(a)(3)(iii) that the supporting documentation sought must be “reasonable documentation” as defined by § 1636.3(l)(2). Third, the Commission has added at § 1636.4(a)(3)(iv) that the employer must provide the employee sufficient time to obtain and provide the supporting documentation. Fourth, the Commission has added the word “unnecessary” before the word “delay” because an employer only has to justify unnecessary delay.

Finally, the Commission has reformatted this section to indicate the different requirements.

1636.4(a)(4) Choosing Among Possible Accommodations

The Commission received several comments about this provision. These comments pointed out that “similarly situated” is a term that courts have narrowly construed and that its use here could impede ensuring that employees receive the accommodations that provide equal opportunity. Some comments suggested adding that equal employment opportunity can be determined based on evidence of the opportunities that would have been available to the employee had they not identified a known limitation or sought an accommodation.

The Commission agrees that modifications should be made in this section to protect qualified employees and to minimize the need for litigation. Thus, the regulation provides that the “average employee” who is “similarly situated” without a known limitation can include the qualified employee themselves, and the Interpretive Guidance in section 1636.4(a)(4) Choosing Among Possible Accommodations contains additional information regarding evidence about possible comparators. Other comments suggested adding that the similarly situated employees should be similar in material respects, not all respects; the Commission agrees that this is true for similarly situated employees in general but did not add this concept to the regulation.

The Commission also received some comments recommending the addition of another standard, requiring employers to choose an option that most effectively meets the employee's needs and provides the employee with equal employment opportunity. The Commission declines to make this change. Employers must provide an accommodation that is effective. The employer does not have to provide the “most effective” accommodation or the accommodation that is the choice of the qualified employee. The Commission also received a comment recommending that the Commission add a provision to the rule stating that employers may not select any accommodation that negatively affects an employee's terms or conditions of employment at any time. The Commission did not add this because adopting a requirement that employers may not select an accommodation that “negatively affects” terms or conditions would be a new standard, and the general concept of this comment is covered by the provision requiring equal employment opportunity.

One comment suggested an employer should provide the employee with a choice of options that are responsive to the employee's needs and allow the employee to choose from the options. This comment asserted that doing so would decrease litigation for the employer. While the Commission agrees that this is a best practice and may help the covered entity avoid litigation, the Commission did not add this idea to the regulation or the Interpretive Guidance.

Finally, the Commission reordered the sentences in this provision in the regulation and removed the phrase “that do not cause an undue hardship” from this section of the regulation because it is redundant. The covered entity does not have to provide an accommodation that causes an undue hardship.

1636.4(b) Requiring a Qualified Employee To Accept an Accommodation

The Commission received a few comments regarding this provision. One comment argued that the interactive process is not always necessary. The Commission agrees that for some simple accommodations, the interactive process can be a very quick conversation where the employee provides information to the covered entity and the covered entity provides the accommodation. However, covered entities may not require a qualified employee to accept an accommodation other than one arrived at through the interactive process under 42 U.S.C. 2000gg-1(2). Thus, employers should not provide employees with an accommodation because the covered entity thinks the accommodation is “obvious.” Rather, the covered entity should engage the employee in the interactive process, even if it is very abbreviated.

The Commission received a few comments suggesting changes to the description of damages that could be available in Example #39 in the proposed rule. The Commission agrees that the damages suggested by the comments could be available and has made changes to the example, which is now Example #57 in the Interpretive Guidance in section 1636.4(b) Requiring a Qualified Employee To Accept an Accommodation.

1636.4(c) Denying Opportunities to Qualified Employees

The Commission did not receive comments regarding this provision. The Commission maintained the language from the proposed rule for this provision. The Commission also has made minor changes in the Interpretive Guidance in section 1636.4(c) Denying Opportunities to Qualified Employees for this provision.

1636.4(d) Requiring a Qualified Employee To Take Leave

The Commission maintained the language from the proposed rule for this provision. The Commission also has made minor changes in the Interpretive Guidance in section 1636.4(d) Requiring a Qualified Employee To Take Leave for this provision.

Some comments involving this section raised questions about whether an employer may temporarily require the employee to take leave in situations when the employee cannot work without an accommodation. The Commission has responded to these comments in the preamble in section 1636.3(h) under Interim Reasonable Accommodations. Other comments expressed concerns that this provision would prohibit an employee from requesting leave as a reasonable accommodation. As explained in the proposed rule, the proposed appendix, and the Interpretive Guidance in section 1636.4(d) Requiring a Qualified Employee To Take Leave, this is incorrect—the prohibition on requiring a qualified employee to take leave does not prohibit an employee from requesting leave as a reasonable accommodation.

1636.4(e) Adverse Action on Account of Requesting or Using a Reasonable Accommodation

The Commission received a few comments regarding the definition of “adverse action,” including comments that disagreed with the Commission's definition and instead recommended using the definition of “adverse employment action”; comments that suggested that the Commission include its proposed definition in the regulation itself; and a few comments agreeing with its definition of “terms, conditions, or privileges of employment.”

The Commission disagrees that “adverse action in terms, conditions, or privileges of employment” should have the same meaning as courts have given the term “adverse employment action.” Given the divergent views of the circuits at the time of this writing, adopting the definition of “adverse employment action” in interpreting 42 U.S.C. 2000gg-1(5) would lead to different outcomes in different circuits and could reduce protections for employees covered by the PWFA.

The Commission has retained the language in the proposed regulation, as well as the language from the proposed appendix, with minor changes. Specifically, the Commission has removed language from the proposed appendix about this standard not appearing in Title VII or the ADA, and the reference to the basic dictionary definition “adverse,” because it has determined that this information is not necessary to the explanation of this provision. The Commission also has reorganized the paragraphs in the Interpretive Guidance in section 1636.4(e) Adverse Action on Account of Requesting or Using a Reasonable Accommodation and made a few minor edits to the examples for this section. The Commission has added language to Example #58 in section 1636.4(e) Adverse Action on Account of Requesting or Using a Reasonable Accommodation (proposed Example #40) to clarify that when an employee receives leave as a reasonable accommodation, production standards such as sales quotas may need to be prorated to ensure that leave is an effective accommodation, as discussed infra in the Interpretive Guidance in section 1636.3(h) under Ensuring That Employees Are Not Penalized for Using Reasonable Accommodations.

1636.5 Remedies and Enforcement

Some comments expressed general concerns regarding enforcement, including a concern that employees would find it too difficult to enforce their rights under the law, a suggestion that the Commission find a way to enforce the law quickly, and a recommendation that the Commission create a safe harbor for small businesses that would allow businesses with 15 to 50 employees the opportunity to fix a violation once it was brought to their attention and that would permit a finding of liability only following repeated or willful violations.

The Commission agrees that it is important that employees be able to enforce their rights; to that end, the Commission conducts outreach with employees on a regular basis. The Commission shares the desire for expeditious compliance; this regulation is one step in furtherance of that goal. The Commission conducts significant outreach to small businesses to help them with compliance; employers can obtain more information about these opportunities at: https://www.eeoc.gov/employers/small-business. Finally, the Commission does not have the authority to create an exemption for small employers; however, the Commission notes that damages in cases regarding the provision of a reasonable accommodation can be limited by the employer's good-faith efforts.

In the final rule, the Commission has removed section § 1636.5(b) because it applies to employees protected by the Congressional Accountability Act. Throughout this section of this regulation, the Commission has replaced references to “this section” with “the PWFA” to clarify that the powers, remedies, and procedures referenced in this section are provided by the statute itself.

1636.5(a) Remedies and Enforcement Under Title VII

The final rule at § 1636.5(a) is the same as the proposed rule. The Commission has added information in the Interpretive Guidance in section 1636.5(a) Remedies and Enforcement Under Title VII to inform employees and covered entities regarding the time limit for filing charges under the PWFA, based on how the Commission enforces other statutes for which it is responsible.

1636.5(e) Remedies and Enforcement Under Section 717 of the Civil Rights Act of 1964

In the Interpretive Guidance in section 1636.5(e) Remedies and Enforcement Under Section 717 of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Commission has added information from the NPRM regarding the application of § 1636.5(e).

Damages

In the Interpretive Guidance in section 1636.5 under Damages, the Commission has added information regarding the damages available under the PWFA pursuant to 1977A of the Revised Statutes of the United States, 42 U.S.C. 1981a.

1636.5(f)(1) and (2) Prohibition Against Retaliation

The Commission received some comments regarding the prohibitions on retaliation and coercion.

First, one comment questioned whether the regulation's prohibition of an employer seeking documentation when it is not reasonable to do so would create a new standard for retaliation that does not require intent; it does not. To minimize any misunderstanding and provide a fuller explanation of when going beyond the regulatory limits on seeking supporting documentation set out in § 1636.3(l) may violate 42 U.S.C. 2000gg-2(f) (§ 1636.5(f)), the Commission removed proposed rule § 1636.5(f)(1)(iv) and (v) and proposed rule § 1636.5(f)(2)(iv) and (v) and, instead, explained the interaction between the limitations on supporting documentation and the PWFA's retaliation provision in detail in the Interpretive Guidance in section 1636.5(f) Prohibition Against Retaliation.

Second, as part of these changes, the Commission has created a new section in the Interpretive Guidance in section 1636.5(f) entitled Possible Violations of 42 U.S.C. 2000gg-2(f) (§ 1636.5(f)) Based on Seeking Supporting Documentation During the Reasonable Accommodation Process and Disclosure of Medical Information and has moved the explanation of how seeking supporting documentation or disclosing medical information may violate 42 U.S.C. 2000gg-2(f) to this section. The Commission also has added an additional example regarding the unauthorized disclosure of medical information to the examples of retaliation in the Interpretive Guidance in section 1636.5(f) Prohibition Against Retaliation.

Third, the Commission removed language that a request for a reasonable accommodation constitutes “protected activity” in the coercion section of the regulation, at proposed rule § 1636.5(f)(2)(ii), because “protected activity” is not a phrase used in the analysis of coercion claims.

The Commission received several comments requesting additional examples involving the prohibition on retaliation. The Commission agrees that more examples could be helpful and has included a few more in the Interpretive Guidance in section 1636.5(f) Prohibition Against Retaliation, including some related to requests for supporting documentation. Other comments suggested edits to certain examples in the proposal, and the Commission incorporated some of those modifications. For example, in addition to adding descriptive titles to the examples in this section, the Commission has added facts to certain examples to strengthen the connection between the covered entity's actions and the protected activity. The Commission added explanations to clarify how certain actions that may violate this provision of the PWFA, also may violate 42 U.S.C. 2000gg-1(1) (because these actions may make the accommodation ineffective) and 2000gg-1(5) (prohibiting adverse actions), rather than merely including the relevant statutory citation.

The Commission also has included in the Interpretive Guidance in section 1636.5(f) Prohibition Against Retaliation additional information about retaliation and coercion from its Enforcement Guidance on Retaliation and Related Issues so that this information is more easily accessible.

One comment requested that information regarding neutral work rules, such as fixed leave policies, be moved from the Interpretive Guidance to the regulation. The Commission declines to make this change but has added examples regarding this type of policy to the Interpretive Guidance in section 1636.5(f) Prohibition Against Retaliation.

The Commission received a few comments expressing concern that mission statements, statements regarding religious beliefs of an employer, or statements in employee handbooks would be seen as violating § 1636.5(f)(2). Whether a statement violates 42 U.S.C. 2000gg-2(f)(2) will depend on the language of the statement, but, as the examples provided in the NPRM and the final rule for this provision show, the making of general statements regarding an employer's mission or religious beliefs is not the type of conduct that the Commission previously has determined would be prohibited by this provision.

Additionally, the Commission made minor changes to § 1636.5(f). The proposed rule at § 1636.5(f)(1) referred to “employee, applicant, or former employee” and “individual” to refer to this group; the final rule uses only “employee” as that is the language in the statute. The removal of the words “applicant” and “former employee” and “individual” is a minor change. The statute at 42 U.S.C. 2000gg(3) provides that “employee” in the statute includes “applicant”; the same is true for the regulation and the Interpretive Guidance. The statute at 42 U.S.C. 2000gg(3)(A) refers to the Title VII definition of employee; that definition includes former employees when relevant. Finally, the proposed rule in § 1636.5(f)(2) used the word “because”; this has been changed to “on account of” to match the statute.

1636.5(g) Limitation on Monetary Damages

Several comments recommended that the Commission clarify that the good faith defense to money damages is limited to damages for a covered entity's failure to make reasonable accommodations under 42 U.S.C. 2000gg-1(1) (§ 1636.4(a)) only. The Commission agrees that this clarification would be helpful and has added it to the Interpretive Guidance in section 1636.5(g) Limitation on Monetary Damages.

1636.6 Waiver of State Immunity

A few comments recommended that the Commission either exempt State employers from the PWFA or create exceptions in the PWFA for certain State laws to provide States greater protection from the PWFA. The Commission declines to make these changes. The statute at 42 U.S.C. 2000gg-4 provides that “A State shall not be immune under the 11th Amendment to the Constitution from an action in a Federal or State court of competent jurisdiction for a violation of [the PWFA].” A decision by the Commission to modify this waiver would be in violation of the statute.

1636.7 Relationship to Other Laws

1636.7(a)(1) Relationship to Other Laws in General

Many comments addressed the PWFA and its relationship to other laws, some suggesting the inclusion of additional laws in the discussion in the Interpretive Guidance and others asking whether accommodations under the PWFA would lead to violations of other laws. The Commission has maintained the rule language from the NPRM and has made changes and additions to the Interpretive Guidance in section 1636.7(a)(1) Relationship to Other Laws in General in response to the comments. These changes and the Commission's responses to specific comments are discussed below.

Some comments recommended that collective bargaining agreements (CBAs) and workplace safety laws be added to the list of laws in § 1636.7(a)(1), to clarify that the PWFA does not invalidate CBAs or workplace safety laws that provide greater or equal protection for individuals affected by pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions. The Commission agrees with this suggestion and has added language to this effect in the Interpretive Guidance in section 1636.7(a)(1) Relationship to Other Laws in General.

Other comments asked how the PWFA will interact with the FMLA. The FMLA provides job-protected unpaid leave for serious health conditions, including pregnancy. As set out in 2000gg-5(a)(1), nothing in the PWFA invalidates or limits the powers, remedies, and procedures under other Federal laws that provide greater or equal protection for individuals affected by pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions. Thus, the PWFA does not invalidate or limit the rights of employees covered by the FMLA or State versions of it. The Department of Labor's regulations set out how the FMLA interacts with other civil rights laws, including leave as a reasonable accommodation under the ADA.

Some comments asked the Commission whether breaks under the PWFA must be paid, either under the PUMP Act or the FLSA. As the Commission explained in the discussion of reasonable accommodations in the NPRM, “Breaks may be paid or unpaid depending on the employer's normal policies and other applicable laws. Breaks may exceed the number that an employer normally provides because reasonable accommodations may require an employer to alter its policies, barring undue hardship.”

One comment suggested that the Commission create a safe harbor provision for covered entities similar to one created by the Department of Labor for wage deductions. The PWFA does not provide the Commission with this authority.

The Commission received some comments regarding the requirements for Federal agencies under Executive Order 13164. The Commission will respond to those through its work with Federal agencies.

Comments and Response to Comments Regarding the Relationship With Title VII

The Commission did not receive many comments regarding the discussion in the proposed appendix concerning § 1636.7(a)(1), about the relationship between the PWFA and Title VII. The Commission has maintained the discussion from the proposed appendix with some edits for style and clarity and added it in the Interpretive Guidance in section 1636.7(a)(1) under The PWFA and Title VII.

A few comments questioned whether providing an accommodation under the PWFA would violate Title VII's prohibition on sex discrimination. This issue is discussed in more detail above. The employees covered by the PWFA also are covered by Title VII. Title VII, as amended by the PDA, provides for accommodations for employees affected by pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions under certain circumstances, even when all employees do not receive the same accommodations. Providing these accommodations under Title VII does not violate Title VII even if they are not provided to all employees; the same is true under the PWFA.

Comments and Response to Comments Regarding the Relationship With the ADA

The Commission received some comments with questions regarding the interaction between the ADA and the PWFA. One comment recommended that the Commission state that if an employee might be covered by both the ADA and the PWFA, an employer should consider the ADA first. The Commission disagrees that it should make this determination or that employers should necessarily consider the ADA first. While it will depend on the specific facts of the situation, generally, when an employee might be covered by both the ADA and the PWFA, an employer's analysis should begin with the PWFA because the definition of “known limitation” means that under the PWFA an employer is required to provide reasonable accommodations in situations in which it may not be required to do so under the ADA. This is consistent with 42 U.S.C. 2000gg-5(a)(1), which states that when multiple State or Federal laws provide protection, a covered entity should consider all applicable laws and follow the principles that provide the broadest protections and impose the smallest burden on the employee. This has been added in the Interpretive Guidance in section 1636.7(a)(1) under The PWFA and the ADA.

A few comments questioned whether providing an accommodation under the PWFA would result in violations of the ADA if doing so made granting the accommodation to an individual covered by the ADA an undue hardship or because the PWFA provides for accommodations in situations that may not be covered by other laws. As an initial matter, the Commission disagrees that accommodations should be viewed as a zero-sum game. Under both the ADA and the PWFA, an individualized assessment occurs; there is no guarantee that an accommodation for one employee will result in another employee receiving or not receiving one. As data from the Job Accommodation Network show, most accommodations under the ADA are no-cost or low-cost. If there is truly a situation where there are limits—for example, if there are only 10 parking spaces—the employer can provide the accommodation until the limit is reached on a first-come, first-served or another neutral basis. Further, the fact that an employee is able to receive an accommodation under the PWFA that an employee cannot receive under the ADA does not violate the ADA because in that case, the employer is not refusing the accommodation to the person because of their disability. Rather, the employer is complying with its obligations under a different Federal law.

The Commission has provided additional information and examples regarding the interaction between the PWFA and the ADA, in the Interpretive Guidance in section 1636.7(a)(1) under The PWFA and the ADA, including examples of that relationship.

Within section 1636.7(a)(1) of the Interpretive Guidance, as set out below, the Commission has included information about two critical ADA protections that apply to employees covered by the PWFA: the rules that limit covered entities from making disability-related inquiries and requiring medical exams and the rules protecting confidential medical information. The information explains how the ADA's provisions that restrict the ability of employers to make disability-related inquiries interact with the PWFA and how the ADA's rules regarding confidential medical information and restrictions on sharing confidential medical information apply to medical information collected under the PWFA.

Comments and Response to Comments Regarding the Confidentiality of Medical Information

As explained in the NPRM, the PWFA does not include a provision specifically requiring covered entities to maintain the confidentiality of medical information obtained in support of accommodation requests under the PWFA. However, applicants, employees, and former employees covered by the PWFA also are covered by the ADA. Under the ADA, covered entities are required to keep medical information of all applicants, employees, and former employees (whether or not those individuals have disabilities) confidential, with limited exceptions. The Commission has long held that these ADA rules on confidentiality apply to all medical information, whether obtained through the ADA process or otherwise; thus this protection applies to medical information obtained under the PWFA, including medical information voluntarily provided and medical information provided as part of the reasonable accommodation process. Moreover, as a practical matter, in many circumstances under the PWFA the medical information obtained by an employer may involve a condition that could be a disability; rather than an employer attempting to parse out whether to keep certain information confidential or not, all medical information should be kept confidential. Additionally, an employer's disclosure of medical information obtained through the PWFA's reasonable accommodation process beyond what is permitted under the ADA may violate the PWFA's prohibition on retaliation.

Many comments expressed support for the proposed rule's position that the ADA rules regarding medical confidentiality apply to medical information obtained by covered entities under the PWFA. Some of these comments urged the Commission to specifically state in the final rule that employers must store an employee's medical information separate from personnel files and may not share it with anyone other than the supervisor implementing the accommodation. Another comment suggested that the final rule require employers to obtain an employee's written consent before disclosing medical information received under the PWFA in all circumstances. Finally, some comments expressed concern that State law enforcement agencies may seek medical information from covered entities regarding abortion care and requested that the final rule address this issue.

Because these confidentiality provisions arise from a statute other than the PWFA, and the violation of these provisions, if one occurred, would be of the ADA and not the PWFA, the Commission has decided not to include them in the regulation itself. Rather, this information has been included in the Interpretive Guidance in section 1636.7(a)(1) under The PWFA and the ADA and under Prohibition on Disability-Related Inquiries and Medical Examinations and Protection of Medical Information.

In response to concerns about State law enforcement agencies seeking medical information related to abortion care from PWFA-covered entities, the Commission reminds employers that the PWFA rules do not require employers to seek supporting documentation regarding requested reasonable accommodations. The Commission further reminds employers that when the employer is permitted to seek supporting documentation, it is limited to the minimum that is sufficient to confirm that the employee has a physical or mental condition related to, affected by, or arising out of pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions (a limitation), and describe the adjustment or change at work that is needed due to the limitation. Moreover, as noted above, the ADA's confidentiality provisions and limits on disclosure of medical information, reiterated in the Interpretive Guidance in section 1636.7(a)(1) under The PWFA and the ADA and under Prohibition on Disability-Related Inquiries and Medical Examinations and Protection of Medical Information, apply to medical information, including medical information collected by the employer under the PWFA, and thus the ADA prohibits an employer from releasing medical information except in five specified circumstances.

Further, the Commission has reorganized section 1636.5(f) in the Interpretive Guidance to highlight the potential retaliation claims that could arise regarding a covered entity seeking or releasing supporting documentation in situations where it would not be permissible under the regulation. These situations are now addressed in the Interpretive Guidance in section 1636.5(f) under Possible Violations of 42 U.S.C. 2000gg-2(f) (§ 1636.5(f)) Based on Seeking Supporting Documentation During the Reasonable Accommodation Process and Disclosure of Medical Information.

1636.7(a)(2) Limitations Related to Employer-Sponsored Health Plans

The Commission has not changed the regulation for this provision.

1636.7(b) Rule of Construction

The Commission received thousands of comments supporting the Commission's case-by-case approach to considering employer defenses asserting religious or constitutional considerations. The Commission also received tens of thousands of comments asserting that giving certain accommodations for pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions, such as providing leave for abortion, infertility treatments, or contraception, would infringe upon the employer's religious freedom and therefore the employer should not be required to provide such accommodations. As explained below, employers who assert that the provision of such accommodations infringes upon their religious exercise may assert numerous statutory and constitutional defenses. Because the facts of each case will differ, the Commission will apply these defenses using a case-by-case analysis, using the framework provided here and consistent with the Commission's approach to other statutes that the Commission enforces.

Section 107(b) of the PWFA, codified at 42 U.S.C. 2000gg-5(b), provides a “rule of construction” stating that the law is “subject to the applicability to religious employment” set forth in section 702(a) of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. 2000e-1(a). The relevant portion of section 702(a) provides that “[Title VII] shall not apply . . . to a religious corporation, association, educational institution, or society with respect to the employment of individuals of a particular religion to perform work connected with the carrying on by such corporation, association, educational institution, or society of its activities.” The final rule reiterates this PWFA statutory language and adds that nothing in the regulation limits the rights of a covered entity under the U.S. Constitution, and nothing in 42 U.S.C. 2000gg-5(b) or the regulation limits the rights of an employee under other civil rights statutes.

Comments Regarding the Rule of Construction

The Commission received comments that expressed a broad range of interpretations of the PWFA's “rule of construction” provision in section 107(b). Numerous comments agreed with the Commission's proposed rule to consider the provision's application to employers on a case-by-case basis. Many such comments reasoned that the provision should be interpreted consistent with section 702(a) of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to avoid confusion regarding its application, especially because the same facts may underlie Title VII and PWFA claims. Those comments further observed that section 702(a) strikes the correct balance between the rights of employees and the rights of employers. Other comments focused on one or more of three of section 107(b)'s components: (1) which entities qualify under the provision; (2) the scope of employment decisions to which the provision applies; and (3) the extent to which the provision limits the application of the PWFA's requirements as to qualifying religious entities. The Commission describes the range of comments received as to each component in turn.

Many comments asserted that section 107(b) covers religious entities only if they are qualifying entities under section 702(a). Conversely, many other comments asserted that section 107(b) should apply more broadly to entities owned and operated by religious employers. A few such comments stated that the provision should assess whether entities qualify under section 702(a) using the definition of a “religious” organization articulated in a 2017 Memorandum issued by the U.S. Attorney General. Other comments said that the provision should be redefined to include employers that object to accommodations on conscience, moral, ethical, scientific, health or medical, or any other secular grounds.

Comments varied regarding their view of the scope of employment decisions to which section 107(b) applies. Some comments asserted that section 107(b) applies only to hiring and firing coreligionists, and other comments asserted that it applies only to providing PWFA accommodations. By contrast, some comments asserted that the provision broadly covers all aspects of the employment relationship.

Furthermore, comments varied regarding the extent to which section 107(b) limits the application of the PWFA's requirements as to qualifying religious entities. Some comments stated that the provision allows qualifying entities to prefer coreligionists only in providing accommodation but does not otherwise exempt qualifying religious organizations from providing accommodations or permit them not to provide accommodations based on religious beliefs. Such comments noted that Congress demonstrated its intent not to broadly exempt religious employers from PWFA compliance when, prior to the law's passage, it rejected an amendment that would have done so. A few such comments maintained that an overly broad religious exemption would permit employers to impede employees' autonomy over decision-making regarding pregnancy, freedom of religion, and freedom from the religious beliefs of others. Further, some comments asserted that the provision, like section 702(a), does not allow a qualifying entity to discriminate on other protected bases, such as sex. Some comments stated that, in their view, when an employer is a qualifying entity under section 702(a), the employer is exempt from all of Title VII's requirements, and the same rule should apply to the PWFA.

Other comments argued that section 107(b) exempts religious organizations more broadly than section 702(a). Some of these comments stated that limiting the exemption only to allow qualifying organizations to prefer coreligionists is at odds with Title VII's text and Bostock v. Clayton County; that this reasoning does not follow given that the PWFA does not prohibit religious discrimination; that it ignores the Supreme Court's expressed concerns about such an interpretation; and that it ignores the PWFA's legislative history indicating that Members of Congress were concerned about religious organizations' rights. Such comments therefore concluded that a qualifying organization should be able both to prefer coreligionists and to abstain from making an accommodation that would violate the organization's religion under section 107(b).

Comments urging the Commission to interpret section 107(b) more broadly than section 702(a) recommended that the provision be interpreted consistent with the religious entities provision in Title I of the ADA; those comments asserted that an employer should be permitted to require conformity to its religious tenets but acknowledged that the ADA provision does not allow employers to discriminate on other grounds.

The Commission also received comments that either directly or indirectly responded to five directed questions about how the rule of construction would apply in concrete factual scenarios. These comments offered a few fact patterns and expressed concerns that employers may be required to provide leave for medical procedures to which they have religious objections, and that employers may be liable under the PWFA's retaliation and coercion provisions for objecting to medical procedures for religious reasons. Comments expressed concern that employers would violate the law's coercion provision if they informed their employees of their religious objections to certain medical procedures, or that they would violate the law's retaliation provision if they terminated the employment of an employee who requested or received an accommodation for such a medical procedure.

Response to Comments Regarding the Rule of Construction

The Commission will interpret the applicability of the PWFA's rule of construction provision on a case-by-case basis as it does with section 702(a) of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The Commission's decision is based on several considerations. First, section 107(b) of the PWFA expressly states that the PWFA is “subject to the applicability to religious employment” set forth in section 702(a) of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. 2000e-1(a). Courts and the Commission always have considered defenses raised under section 702(a) on a case-by-case basis. Second, comments suggesting a different approach provided conflicting recommendations and few concrete factual scenarios as to how the provision would apply under these different rules, thereby creating ambiguity and, as detailed below, failing to provide sufficient justification for deviating from the established case-by-case approach. Third, this case-by-case approach will enable employers, employees, the Commission, and courts to consider the circumstances of each case to the fullest extent under both Title VII—should accommodation claims for pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions be raised under that statute—and the PWFA.

The Commission declines to adopt the religious entities provision set forth in Title I of the ADA because the ADA's provision contains an additional clause not found in section 702(a) of the Civil Rights Act, and Congress explicitly referenced section 702(a)—not the ADA religious entities provision—in enacting the PWFA. As stated above, the Commission must rely on the text of the law that Congress enacted.

In support of the idea that the Commission should adopt a broader interpretation of section 107(b) than section 702(a), many comments cited to the legislative history of the PWFA. Although the Commission's interpretation is driven by the statute's text, given the many comments that cited to the legislative history and the comments submitted by legislators, the Commission reviews the legislative history of section 107(b) and responds to these comments.

The PWFA, as it passed the U.S. House of Representatives, did not include the language now contained in section 107(b). The House also had voted against including similar language in section 107(b) in the definition of “employer.” In the U.S. Senate, the language now contained in section 107(b) was first offered as an amendment by one of the bill's principal sponsors, Senator William Cassidy. Senator James Lankford then offered a different amendment that would have provided even broader protection for religious organizations using language that differed from both the ultimately enacted language of section 107(b) and Title VII's section 702(a). Senator Cassidy spoke against that broader amendment, stating that language referring to section 702(a) would be broad enough—he noted the initial section 107(b) language “was drafted by House Republican Virginia Foxx. . . . [and] addresses the issue,” and asserted that Senator Lankford's amendment “would increase the likelihood of changing previous [Title VII] jurisprudence.” Ultimately, the section 107(b) language offered by Senator Cassidy and adopted in the final bill was added to a rule of construction, rather than to the definition of “employer.” Prior to the House vote on the final omnibus bill, Representative Jerrold Nadler, the principal sponsor of the PWFA in the House, and Representative Robert Scott, the Chair of the House committee that had jurisdiction over the PWFA, issued statements regarding the interpretation of section 107(b); both statements interpreted the provision's protections differently than Senator Cassidy had interpreted them.

The Commission also reviewed the post-enactment statements of legislators. After enactment, and during this proposed rule's public comment period, Senator Lankford submitted a comment that included a legal analysis of why he believed the language in section 702(a) applied more broadly than hiring and firing. Senator Patricia Murray and Senator Robert Casey both submitted comments that agreed with the Commission's proposed case-by-case approach. Representatives Nadler and Scott also submitted comments; Representative Nadler's comment endorsed the Commission's proposed case-by-case approach and restated the views he had expressed earlier about section 107(b)—namely, that section 107(b) allows religious employers to prefer people who practice their religion in hiring and firing, and in making comparable pregnancy accommodations, but it does not otherwise exempt employers from their obligations under the PWFA to provide reasonable accommodations that do not pose an undue hardship; Representative Scott also endorsed the case-by-case approach.

Taken together, the statements prior to the enactment of the PWFA show that some Members of Congress disagreed about the extent of the protection they were conferring on religious organizations. This does not contradict the Commission's decision to apply section 107(b) on a case-by-case basis; in fact, a case-by-case approach will allow employers, employees, the Commission, and courts to evaluate in concrete situations the way in which section 107(b) should apply.

The Commission has made minor changes to the regulation to clarify the rights of covered entities and employees by providing parallel language in each subsection of § 1636.7(b). Specifically, § 1636.7(b)(1) previously stated: “Nothing in this provision limits the rights under the U.S. Constitution of a covered entity”; in the final regulation, it states: “Nothing in 42 U.S.C. 2000gg-5(b) or this part should be interpreted to limit a covered entity's rights under the U.S. Constitution.” This language now parallels the language in § 1636.7(b)(2) regarding employees' rights.

The Commission's Interpretation of Section 107(b) of the PWFA Applied

Under the Commission's interpretation of section 107(b) of the PWFA, analogous to the Commission's interpretation of section 702(a) of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, an employer meets the definition of a “religious corporation, association, educational institution, or society” if its “purpose and character are primarily religious.” When a respondent employer asserts that it qualifies as a religious organization under section 107(b), the Commission will use the same factors it uses to make the determination under section 702(a). These factors include, but are not limited to: (1) whether the entity operates for a profit; (2) whether it produces a secular product; (3) whether the entity's articles of incorporation or other pertinent documents state a religious purpose; (4) whether it is owned, affiliated with, or financially supported by a formally religious entity such as a church or synagogue; (5) whether a formally religious entity participates in the management, for instance by having representatives on the board of trustees; (6) whether the entity holds itself out to the public as secular or sectarian; (7) whether the entity regularly includes prayer or other forms of worship in its activities; (8) whether it includes religious instruction in its curriculum, to the extent it is an educational institution; and (9) whether its membership is made up by coreligionists. No one factor is dispositive in making this determination.

Under the Commission's interpretation of section 107(b), the PWFA does not fully exempt qualifying religious organizations from making reasonable accommodations. This is analogous to section 702(a), which likewise does not operate as a total exemption from Title VII's requirements.

Under section 702(a), for example, qualifying religious organizations are exempt from Title VII's prohibition against discrimination on the basis of religion, but, as U.S. courts of appeals have recognized, qualifying religious organizations are still subject to the law's prohibitions against discrimination on the basis of race, color, sex, and national origin, and they may not engage in related retaliation. If a qualifying religious organization asserts as a defense to a claim under the PWFA that it took the challenged action on the basis of religion and that section 107(b) should apply, the merits of any such asserted defense will therefore be determined on a case-by-case basis consistent with the facts presented and applicable law.

In response to comments that discussed potential religious defenses to the PWFA's requirements, the Commission notes that its statutory authority to investigate alleged unlawful employment practices under the statutes it enforces, including the PWFA, starts only after an aggrieved individual (or a Commissioner) files a charge of discrimination against a specific covered entity. The PWFA does not provide a mechanism for the Commission to provide legally binding responses to employer inquiries about the potential applicability of religious or other defenses before this point. Moreover, the Commission does not believe it is capable of providing such responses in the abstract, in the absence of a concrete factual context presented by a specific charge of discrimination.

In the event that a charge alleging one or more violations of the PWFA is filed against a particular employer, the employer can raise religious and other defenses at any time during the Commission's administrative process —from as early as when the employer first receives a Notice of Charge of Discrimination, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 2000e-5(b), or even after the EEOC has found reasonable cause and attempted to resolve the matter through conciliation, and is considering potential litigation. Although defenses can be asserted at any time during the EEOC's administrative process, the Commission encourages employers to raise defenses as early as possible after receiving a notice of a charge of discrimination. This will allow the EEOC to promptly consider asserted defense(s) that, if applicable, would result in dismissal of the charge. The Commission will “take great care” in evaluating the asserted religious or other defense(s) based on the facts presented and applicable law, regardless of when in the administrative process it is raised.

To further assist employers with potential religious defenses in the context of individual charge investigations, the Commission is enhancing its administrative procedures to provide additional information to facilitate the submission of information regarding potential religious defenses. Specifically, the Commission will revise materials accompanying the Notice of Charge of Discrimination letter and related web pages to identify how employers can raise defenses, including religious defenses, in response to the charge. These updates will be public and viewable by any employer with questions or concerns about how to raise a defense, including a religious defense, in the event that one of its employees files a charge of discrimination. In addition, as it is currently the case, the Notice of Charge will continue to direct employers to the EEOC Respondent Portal, where the employer can view and download the underlying charge of discrimination and submit documents to the EEOC electronically. The Commission will update the Respondent Portal to encourage an employer to raise in its position statement (or as soon as possible after a charge is filed) any factual or legal defenses it believes apply, including ones based on religion. The Portal also will direct employers to the Commission's website, which provides detailed instructions with examples on what a position statement should include, which will allow the employer to easily inform the Commission of a potential defense, including a religious defense. The Commission will update other resources to provide additional, clear instructions about how the employer should submit factual or legal support for any asserted defenses, including religious ones.

As appropriate, the Commission will resolve the charge based on the information submitted in support of asserted defenses, including religious defenses, in order to minimize the burden on the employer and the charging party. The Commission may contact the employer and/or the charging party if it needs additional information to evaluate the applicability of any asserted defenses. The employer or charging party may also voluntarily submit additional information regarding the applicability of any asserted defenses and may request that the EEOC prioritize the consideration of a particular defense that could be dispositive and obviate the need to investigate the merits of a charge. As with the EEOC's reasonable cause determinations, the EEOC's decision to close or continue investigating a particular charge is not entitled to deference in any subsequent litigation, where a religious or other defense will receive de novo review if raised by the employer. Thus, regardless of whether the Commission agrees with the employer's asserted defenses, those defenses are entitled to de novo review by a court in any subsequent litigation.

Application of Section 107(b) of the PWFA to Retaliation and Coercion Claims

Some comments specifically raised the application of section 107(b) of the PWFA to claims regarding retaliation and coercion. The Commission's application of section 107(b) in this context will be informed by its application of section 702(a) of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 in analogous circumstances.

The Commission notes that the operative language in the PWFA's retaliation provision is the same as the language in Title VII's retaliation provision, and the Commission will interpret it accordingly.

The coercion provision in the PWFA, 42 U.S.C. 2000gg-2(f)(2), is not in Title VII, but similar language is in the ADA's interference provision, and the Commission will interpret it accordingly. As set out in the Interpretive Guidance in section 1636.5(f)(2) under Prohibition Against Coercion, the purpose of this provision is to ensure that employees are free to avail themselves of the protections of the statute. Thus, consistent with the ADA regulation for the essentially identical provision, the rule adds “harass” to the list of prohibitions; the inclusion of the term “harass” in the regulation is intended to characterize the type of adverse treatment that may in some circumstances violate the interference provision. As with the ADA, the provision does not apply to any and all conduct or statements that an individual finds intimidating; it prohibits only conduct that is reasonably likely to interfere with the exercise or enjoyment of PWFA rights. As the Commission stated in the preamble in section 1636.5(f) regarding the coercion provision, the Commission received a few comments expressing concern that mission statements, statements regarding religious beliefs of an employer, or statements in employee handbooks would be seen as violating § 1636.5(f)(2). Whether a statement violates 42 U.S.C. 2000gg-2 (§ 1636.5(f)(2)) will depend on the language of the statement, but, as the examples provided in the NPRM and in the Interpretive Guidance in section 1636.5(f)(2) Prohibition Against Coercion show, the making of general statements regarding an employer's mission or religious beliefs is not the type of conduct that the Commission previously has determined would be prohibited by this provision.

If a claim is raised regarding retaliation or coercion against a religious employer, the Commission will apply the same type of case-by-case analysis it applies to other PWFA and Title VII claims.

Additional Potential Defenses to the PWFA for Covered Entities

Religious Freedom Restoration Act

The Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) provides that the “[g]overnment shall not substantially burden a person's exercise of religion even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability,” except when application of the burden to the person “is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest” and “is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.” Nondiscrimination laws and policies have been found to serve a compelling governmental interest, including where the Commission has sought to enforce Title VII. As stated in the NPRM, the Commission will carefully consider these matters, analyzing RFRA defenses to claims of discrimination on a case-by-case basis.

Comments Related to RFRA

Some comments agreed with the Commission that RFRA may be a defense to PWFA claims brought by the Commission. Some comments asserted that being required to provide accommodations, absent undue hardship, for certain health care services to which employers may object for religious reasons—such as abortion, IVF, surrogacy, contraception, and sterilization—violates RFRA. These comments argued that being required to provide a workplace accommodation to receive these services would substantially burden some employers' ability to exercise their religious beliefs.

The Commission received several comments stating that the PWFA proposed regulation would impose a substantial burden on employers' religious exercise and that the Commission lacks a compelling governmental interest in enforcing the statute, as implemented by the regulation. In support, comments asserted that: in the Title VII context, the Federal Government must demonstrate a very specific compelling interest when requiring a religious organization to act contrary to its understanding of sex; strict scrutiny applies when there is a threat to religious freedom by the Federal Government; the Commission should acknowledge that the PWFA regulation would substantially burden employers' religious exercise; the Commission should offer its analysis of existing case law and state whether it believes it could ever have a compelling interest in requiring an objecting religious employer to violate its religious convictions regarding abortion; the Commission's case-by-case view does not comport with Title VII's definition of religion, which includes all aspects of religious observance and practice as well as belief; and the Commission does not have a compelling interest in denying an exception under the PWFA to a religious employer because that would force religious parties to violate their sincerely held religious beliefs.

Many comments addressed the application of RFRA in lawsuits that do not involve the Government. These comments asserted that: because the Commission says RFRA may not be an applicable defense in some cases and is no defense at all to private suits, the Commission needs to clarify how its RFRA process will operate; RFRA should be available in all cases, including all cases where the Government substantially burdens religious exercise through the implementation of Federal law, regardless of whether the Government is a party to the lawsuit; if RFRA is not available in cases in which the Government is not a party, then the Commission could decline to bring a lawsuit where a religious employer could have brought a successful RFRA defense, and the employer would lose its rights to religious exercise; and if a RFRA defense only is available if the Government is a party to the lawsuit, the Commission should describe the steps it will take to ensure it does not intentionally avoid involving itself in litigation with the intent of preventing the employer from raising RFRA as a defense.

The Commission also received comments stating that the Commission must conduct an individualized review of any defense raised under RFRA and ensure that there is a sufficiently strong nexus between the asserted burden and a religious exercise, the religious exercise is based on sincerely held religious beliefs, the burden is substantial, and the requested religious exception is tailored to address the burden. Further, comments asserted that the Commission must conduct an Establishment Clause analysis of any proposed exception.

Response to Comments Related to RFRA

As the Supreme Court has recognized, RFRA requires a fact-sensitive, case-by-case analysis of burdens and interests. The Commission takes the protections of RFRA seriously and has instructed its staff to use “great care in situations involving both (a) the statutory rights of employees to be free from discrimination at work, and (b) the rights of employers under the First Amendment and RFRA.” Consistent with RFRA, as part of that analysis, the Commission will ensure when considering the application of any RFRA defense raised that it assesses whether any religious burden imposed on the employer is substantial and whether enforcement is the least restrictive means of furthering a compelling governmental interest, as applied to that employer. It will further analyze any defense to ensure that any limitation on enforcement is constitutionally permissible under the Establishment Clause.

Here, the Commission generally explains its understanding of the requirements of RFRA and provides some information regarding how RFRA may apply in the context of the PWFA. As stated above, RFRA requires a fact-specific analysis. Thus, in a specific situation, the information provided here may or may not apply.

Although RFRA applies to enforcement by the Government, in order to inform the Commission of possible RFRA defenses and reasons the Government should not bring an enforcement action, an employer may raise a RFRA defense at any point during the Commission's administrative process. Assuming the employer asserted a RFRA defense based on a sincerely held religious belief, the Commission would first assess whether, were the Government to bring a lawsuit to enforce the PWFA against the employer, that enforcement would impose a substantial burden on the employer's religious exercise. The Commission would consider a variety of factors in making that assessment.

The Commission also would consider whether, as applied in the specific case, filing a PWFA enforcement lawsuit would further the Government's compelling interest, including as expressed by Congress.

Finally, the Commission disagrees with comments stating that the Commission must file suit against those employers the Commission believes have a valid RFRA defense so that the covered entities may avoid liability by successfully proving their RFRA defense in court. Imposing such a requirement would infringe on the executive branch's Article II authority to determine which enforcement actions to bring, and the Commission will not interpret the PWFA to impose any unconstitutional requirements. The Commission concludes that the better approach to situations in which it agrees with employers regarding their RFRA defenses raised during the administrative process is to refrain from bringing an enforcement action.

Constitutional Considerations

The Ministerial Exception

As set out in the NPRM, the Supreme Court has recognized a ministerial exception, derived from the religion clauses of the First Amendment, which may provide an affirmative defense to an otherwise cognizable claim of a certain category of employees under certain anti-discrimination laws, including the PWFA. Under the ministerial exception, a religious organization may select those who will “personify its beliefs,” “shape its own faith and mission,” or “minister to the faithful.” The exception applies to discrimination claims involving the selection, supervision, and removal by a religious institution of employees who perform vital religious duties at the core of the mission of the religious institution.

Comments Regarding the Ministerial Exception

A few comments requested that the Commission state or clarify the scope of the First Amendment “ministerial exception” in the final rule, including by: adding language from Our Lady of Guadalupe School v. Morrissey-Berru to the rule; stating that the exception bars all PWFA claims for qualifying ministerial employees; or stating that the PWFA covers a religious entity's non-ministerial employees.

Response to Comments Regarding the Ministerial Exception

The Commission declines to make changes regarding its interpretation of the ministerial exception, as the Commission's position is consistent with the relevant Supreme Court case law and reflects the policies set forth in this preamble. The Commission will apply the exception on a case-by-case basis in light of the facts, and in determining whether the exception applies to a claim, the Commission follows the Supreme Court's reasoning in Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church & School v. EEOC, Our Lady of Guadalupe School v. Morrissey-Berru , and other applicable decisions, reviewing the factors set out by the Court. For example, if a religious school instructor employed by the Catholic Church as a Catechist (typically the type of teacher who performs vital religious duties) asks her employer for time to attend prenatal appointments and the employer refuses to provide the leave because the teacher is pregnant but not married, and raises the ministerial exception as a defense to the employee's charge of discrimination, the Commission (after gathering relevant facts about the applicability of that defense) will likely apply the ministerial exception and find that the employee is not entitled to the requested accommodation. In making such a determination, the Commission will “take all relevant circumstances into account” and determine whether the “particular position implicate[s] the fundamental purpose of the exception.”

First Amendment Establishment and Free Exercise Clause Considerations

The First Amendment provides that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” Under the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, the Government's actions cannot establish religion; in other words, “government may not, consistent with a historically sensitive understanding of the Establishment Clause, make a religious observance compulsory.”

Under the Free Exercise Clause, the “Government fails to act neutrally when it proceeds in a manner intolerant of religious beliefs or restricts practices because of their religious nature.” Where a law burdens religious exercise and is not neutral or generally applicable, it is subject to strict scrutiny, meaning that it must advance a compelling governmental interest and be narrowly tailored to achieve that interest. By contrast, laws that merely incidentally burden religion are ordinarily not subject to strict scrutiny, and thus do not need to be justified by a compelling governmental interest, to defeat a Free Exercise claim, as long as they are neutral and generally applicable. Laws are not neutral and generally applicable “whenever they treat any comparable secular activity more favorably than religious exercise.” In addition, “[a] law is not generally applicable if it invite[s] the government to consider the particular reasons for a person's conduct by providing a mechanism for individualized exemptions” that are entirely discretionary.

Comments Related to First Amendment Establishment Clause Considerations

As noted above, the Commission received comments stating that the Commission must conduct an individualized review of any defense asserted under RFRA and ensure that there is a sufficiently strong nexus between the asserted burden and a religious exercise, the religious exercise is based on sincerely held religious beliefs, the burden is substantial, and the action taken by the government is tailored to address the burden. Further, comments asserted that the Commission must conduct an Establishment Clause analysis of any asserted RFRA defense.

Response to Comments Related to First Amendment Establishment Clause Considerations

The Commission agrees that when evaluating a religious employer's RFRA defense or any other religious defense, the Commission will consider the Establishment Clause implications as part of its case-by-case analysis.

Comments Related to First Amendment Free Exercise Clause Considerations

Several comments stated that the rule could violate a covered entity's First Amendment right to the free exercise of religion. Some comments disputed whether the final rule is a rule of general applicability, asserting that the PWFA is not generally applicable, e.g., because it contains religious exemptions and excludes small employers with fewer than 15 employees.

Response to Comments Related to First Amendment Free Exercise Clause Considerations

The PWFA, like Title VII, is a neutral law of general applicability. Thus, it does not need to be justified by a compelling governmental interest and narrowly tailored to achieve that interest under the First Amendment Free Exercise Clause. The PWFA does not provide any system of discretionary, individualized exemptions for any secular employers, and it does not treat religious exercise any less favorably than comparable secular activities. Congress, in enacting the PWFA, as it did with Title VII, exempted employers (both secular and religious) with fewer than 15 employees. It also provided an exception for religious employers under the rule of construction, which requires the Commission to assess whether an entity is a qualifying religious employer under an established set of factors based in case law. Thus, the PWFA does not provide the Commission with discretion to grant individualized exemptions, for either secular or religious purposes.

First Amendment Free Speech and Expressive Association Considerations

The First Amendment provides that “Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech.” To determine whether “particular conduct possesses sufficient communicative elements to bring the First Amendment into play,” courts consider whether “[a]n intent to convey a particularized message was present, and [whether] the likelihood was great that the message would be understood by those who viewed it.”

The Supreme Court also has recognized a “right to associate for the purpose of engaging in those activities protected by the First Amendment.” The freedom of expressive association includes a freedom not to associate. In order for Government action to unconstitutionally burden the right of expressive association, a group must engage in expressive association. If a group does so, then the proper inquiry is whether the Government action at issue, often the forced inclusion of a member, would significantly affect the group's ability to advocate public or private viewpoints. Finally, to determine whether the Government's interest justifies the burden, the Government's interest implicated in its action is weighed against the burden imposed on the associational expression.

Comments Related to First Amendment Free Speech Considerations

Several comments asserted that including infertility treatments, contraception, abortion, sterilization, and surrogacy in the definition of “pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions” would require covered entities to provide accommodations for employees that would violate the entities' freedom of speech. For example, some comments stated that providing an accommodation related to an employee's abortion would chill the speech of covered entities by requiring them to convey a message to employees and the public that abortion is a legitimate medical procedure, contrary to their anti-abortion beliefs or identity, or because maintaining their policies would put them in the position of violating the PWFA's anti-retaliation and anti-coercion provisions.

Response to Comments Related to First Amendment Free Speech Considerations

The Commission does not agree that the PWFA or the final rule infringes on any covered entity's freedom of speech. The act of making a personnel decision, such as employing or continuing to employ an individual who has engaged in personal conduct with which an employer disagrees, is not protected speech or expressive conduct that communicates the employer's agreement with the individual's personal decisions. In this business context, providing an employee a reasonable accommodation under the PWFA during their employment does not constitute speech or expressive conduct on the part of the employer.

As discussed in relation to the PWFA's rule of construction, whether an employer's policies or actions could implicate the PWFA's anti-retaliation or anti-coercion provision is a highly fact-specific inquiry. For over four decades, the Commission has interpreted Title VII, which contains an anti-retaliation provision, to protect employees from being fired for having an abortion or contemplating an abortion, and courts have affirmed this interpretation. The Commission is not aware of any cases during these past four decades in which an employer has challenged this interpretation on First Amendment free speech grounds. Likewise, the ADA has language similar to the PWFA's anti-coercion provision in its interference provision, and the Commission is similarly unaware of any cases where an employer challenged the interference provision on First Amendment free speech grounds. In addition, the Commission has explained in the preamble and the Interpretive Guidance in section 1636.5(f) Prohibition Against Retaliation the type of actions that could be violations under the anti-coercion and anti-retaliation provisions; they do not involve protected speech. Nevertheless, should the Commission receive a charge alleging coercion or retaliation, and should the responding employer raise constitutional concerns as a defense to the charge during the administrative charge process, the Commission will evaluate each claim on a case-by-case basis under the process it has outlined above.

Comments Related to First Amendment Expressive Association Considerations

Some comments asserted that including certain pregnancy-related health care services as medical conditions related to pregnancy or childbirth would require covered entities to provide accommodations for employees that would violate the entities' First Amendment right to expressive association. In particular, some comments stated that employers, particularly those whose express mission is to oppose abortion, might be required under the rule to hire, or continue to employ, or promote, employees who have abortions in violation of an employer's policies.

Response to Comments Related to First Amendment Expressive Association Considerations

The Commission does not agree that the PWFA or the final rule infringes on any covered entity's freedom of expressive association. First, the Commission is unaware of any case holding that enforcing Title VII violates the First Amendment's right of free association, and, indeed, the Supreme Court has expressly held to the contrary. Second, assuming that a covered entity can show that it engages in expressive activity, with the possible exception of certain mission-driven organizations, it is unlikely that a covered entity also could show that simply allowing an employee to access an accommodation would significantly affect its ability to advocate public or private viewpoints. The Commission believes its position strikes the correct balance between, on one hand, the Government's interest in ensuring employees affected by pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions are able to remain healthy and in their jobs and, on the other, the employer's ability to express its message to the public, its employees, and other stakeholders such that its advocacy is not significantly affected by providing an accommodation. Nevertheless, should the Commission receive a charge relating to an accommodation for pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions, and should the responding employer raise constitutional expressive association concerns as a defense to the charge during the charge process, the Commission will evaluate each claim on a case-by-case basis under the framework outlined above.

Comments Related to Constitutional Avoidance

A few comments stated that including abortion in the definition of medical conditions related to pregnancy and childbirth creates First Amendment free speech and religion conflicts, and statutes should be interpreted to avoid constitutional concerns; therefore, the Commission should exclude the possibility of an employee receiving an accommodation related to an abortion from the regulation.

Response to Comments Related to Constitutional Avoidance

As explained supra, the Commission disagrees that the rule categorically conflicts with the First Amendment, and thus does not agree that the canon of constitutional avoidance applies. The Commission's interpretation of “pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions” is consistent with its interpretation of this phrase for more than four decades in Title VII, as amended by the PDA, a similar statute. In those decades, the Commission's interpretation under Title VII has never been successfully challenged on First Amendment grounds. The comments that raised this issue did not demonstrate that abortion must be excluded to avoid an unconstitutional interpretation. Moreover, the Commission cannot anticipate whether constitutional issues will arise in future litigation on facts that have not yet occurred.

Comments Regarding Requests for an Exemption for a Covered Entity's Moral Objections

Several comments stated that the final rule should provide an exemption for covered entities that object to abortion and other medical conditions related to pregnancy and childbirth based on conscience, moral, ethical, scientific, health, or medical grounds, or for any other reason that is not associated with a religious belief. A few comments further asserted that, because the PWFA rule of construction provides an exception for certain religious entities, the Commission must provide an exception for similarly situated covered entities that object to accommodations on non-religious grounds.

Response to Comments Regarding Requests for an Exemption for a Covered Entity's Moral Objections

To create a new, stand-alone exemption for secular entities would exceed the Commission's congressionally-provided authority. In enacting the PWFA, Congress restricted coverage for only two categories of employers: (1) certain qualifying religious entities under the rule of construction at section 107(b), “subject to the applicability to religious employment” set forth in section 702(a) of the Civil Rights Act of 1964; and (2) certain entities, regardless of religious affiliation, that have fewer than 15 employees. The Commission notes that an individual's religious beliefs may include moral and ethical beliefs, and thus in individual cases, the Commission will assess asserted accommodation requests and objections based on that longstanding interpretation and applicable law. However, the Commission will not create through rulemaking a new exemption for secular organizations with certain moral or ethical beliefs, beyond the PWFA's existing exceptions.

Comments Regarding Requests for a Per Se Undue Hardship Exemption

In the alternative, several comments asserted that covered entities that do not qualify for an exemption under the rule of construction, but that nevertheless object to abortion or other medical conditions related to pregnancy or childbirth for religious reasons, reasons related to their mission, or other secular reasons, should receive a per se undue hardship exemption.

Response to Comments Regarding Requests for a Per Se Undue Hardship Exemption

The Commission declines to create a per se undue hardship exemption, for several reasons. First, the PWFA incorporates the ADA's “undue hardship” definition, and under the ADA, employers may assert undue hardship as a defense but must conduct an individualized assessment when determining whether a reasonable accommodation will impose an undue hardship. Creating a per se rule that an employer's beliefs automatically and always create an undue hardship would be fundamentally inconsistent with this requirement that undue hardship be assessed as a defense on a case-by-case basis, and would therefore be inconsistent with the PWFA. This is especially so where, as here, even the religious beliefs of employers that share the same religion are not monolithic, and the specific facts and circumstances in a given situation may affect whether the employer objects to an employee's actions on religious grounds.

Second, nothing in the PWFA provides for an exemption that directly links the undue hardship standard to an entity's religious beliefs, status, or secular beliefs. On the contrary, the statute expressly directs that the term “undue hardship” should “have the meaning[ ] given such term[ ] in [the ADA] and shall be construed as such [term is] construed under such Act and as set forth in the regulations required by this division.”

Third, the factors used to assess an undue hardship defense typically focus on measurable impacts on business operations. Under the PWFA rule, “undue hardship” means an action requiring significant difficulty or expense, when considered in light of several factors: (i) the nature and net cost of the accommodation needed under the PWFA; (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, and the effect on expenses and resources; (iii) the overall financial resources of the covered entity, the overall size of the business of the covered entity with respect to the number of its employees, and the number, type and location of its facilities; (iv) the type of operation or operations of the covered entity, including the composition, structure, and functions of the workforce of such entity, and the geographic separateness and administrative or fiscal relationship of the facility or facilities in question to the covered entity; and (v) the impact of the accommodation upon the operation of the facility, including the impact on the ability of other employees to perform their duties and the impact on the facility's ability to conduct business. As explained by Congress, “Like the ADA, the PWFA seeks to balance the interests of the employer and employee and, although there may be some costs associated with making a reasonable accommodation, the `undue hardship' standard limits the employer's exposure both to overly burdensome accommodation requests and lawsuits that would attempt to hold the employer liable for failing to provide a prohibitively expensive accommodation.”

The Commission has stated that under the ADA, “the `undue hardship' provision takes into account the financial realities of the particular employer or other covered entity. However, the concept of undue hardship is not limited to financial difficulty. `Undue hardship' refers to any accommodation that would be unduly costly, extensive, substantial, or disruptive, or that would fundamentally alter the nature or operation of the business.” Of note, cases interpreting the impact of a reasonable accommodation on other employees or the facility's ability to conduct business have generally been about distribution of workloads, business operational needs, and elemental changes to the day-to-day operations of a business, not the moral views of coworkers or employers. That said, the Commission will, as it currently does, consider all assertions of the undue hardship defense on a case-by-case basis, including whether granting a particular reasonable accommodation would “fundamentally alter the nature of the business.”

Additionally, in determining whether there is disruption to the covered entity's business under the ADA, the Commission has stated with regard to disabilities that an employer will be unable to “show undue hardship if the disruption to its employees [is] the result of those employees' fears or prejudices toward the individual's disability and not the result of the provision of the accommodation. Nor [will] the employer be able to demonstrate undue hardship by showing that the provision of the accommodation has a negative impact on the morale of its other employees but not on the ability of these employees to perform their jobs.” As the definition of “undue hardship” under the PWFA follows the ADA, the same rules will apply. An employer will not be able to demonstrate undue hardship under the PWFA if the disruption to its employees was the result of those employees' fears or prejudices. Nor would the employer be able to demonstrate undue hardship by showing that the provision of the accommodation has a negative impact on the morale of its other employees but not on the ability of these employees to perform their jobs.

Ultimately, an employer may assert an undue hardship defense to any PWFA claim. An employer may be able to show undue hardship if the provision of a particular accommodation results in an impact that is unduly costly, extensive, substantial, or disruptive, or that would fundamentally alter the nature or operation of the business. As with all undue hardship assessments, an employer would need to show individualized evidence of undue hardship.

Other Comments and Response to Comments Regarding Religious and Conscience Considerations

Several comments stated that the inclusion of abortion as a related medical condition revealed that the Commission harbored anti-Catholic bias, and others claimed that the Commission would target Catholic employers for enforcement.

As explained above, the Commission interprets the PWFA's provision regarding pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions consistent with the PWFA's text and the Commission's interpretation of identical language in Title VII, an interpretation adopted more than 40 years ago. The Commission disagrees that interpreting the PWFA in a manner consistent with the statutory text and the agency's decades-long interpretation of Title VII is suggestive of any anti-Catholic bias or that the Commission otherwise harbors any bias. The Commission's enforcement decisions are based on whether the facts of the charge show reasonable cause to believe discrimination occurred. Further, the Commission's history under Title VII reflects that the Commission brings cases that protect employees who are being harassed about their decision not to have an abortion and that protect the religious views of employees who oppose abortion.

Second, some comments asserted that an employer's potential obligation under the PWFA to provide an accommodation for abortion could violate the religious rights of other employees, such as human resources employees, who would have to explain to an employee that a reasonable accommodation is available in these circumstances and process the paperwork. The Commission has addressed steps employers may take to respond to conflicts with religious beliefs in these circumstances in its Compliance Manual on Religious Discrimination .

Third, some comments stated that if employees decide to work for a religious employer, then they must abide by the employer's beliefs or risk consequences. The Commission made no changes based on these comments. As explained above, the PWFA provides for defenses for religious organizations and is subject to certain other constitutional and statutory exceptions. But none of those defenses or exceptions remove all rights from employees who are employed by religious employers.

1636.8 Severability

In the final rule, the Commission has added that the severability provisions express the Commission's intent as to severability. Further, the Commission clarified that its intent regarding severability applies to the Interpretive Guidance as well and has included this language in the Interpretive Guidance in section 1636.8 Severability.

As stated in the Interpretive Guidance in section 1636.8 Severability, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 2000gg-6, in places where the regulation uses the same language as the statute, if any of those identical regulatory provisions, or the application of those provisions to particular persons or circumstances, is held invalid or found to be unconstitutional, the remainder of the regulation and the application of that provision of the regulation to other persons or circumstances shall not be affected. For example, if § 1636.4(d) (which uses the same language as 42 U.S.C. 2000gg-1(4) and prohibits a covered entity from requiring a qualified employee to take leave as a reasonable accommodation if there is another reasonable accommodation that can be provided) were to be found invalid or unconstitutional, it is the intent of the Commission that the remainder of the regulation shall not be affected. The Commission would continue to enforce the statute but, in this hypothetical example, would not consider it a violation if an employer required an employee to take leave as a reasonable accommodation when there was another reasonable accommodation available.

Where the regulation or the Interpretive Guidance provides additional guidance to carry out the PWFA, including examples of reasonable accommodations, it is the Commission's intent that if any of those provisions or the application of those provisions to particular persons or circumstances were to be held invalid or found to be unconstitutional, the remainder of the regulation or the Interpretive Guidance and the application of that provision of the regulation or the Interpretive Guidance to other persons or circumstances shall not be affected. For example, if a court were to determine that a certain medical condition such as a pelvic prolapse is not found to be a “related medical condition” in a specific case, the Commission intends other conditions could still be determined to be “related medical conditions,” including pelvic prolapse in another case, depending on the facts.

Preamble to the Final Economic Analysis

Executive Orders 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review), 13563 (Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review), and 14094 (Modernizing Regulatory Review)

Summary of the Commission's Preliminary Economic Analysis of Impacts: Costs

According to the Commission's preliminary economic analysis, the proposed rule would impose two quantifiable costs on employers: the annual cost of providing pregnancy-related reasonable accommodations as a result of the statute and the rule, and the one-time cost of becoming familiar with the rule. In all cases, the Commission relied on publicly available data for its estimates.

To estimate the annual cost of providing pregnancy-related reasonable accommodations as a result of the statute and the rule, the Commission first estimated the total number of employees who were not independently entitled to PWFA-type accommodations under an analogous State law, which the Commission calculated is 65.11 million employees.

The Commission then estimated the number of such individuals who will be entitled to a reasonable accommodation under the PWFA. To do so, the Commission first assumed that the number of such individuals will be approximately the same as the number of individuals who actually become pregnant during that year. Again, based on publicly available data, the Commission estimated that 33 percent of the 65.11 million employees who are not independently entitled to PWFA-type accommodations under an analogous State law are capable of becoming pregnant, and that of these, 4.7 percent will actually become pregnant in a given year. Applying these percentages yielded a total estimate of one million individuals who (a) were not independently entitled to PWFA-type accommodations under an analogous State law, and (b) will actually become pregnant during a given year. Finally, the Commission estimated that between 23 percent (“lower bound estimate”) and 71 percent (“upper bound estimate”) of these one million individuals (between 230,000 and 710,000 individuals) will require a pregnancy-related reasonable accommodation.

To calculate the associated costs, the Commission first estimated that the accommodations needed by 49.4 percent of the individuals above will have zero cost, leaving between 116,000 and 360,000 individuals needing accommodations with non-zero cost. It then estimated that each of the accommodations needed by these individuals would cost an average of $300 distributed over 5 years, or $60 annually. Multiplying these numbers together yielded final estimated annual costs of between $6 million and $18 million for private employers; between $800,000 and $2.4 million for State and local government employers; and between $300,000 and $800,000 for Federal employers.

Comments and Response to Comments Regarding the Estimated Percentage of Individuals Capable of Becoming Pregnant Who Will Actually Become Pregnant in a Given Year

As explained above, in the NPRM, the Commission estimated that 4.7 percent of individuals who are capable of becoming pregnant will actually become pregnant in a given year. Some comments stated that this estimate is too low because the Commission based its estimate on research that tracked the percentage of women participants who gave birth in a given year. As such, the 4.7 percent estimate did not include individuals who became pregnant in a given year but did not give birth, including individuals who had miscarriages, stillbirths, or abortions. Because this figure was used to calculate the number of reasonable accommodations needed, the comments further reasoned, the cost estimates did not take into account any reasonable accommodations needed by individuals who had miscarriages, stillbirths, or abortions.

The Commission agrees that the research it relied upon did not take account of individuals who became pregnant during a given year but who did not give birth, and therefore that its previous estimate of 4.7 percent was too low. To correct the shortcoming, the Commission has relied upon Centers for Disease Control (CDC) research showing that, between 2015 and 2019, live births in the United States accounted for 67% of all pregnancies among women aged 15-44 years on average. Assuming that the ratio of live births to total pregnancies among women of reproductive age in the labor force is the same as among all 15-44 years old women, the Commission thus estimates that the percentage of individuals capable of becoming pregnant who will actually become pregnant in given year is 0.047 ÷ 0.67 = 0.071 (rounded up), or 7.1 percent. This revised estimate is used in the revised economic analysis below.

Comments and Response to Comments Regarding the Percentage of Pregnant Employees Needing a Reasonable Accommodation Under the PWFA

As explained above, in the NPRM, the Commission estimated that between 23 percent (lower bound estimate) and 71 percent (upper bound estimate) of individuals who are actually pregnant in a given year will need a reasonable accommodation under the PWFA. The report that the Commission used to arrive at these estimates stated that 71 percent of pregnant individuals surveyed needed more frequent breaks, such as extra bathroom breaks; 61 percent needed a change in schedule or more time off; 53 percent needed a change in duties; and 40 percent needed some other type of workplace adjustment. The Commission chose the highest of these numbers (71 percent) as its upper bound estimate of the percentage of pregnant employees needing accommodations.

The Commission received a comment stating that the report cited by the Commission does not support the use of 71 percent as an upper bound estimate of the percentage of pregnant individuals needing an accommodation because the report established that 71 percent of the pregnant individuals surveyed needed additional breaks, but did not state whether any of the other 29 percent of pregnant individuals surveyed needed a different type of accommodation (such as a change in schedule or a change in duties). If so, then more than 71 percent of pregnant individuals surveyed needed at least one accommodation.

The report the Commission relied upon to set its upper and lower bound estimates did not state whether any of the 29 percent of individuals who did not need additional breaks needed a different sort of accommodation. It was therefore not possible for the Commission to determine, on the basis of this report, the percentage of employees surveyed who needed at least one accommodation. The comment objecting to the Commission's use of the 71 percent estimate did not provide additional data for the Commission to consider, and the Commission could not independently locate any more precise information. The Commission therefore must rely on reasonable assumptions to set its upper bound estimate of the percentage of pregnant employees needing accommodation.

Although it is possible that some of the 29 percent of pregnant individuals who did not need additional breaks needed a different type of accommodation, the Commission continues to assume for purposes of the economic analysis that the individuals who needed a different type of pregnancy-related accommodation are a subset of those who needed additional breaks. In the Commission's opinion, it is unlikely that a pregnant individual who does not need additional breaks would need a less common type of accommodation such as a change in schedule or a change in duties. Additionally, many of the 71 percent of pregnant individuals surveyed who needed additional breaks may be entitled to them under the ADA, Title VII, or employer policies, and therefore the 71 percent figure likely overstates the number of individuals who will receive those breaks specifically as a consequence of the PWFA. The Commission is therefore confident that 71 percent is a reasonable estimate of the proportion of pregnant individuals needing accommodation under the PWFA given the paucity of data available at the time of this rulemaking.

The same comment objected to the Commission's use of 23 percent as a lower bound estimate of the percentage of pregnant employees who will need an accommodation under the rule. The Commission relied on the same report discussed immediately above to arrive at this estimate. Based on data in this report, the Commission calculated that 32 percent of pregnant individuals surveyed needed, but did not receive, more frequent breaks, such as extra bathroom breaks; 20 percent needed, but did not receive, a change in schedule or more time off; 23 percent needed, but did not receive, a change in duties; and 18 percent needed, but did not receive, some other type of workplace adjustment. The Commission averaged these numbers to arrive at a lower bound estimate of 23 percent.

According to the comment, the Commission's calculations established that at least 32 percent of pregnant employees surveyed needed, but did not receive, at least one pregnancy-related accommodation (specifically, additional breaks). The comment further argued that the Commission failed to offer any justification for the decision to average the four figures.

The Commission agrees with the comment that using the highest of the four figures (32 percent) is the better approach. As explained above, the report establishes that 32 percent of pregnant employees surveyed needed, but did not receive, at least one type of pregnancy-related accommodation. The Commission therefore has raised its lower bound estimate from 23 percent to 32 percent in the analysis below.

Comments and Response to Comments Regarding the Estimated Average Cost of an Accommodation

As stated above, in its previous analysis, the Commission estimated that 49.4 percent of needed pregnancy-related accommodations will have no cost, and that the average cost of the remaining 50.6 percent will be $300 distributed over 5 years, or $60 annually.

One comment stated that this estimate was too low because it did not include costs associated with having a vacant position and with looking for new hires, both of which may be necessary when a pregnant employee takes leave. The comment emphasized that these costs affect both customers and other staff members.

The Commission declines to raise the estimated average cost of an accommodation in response to this comment. To estimate costs responsibly, the Commission must rely on existing data. According to the best available data, the average cost of a non-zero-cost reasonable accommodation provided pursuant to the ADA is $300. Leave is an accommodation that is available under the ADA. The costs associated with leave, including the kinds of costs identified by the comment, were therefore presumably included in the data used to generate the $300 average. Additionally, if an employer did not provide leave to the employee and simply terminated the employee, the employer would still face the costs of having a vacant position and looking for new hires. To the extent that an accommodation allows the pregnant employee to stay with the employer, the employer could realize cost savings because it will not have to hire and train new employees.

Comments and Response to Comments Regarding Alleged Additional Costs: Abortion

Many comments stated that the economic analysis should be revised to incorporate not only costs arising from the provision of abortion-related reasonable accommodations, but also the costs of abortions themselves together with some of their alleged downstream consequences.

Some comments suggested adding the costs of abortions to the analysis because they mistakenly understood the proposed rule as requiring employers to bear those costs. For example, some comments stated that the proposed rule required employers to pay for abortion services or to pay for associated travel and lodging expenses as reasonable accommodations. Because the proposed rule did not, and the final rule does not, require covered employers to bear these costs, the Commission declines to amend the economic analysis to incorporate these costs to employers.

In most cases, however, comments suggesting inclusion of abortion-related costs identified costs that do not apply directly to employers. For example, some of these comments stated that the estimated cost of the rule should be increased by the value of the years of life lost by the individuals who were never born due to abortion. Others stated that the estimated cost of the rule should be revised to include health care costs that the comments alleged would be incurred by individuals who undergo abortion care. Other comments stated that the estimate should include certain large-scale societal costs that they linked to abortion. Several of these comments cited a 2022 report by Joint Economic Committee Republicans.

The Commission declines to change its analysis in response to these comments. The alleged cost of abortion and its downstream consequences cannot properly be attributed to the final rule and statute simply because abortion-related accommodations are available under the PWFA. Neither the statute nor the final rule has an impact on the costs that commenters allege are associated with abortion. Indeed, the comments themselves appear to acknowledge that the purported costs imposed by abortion are independent of the rule.

The Commission recognizes that, under the statute and final rule, some individuals will obtain reasonable accommodations that they may not have otherwise obtained, possibly including leave as a reasonable accommodation related to an abortion. But it does not follow that any of these individuals will have abortions because they were able to obtain an accommodation. It therefore does not follow that the costs associated with the abortions themselves should be included in the economic analysis.

A small number of comments argued that the proposed rule will increase the number of abortions performed, and that the economic analysis should include costs associated specifically with this increase. According to these comments, to calculate the cost of the final rule, the Commission must first determine the proportional economic impact of a single abortion and then multiply that figure by the number of additional abortions performed as a result of the rule.

The Commission declines to take this approach because the comments did not provide any evidence, and the Commission is not aware of such evidence, to support the conclusion that the number of abortions will increase as a consequence of the statute and the final rule.

A few comments asserted that the number of abortions will increase because the rule, by making abortion-related accommodations available, will make pregnant employees “uncomfortable” about bringing their pregnancies to term. These commenters did not provide support for this proposition, however. Other comments stated that the rule will increase the number of abortions because some employers may prefer that their employees terminate their pregnancies rather than bring their pregnancies to term, and, therefore, these employers may pressure their employees into having abortions by refusing to provide any pregnancy-related accommodations other than leave to obtain an abortion. This argument is unpersuasive because such refusal would be unlawful under the PWFA. An employer could not satisfy its PWFA obligations by providing leave to have an abortion to an individual who requests additional bathroom breaks due to pregnancy, for example, because such leave would not be an effective accommodation under those circumstances. In addition, Title VII prohibits employers from coercing employees into having abortions because it prohibits them from taking an adverse action against an individual because of the individual's decision to have—or not to have—an abortion.

Again, the Commission recognizes that, under the statute and the final rule, an employee who has decided to have an abortion may request and receive an abortion-related accommodation, absent undue hardship. But it does not follow from this fact alone that the individual has decided to have the abortion because of the rule. The assumption implicit in comments—that some employees will decide to have abortions because the final rule and statute make abortion-related accommodations available—is speculative. Research shows that individuals who are unable to access abortion care typically are unable to do so for multiple reasons, none of which are determinative. Because the Commission is unaware of any data showing specifically that access to PWFA-type accommodations will increase the number of abortions performed, it declines to add the associated costs to its analysis.

Comments and Response to Comments Regarding Alleged Additional Costs: Litigation

Some comments stated that the rule would increase costs for employers by increasing litigation. Some of these provided only a very brief justification for the claim. Some comments, for example, claimed that the rule would increase litigation because it is “expansive” or because the range of accommodations required is broad. One comment stated that the rule is likely to invite litigation because it is likely that a different Presidential administration will change this policy. These comments did not include data or cite any supporting research.

One comment, signed by several Attorneys General from States that have PWFA-type statutes, supports the opposite conclusion:

Nor have the PWFA-analogue States experienced a marked increase in litigation following enactment of their PWFA/Break Time law analogues. In Washington State, all but 2 of the 650 pregnancy accommodation intakes received by the Attorney General's Office resolved without the need to file a lawsuit. In New York State, which enacted its PWFA analogue in 2016, the vast majority of discrimination complaints filed with the New York Division of Human Rights involve allegations of employment discrimination, yet complaints relating to reasonable accommodations for pregnancy-related conditions account for at most .03% of all employment discrimination filings. Moreover, 86% of the employment discrimination cases that involve reasonable accommodations for a pregnancy-related condition resolve prior to an agency hearing. The pre-hearing resolution numbers are similar in Connecticut. In Oregon, only about 1.5% of cases filed with the Civil Rights Division of the state's Bureau of Labor and Industries involve pregnancy or post-partum accommodation issues, a good portion of which are voluntarily resolved. . . . And in Illinois, only 1% of charges filed with the Department of Human Rights involved pregnancy-related charges seeking an accommodation. A study in California, which enacted its state PWFA in 2000, showed the total number of pregnancy discrimination charges filed with the state human rights agency actually decreased after the law was enacted.

The Commission also disagrees with the claim that its definition of “pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions” is expansive and will increase litigation, or the characterization of its definition as an example of something that will lead to litigation because another Presidential administration will change it. As explained in the preamble to the final rule, “pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions” is language from Title VII, and the Commission's interpretation of that phrase in the PWFA is consistent with how courts and the Commission have interpreted that phrase in Title VII. Moreover, the interpretation of “pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions” in the PWFA is consistent with the interpretation the Commission has had in many different Presidential administrations. Finally, given the long-standing definition of “pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions” in Title VII, changing it for the PWFA also would have the potential to create litigation.

Some comments stated more specifically that interpreting the term “related medical conditions” to include abortion will cause litigation because employers that comply by providing abortion-related leave as a reasonable accommodation may be found liable for pregnancy discrimination. For example, one comment stated that if an employer provided an employee sufficient leave to travel out of the State to have an abortion but denied a request by a pregnant employee who did not want an abortion for the same amount of leave to see an out-of-State obstetrician, instead only providing an amount of leave sufficient to visit an in-State obstetrician, the employer could face a claim that it is discriminating against women who do not get abortions.

The Commission disagrees that provision of abortion-related leave as a reasonable accommodation could give rise to liability for pregnancy discrimination under the circumstances described. First, if the employer is providing the leave as a reasonable accommodation, then it is not providing either employee with “benefits.” Rather, it is providing them with reasonable accommodations to which they are entitled under the law.

Second, the two kinds of leave are not “unequal.” With respect to both individuals, the employer is providing the amount of leave necessary to address the individual's known pregnancy-related limitation. It is often the case that the cash value of one reasonable accommodation is less than that of another. For example, if an employer provides one pregnant individual a reasonable accommodation of drinking water because that is what the individual needs, and provides a second pregnant individual with a chair to sit on because that is what the second pregnant individual needs, the employer is not discriminating against the first individual just because a chair costs more than permission to drink water—both individuals have been given reasonable accommodations appropriate to their known pregnancy-related limitations.

Because the comments discussed above did not provide evidence to support the conclusion that promulgation of the rule will invite increased litigation, the Commission declines to incorporate litigation-related costs into the final economic analysis.

Comments and Response to Comments Regarding Additional Costs: Male Employees

Some comments stated that it was unclear whether the rule entitled men to pregnancy-related accommodations (including, for example, male infertility treatment), but that, if the rule entitled men to such accommodations, these costs should be reflected in the analysis. The Commission declines to incorporate these costs into the analysis because, as explained in the preamble to the final rule, the definition of “pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions” in the final rule only encompasses medical conditions which relate to pregnancy or childbirth, “as applied to the specific employee or applicant in question.”

Comments and Response to Comments Regarding Alleged Additional Costs: Other Costs

One comment stated that the Commission's economic analysis should account for costs arising from the loss of free speech and free exercise rights. The Commission does not agree that the regulation creates such a loss and has explained in the preamble to the final rule why free speech and religious exercise are not negatively affected by and are, instead, protected by the rule.

A few comments stated that the Commission should account for the reduction in hiring of women based on the “expansive” accommodation requirements. The Commission does not agree that this is a cost it should take into account for the economic analysis. First, discrimination against women because they need an accommodation, or may need an accommodation, under the PWFA violates the PWFA and potentially Title VII. Second, these comments did not provide evidence supporting the conclusion that employers will hire fewer women as a result of the rule and underlying law.

One comment stated that the Commission's economic analysis, which did not consider accommodation costs for States with their own PWFA-type statutes, did not account for the fact that these State statutes do not permit accommodations for abortions. This comment did not support this statement with data or case law, and the Commission was unable to find any independent evidence of any such restriction. Additionally, as noted in the preamble to the final rule, an employee may need an abortion for a variety of reasons, which could affect the ability of the employee to use the State statute for an accommodation.

One comment stated that the economic analysis should include costs related to severance, retirement, and labor shortages, and, additionally, that it should include costs arising from the decline in private firms' participation in the national economy. The Commission declines to include these costs because the comment provided no data supporting a connection between provision of pregnancy-related reasonable accommodations, on the one hand, and an employee's decision to leave the workforce or to decline to participate in market activities, on the other hand. The Commission further notes that it received countervailing comments on this issue, suggesting that the rule will enable covered entities to prevent individuals from leaving the workforce by making pregnancy-related accommodations available to those who need them.

One comment stated that the Commission should consider the alternative of defining “related medical conditions” to exclude abortion. As explained in the final rule, the Commission's interpretation is consistent with the PWFA's text, and for over 40 years, the Commission and courts have interpreted the phrase “pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions” in Title VII to include abortion. The Commission concludes that it is unnecessary to consider this alternative for the economic analysis.

One comment stated that, in States that have laws like the PWFA, employees are more likely to ask for and receive accommodations, and in States where there are no PWFA-like laws, employees are less likely to ask for or receive accommodations; thus, those who have not received accommodations prior to the PWFA should be overrepresented among those who now have rights. The Commission based its calculations on the data that is available, and this comment did not provide data to support this point or dispute the Commission's calculations.

Comments and Response to Comments Regarding the Time To Read the Regulation

Several comments stated that the Commission underestimated the time to read and understand the regulation, including stating that small businesses without a legal staff would take a long time to read and understand the rule; that the amount of time for compliance should be increased to account for time to read and review the regulation, obtain legal advice, develop a compliance policy, train employees, and implement the rule, including creating systems to collect, retain, and secure protected information; that a specific individual took 2 days to read the regulation and several of the comments; that the cost should account for the hiring of outside counsel; that the Commission should include the cost of processing each request for an accommodation; and that the Commission should account for costs to train new employees and for new businesses in future years. Most of these comments on this topic did not provide either data or evidence to support a revision by the Commission. Those that did so provided estimates that varied greatly, and none were grounded in research.

The Commission has slightly increased its estimate of the amount of time allotted for compliance activities, in part to account for the fact that the final rule and Interpretive Guidance are slightly longer, and therefore would take slightly longer to read, than the proposed rule and Interpretive Guidance contained in the NPRM, and in part in response to comments indicating additional time is needed for covered entities to become familiar with the rule. The Commission estimates that compliance activities for a covered entity will take an average of 135 minutes, or 2.25 hours, in States that do not already have laws substantially similar to the PWFA and an average of 45 minutes in States with existing laws similar to the PWFA. This estimate is consistent with the amount of time the Commission allotted for compliance activities under other recent regulations that it has published in connection with civil rights laws. For example, in publishing a regulation implementing Title II of the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (GINA), the Commission estimated 3 hours for rule familiarization, which was appropriate because GINA involved a new protection against discrimination based on genetic information. Conversely, the Commission did not include a calculation of the cost for rule familiarization in its rule amending its Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) regulations concerning disparate-impact claims and the reasonable factors other than age defense (RFOA) or its rule implementing the ADA Amendments Act (ADAAA).

Here, the Commission has calculated compliance activities under the PWFA regulation in light of the fact that the PWFA is a new civil rights statute, but employers covered by the PWFA already are covered by Title VII and the ADA. Presumably, these employers already have standard procedures to inform their employees and supervisors about their rights and responsibilities under Title VII, the ADA, and other workplace laws. Given the similarities between the PWFA and the ADA and Title VII, employers will be able to use many of their existing procedures and include the PWFA in their training regarding the ADA and Title VII. Further, the Commission offers training and assistance specifically tailored to small businesses. The Commission does not anticipate that covered entities will need legal advice; the PWFA and the regulation draw on well-established concepts and procedures from Title VII and the ADA. For example, as under the ADA, an employer does not have to require supporting documentation to provide a PWFA accommodation; if it does, the documentation under the PWFA, like under the ADA, must be kept separate from the employee's personnel file. Thus, employers will be able to use a compliance mechanism they have already developed for the ADA for the PWFA. Similarly, employers can use the same human resources staff they use to process requests for accommodations under the ADA or Title VII for such requests under the PWFA. Accordingly, the Commission does not anticipate that covered employers will need time in addition to the time provided in the final rule.

Additionally, the Commission received comments that stated that the regulation would provide appropriate guidance and would assist employers in compliance, which would reduce employer costs.

Summary of the Commission's Preliminary Economic Analysis of Impacts: Nonquantifiable Benefits

In the NPRM, the Commission identified five primary benefits of the proposed rule and underlying statute that are difficult to quantify: (1) improvements in maternal and infant health outcomes; (2) improvements in pregnant employees' economic security; (3) non-discrimination and other intrinsic benefits, such as the enhancement of human dignity; (4) clarity in enforcement and efficiencies in litigation; and (5) benefits for covered entities.

Comments and Response to Comments Regarding Non-Quantifiable Benefits

A number of comments agreed with the identified benefits and provided additional research or anecdotal evidence to support the benefits.

Regarding improvements in maternal and infant health outcomes, one comment asserted that the rule will have positive effects on pregnant employees' mental health, stating that even perceived pregnancy discrimination at work has been linked to increased stress and symptoms of postpartum depression. This comment linked stress resulting from workplace discrimination and workplace conditions to increased risk of preterm birth or low birth weight, potentially resulting in serious health problems at birth that may cause long-term health and developmental consequences in children. Such health challenges may result in additional health care costs; accordingly, reducing stress during pregnancy also may reduce health care costs. Other comments observed that, because research shows that certain workplace conditions, such as lengthy periods of standing or walking, or high risk of chemical exposure or noise, can result in complications for a pregnant employee and their baby, accommodations to alleviate those conditions improve health outcomes for pregnant employees and their children. Additionally, one comment cited a source that drew from a study that found that, overall, employment during pregnancy is associated with a reduction in the risk of preterm birth, which supports the need to keep pregnant employees in the workforce. Other comments provided anecdotal evidence that employees who received accommodations under the PWFA felt secure in their employment and thus better able to focus on their new babies' needs.

Regarding improvements in pregnant employees' economic security, several comments underscored that many American workers lack a financial cushion and that the proposed rule and underlying law will mitigate short- and long-term negative financial consequences associated with losing a job at a critical time, given increased costs due to childbirth, child rearing, and childcare. At least one comment observed that women of color and Native women are overrepresented in low-paid jobs with few benefits, and that providing accommodations that can help employees stay in the workforce is critical to promoting economic security.

Regarding non-discrimination and other intrinsic benefits, several comments confirmed that non-discrimination and other intrinsic benefits result from the proposed rule and underlying law. For example, one comment stated that the underlying law gives pregnant employees “a strong sense of dignity and belonging in the workforce,” reduces stigma and stereotyping regarding pregnancy, and reestablishes pregnancy as an ordinary part of employment. One comment cited a source that stated, “The reasonable accommodation framework relieves individual employees of the burden of proving animus: of showing that an employer's inflexible imposition of workplace standards reflects sex stereotyping that flows from the invidious assumption that pregnant workers are not competent or committed workers.” Several comments provided anecdotal accounts of the sense of dignity that receiving pregnancy-related accommodations under the PWFA has given individual employees. Another comment noted that the proposed rule and underlying law will reduce incidents in which pregnant employees experienced humiliation at the hands of supervisors who denied accommodations and singled out pregnant employees for negative treatment.

Regarding clarity in enforcement and efficiencies in litigation, multiple comments confirmed that the proposed rule would provide clarity regarding employees' rights and employers' obligations under the PWFA. One comment stated that the NPRM explains the PWFA in an understandable and accessible way. One comment from a nonprofit observed that “dozens and dozens” of low-wage employees had informed them of the “transformative” effect of the law in their lives; some employees reported that their employers had previously denied or ignored their requests for accommodation but granted them after the PWFA became effective. At the same time, this nonprofit noted that many employees, particularly low-wage women of color, are still denied their rights under the PWFA, demonstrating the need for a clear and comprehensive rule. Finally, as previously noted, the comment from several State Attorneys General observed that States that had enacted laws protecting pregnant employees in the workplace did not experience a marked increase in litigation following the law's enactment, and the vast majority of complaints resolve prior to administrative proceedings or litigation.

Regarding benefits for covered entities, some comments stated that employers benefit from retaining pregnant employees because searching for and training new employees results in costs and stress on an organization, which can, in turn, negatively affect customers and other employees. Several comments highlighted that laws like the PWFA enable businesses to retain valuable employees, improve productivity and morale, reduce workers' compensation costs and absenteeism, and improve company diversity, and stated that the proposed rule would have the same effects. One comment observed that, for small businesses struggling with worker shortages and seeking to incentivize employee retention, the proposed rule could facilitate incentivizing worker retention.

One comment asserted that the rule would benefit employees in industries that are traditionally male dominated, such as manufacturing and the trades, and are physically demanding. The comment stated that providing pregnancy-related accommodations will reduce occupational segregation by gender, which in turn may affect the pay gap. Although this logically may be a possible benefit, the sources cited did not directly support this proposition. The Commission thus declines to include this as a benefit of the final rule.

The Commission received a few comments asserting that certain factors offset the non-quantifiable benefits identified by the Commission. One comment stated that in its discussion of the benefits to civil rights, the Commission must account for the harm done to the civil rights of religious employers that may have to provide accommodations that conflict with their religious beliefs. The Commission does not agree with this comment; as discussed in the preamble to the final rule, several defenses are available to religious employers.

The Commission also received several comments stating that the proposed rule would create harm to women and families because of its inclusion of abortion in the definition of “pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions.” As set out in the economic analysis and the preamble to the final rule, the rule does not require anyone to have an abortion or force employers to pay for abortions. Further, as set out in the response to comments on the quantitative analysis above, there is no evidence that the rule will increase the number of abortions. The Commission does not agree that the considerations raised in these comments should be included here.

The Commission concludes that the benefits articulated in the NPRM are attributable to the rule and the Commission incorporates supplemental evidence of each benefit, as described above, into the final rule.

Regulatory Flexibility Act and Executive Order 13272 (Proper Consideration of Small Entities in Agency Rulemaking)

Summary of the Commission's Certification That the Rule Will Not Have a Significant Economic Impact on a Substantial Number of Small Entities

In the NPRM, the Commission certified that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The Commission reasoned that, although the rule would apply to all small entities with 15 or more employees, and therefore would affect a “substantial” number of small entities, it would not have a “significant economic impact” on a substantial number of small entities.

To justify its decision to certify in the final rule, the Commission again began its analysis by assuming that the rule will impose two quantifiable costs on small entities: the annual cost of providing pregnancy-related reasonable accommodations as a result of the statute and the rule, and the one-time cost of becoming familiar with the rule.

To estimate the one-time cost of becoming familiar with the rule, based on the analysis detailed in the Initial Regulatory Impact Analysis (IRIA), the Commission estimated that small entities in States and localities that have laws substantially similar to the PWFA will be limited to a one-time administrative cost of approximately $56.76, and that small entities that are not already subject to State or local laws substantially similar to the PWFA will face a one-time administrative cost of approximately $170.27.

To estimate the annual cost of accommodation required by the rule, consistent with the IRIA, in the NPRM the Commission assumed that the number of individuals seeking accommodations will be approximately equal to the number of individuals who actually become pregnant during that year; that 33 percent of the employees within each small entity are capable of becoming pregnant, and that, of these, 4.7 percent will actually become pregnant in a given year; that between 23 and 71 percent of pregnant individuals within each small entity will need an accommodation; that 49.4 percent of such accommodations will have no cost; and that the average cost of the remaining 50.6 percent of needed accommodations will be $300 distributed over 5 years, or $60 annually. Using these figures, it generated the following cost estimates for small entities of various sizes:

Because entities that are already subject to laws substantially similar to the PWFA are already required to provide accommodations consistent with the PWFA, their total costs were estimated to be the one-time cost of $56.75.

Total costs for entities that are not already subject to laws substantially similar to the PWFA were estimated to be the annual cost of providing reasonable accommodations as detailed in Table 13 in the NPRM (between $60 for businesses with 15 employees and $540 for businesses with 1,500 employees), plus $170.27 (the cost of becoming familiar with the rule) in the first year.

Revisions in Response to Comments That Addressed Both the IRIA and the Commission's Justification for Certifying Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

As detailed in the discussion of the Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA) above, in response to comments the Commission made adjustments to its estimate of the percentage of individuals capable of becoming pregnant who actually become pregnant during a given year (revised upward from 4.7 percent to 7.1 percent), and to its lower bound estimate of the percentage of pregnant individuals who will need a reasonable accommodation (revised upward from 23 percent to 32 percent). The Commission also increased the amount of time it estimated employers would need to familiarize themselves with the rule. Because the Commission's analysis under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) relied on these same estimates, the Commission has made conforming changes below.

Comments and Response to Comments Pertaining Specifically to Small Entities

In addition to the comments that apply both to the RIA and the analysis under the RFA, the Commission received some comments specifically addressing the rule's effect on small entities.

Many comments made general statements about the rule's effect on small businesses, without addressing specific aspects of the reasoning offered by the Commission in support of its decision to certify.

Some comments stated generally that small entities will have difficulty complying with the rule. A few of these emphasized that small entities may have especial difficulty reading and understanding the rule or hiring personnel to cover for pregnant employees who take leave as a reasonable accommodation. Some asserted that small entities will hire fewer women in anticipation of added costs arising from the need to provide accommodations.

Other comments stated broadly that the rule will be beneficial to small entities. One such comment noted that many States have laws similar to the PWFA with thresholds even lower than 15 employees; that, in those States, even smaller employers must provide reasonable accommodations absent undue hardship; that providing for accommodations may allow employers to keep employees and thus reduce costs for replacement and retraining; that the PWFA will encourage pregnant employees to stay in the workforce, thereby supporting small businesses; and that in States with PWFA-type statutes, increased costs or adverse economic outcomes either have not been reported or have been so insignificant that they are not easily measurable, likely because the required accommodations tend to be low-cost or no-cost.

On balance, the Commission concludes that the comments discussed above do not provide it with sufficient reason to withdraw its earlier decision to certify that the rule will not have a significant economic effect on a substantial number of small entities. As detailed above, these comments were not uniformly in favor of withdrawal. Further, the comments stating generally that small entities will have difficulty complying with the rule did not provide data in support of those claims. The Commission also observes that these comments generally appear to overlook the fact that, if a particular reasonable accommodation would impose undue hardship on the employer, neither the PWFA nor the rule require the employer to provide it. To the extent that the above comments predict that the rule will cause small employers to hire fewer women, the Commission notes that such action is independently unlawful pursuant to Title VII's prohibition against refusal to hire women because they may become pregnant.

Some comments addressed the Commission's reasoning more directly. One comment stated that the Commission should retract its certification because over 10 percent of the 33 million small businesses in the United States will be required to comply with the rule. This comment misrepresents the Commission's reason for certifying. As explained above, in the NPRM the Commission agreed that the rule will affect a “substantial” number of small entities but concluded that the economic impact on such entities would, in almost all cases, fail to be “significant.” The Commission thus declines to retract its certification in response to this comment.

One comment stated that, in estimating the cost of accommodations on small entities, the Commission should not have relied on the average cost for such accommodations, but rather should have focused on “budget-busting” accommodations that would be especially difficult for small entities to handle. This comment did not cite data establishing how much an accommodation would need to cost in order to qualify as “budget-busting” for small entities of a given size, what sorts of pregnancy-related accommodations were likely to reach that threshold, or how often such an accommodation is likely to be needed. Further, the comment did not account for the fact that the PWFA does not require employers to provide reasonable accommodations that would impose undue hardship; presumably the “budget-busting” accommodations would be likely to meet this standard.

One comment objected to the Commission's method of determining whether a given entity meets the 15-employee threshold for coverage under the PWFA. Specifically, the comment objected to the fact that the Commission counts temporary or seasonal employees toward this total under some circumstances. The Commission declines to change its method for determining whether an entity has 15 employees in response to this comment. The same method has been used consistently for decades under all of the statutes enforced by the EEOC and has been endorsed by the Supreme Court.

One comment objected to the Commission's decision to distribute the average cost of a non-zero-cost accommodation ($300) over 5 years for purposes of the RFA analysis. The Commission distributed the costs over 5 years under the assumption that most accommodations with a cost will involve purchase of durable goods with a life of 5 years. The Commission made this same assumption when it estimated the costs arising from the provision of additional reasonable accommodations as a result of the ADAAA. The comment stated that small employers generally will have no use for these durable goods after they are used by the original requester. The comment provided no data to support this assertion. Further, the comment did not identify a reason why the Commission's estimate of average accommodation costs under the PWFA should differ from its estimate of the same under the ADA. The Commission, therefore, declines to amend its analysis in response to the comment.

Some comments objected to the Commission's method of estimating the percentage of employees within a given small entity who actually become pregnant in a given year. Although the Commission's estimate may be accurate for small entities in certain industries, these comments argued, they may not be accurate for small entities operating in industries that employ disproportionately high numbers of women. One comment identified “education and health; leisure and hospitality; and retail and wholesale trade” as industries that employ disproportionately high numbers of women. The comment offered the hypothetical situation of a preschool with 25 employees, 20 of whom are women of reproductive age. The comment concluded that the preschool likely will have continuous costs imposed by the proposed rule, even though it has just 25 employees.

The Commission is unpersuaded that it should retract its certification that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities in response to these comments. In the Commission's view, they overestimate the costs that will be experienced in industries with disproportionately high numbers of women employees. Consider the example discussed above in which a business employs 25 employees, 20 of whom are capable of becoming pregnant. To generate a lower bound estimate of the number of expected non-zero-cost accommodations per year in the example, the Commission calculates as follows: 20 × 0.071 × 0.32 × 0.506 = 0.22 individuals per year are likely to need a non-zero-cost pregnancy-related reasonable accommodation, roughly equivalent to one individual every 5 years. To generate an upper bound estimate: 20 × 0.071 × 0.71 × 0.506 = 0.52 individuals per year are likely to need a non-zero-cost pregnancy-related accommodation, roughly equivalent to one individual every 2 years. As discussed above, these costs are not expected to be high—the expected annual cost per accommodation is estimated to be $60 per year. Thus, rather than imposing “continuous” high costs, businesses like the one in the example should only expect to provide one relatively low-cost accommodation every 2 to 5 years. Additionally, even if a substantial number of small entities in a particular industry were to face “continuous” costs as a result of the rule—as demonstrated by the calculations above, a highly unlikely occurrence—it would not follow that such costs would be “economically significant.”

For the reasons discussed above, the Commission has determined that the comments it received regarding occupational segregation do not require it to retract its certification that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, or to revise its justification for certifying.

Final Economic Analysis

Executive Orders 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review), 13563 (Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review), and 14094 (Modernizing Regulatory Review)

Introduction

The final rule has been drafted and reviewed in accordance with Executive Order (E.O.) 12866. The rule and the Interpretive Guidance are intended to add to the predictability and consistency of executive enforcement of the PWFA and to provide covered entities and employees with information regarding their rights and responsibilities. The rule is required pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 2000gg-5. The Final Regulatory Impact Analysis estimates the cost of the rule to be between $466.71 million and $484.71 million in the first year, and between $14.82 and $32.82 million annually thereafter. It estimates that the benefits will be significant. While those benefits cannot be fully quantified and monetized, the Commission concludes that, consistent with E.O. 13563, the benefits (qualitative and quantitative) will justify the costs. The Commission notes that the rule and underlying statute create many important benefits that, in the words of E.O. 13563, stem from “values that are difficult or impossible to quantify” including “equity, human dignity, fairness and distributive impacts.” Additionally, because the rule provides employees who are affected by pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions with reasonable accommodations that enable them to continue working, the benefits of the rule include increased productivity. These benefits cannot be quantified at this time, however.

Summary

As detailed in the Final Regulatory Impact Analysis (FRIA) section below, the final rule and underlying statute are expected to provide numerous unquantifiable benefits to qualified employees and applicants with known limitations related to, affected by, or arising out of pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions, especially in States that currently do not have laws substantially similar to the PWFA. It will also benefit covered entities, the U.S. economy, and society as a whole. These unquantifiable benefits include improved maternal and infant health; improved economic security for pregnant employees; increased equity, human dignity, and fairness; improved clarity of enforcement standards and efficiencies in litigation; and decreased costs related to employee turnover for covered entities.

The quantitative section in the FRIA below provides estimates of the two main expected costs associated with the rule and underlying statute: (a) annual costs associated with providing reasonable accommodations to qualified applicants and employees with known limitations related to, affected by, or arising out of pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions by employers in States that do not currently have such a requirement, and (b) one-time administrative costs for covered entities, which include becoming familiar with the rule, posting new equal employment opportunity (EEO) posters, and updating EEO policies and handbooks. The Commission expresses the quantifiable impacts in 2022 dollars and uses discount rates of 3 and 7 percent pursuant to OMB Circular A-4.

The analysis concludes that approximately 49.4 percent of the reasonable accommodations that will be required by the rule and underlying statute will have no cost to covered entities, and that the average annual cost for the remaining 50.6 percent of such accommodations is approximately $60 per year per accommodation. Taking into account that many entities covered by the PWFA are already required to provide such accommodations under State and local laws, the total impact on the U.S. economy to provide reasonable accommodations under the rule and underlying statute is estimated to be between $14.82 million and $32.82 million per year.

The estimated one-time costs associated with administrative tasks are quite low on a per-establishment basis—between $57.02 and $255.40, depending on the State and on the type of employer. Despite the low per-establishment cost, the proposed rule is a “significant regulatory action” under section 3(f)(1) of E.O. 12866, as amended by E.O. 14094, because the number of regulated entities—hence the number of entities expected to incur one-time administrative costs—is extremely large (including all public and private employers with 15 or more employees and the Federal Government). As a result, the Commission has concluded that the overall cost to the U.S. economy will be in excess of $200 million.

Final Regulatory Impact Analysis (FRIA)

The Need for Regulatory Action

The PWFA and the final rule respond to the previously limited availability of accommodations for employees affected by pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions under Federal law. Although Title VII (as amended by the Pregnancy Discrimination Act (PDA)) provided some protections for employees affected by pregnancy, childbirth or related medical conditions, court decisions regarding the ability of employees affected by pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions to obtain workplace accommodations created “unworkable” standards that did not adequately protect pregnant employees. Similarly, prior to the PWFA, some pregnant employees could obtain protections under the ADA, but these were limited. Pregnant employees who could not obtain accommodations risked their economic security, which had harmful effects for themselves and their families. Furthermore, the loss of a job can affect a pregnant employee's economic security for decades, as they lose out on “retirement contributions . . . short-term disability benefits, seniority, pensions, social security contributions, life insurance, and more.” Additionally, the lack of workplace accommodations can harm the health of the employee and their pregnancy. While numerous States have laws that provide for accommodations for pregnant employees, the lack of a national standard prior to passage of the PWFA meant that employees' rights varied depending on the State in which they lived, some of which left employees completely unprotected.

The PWFA at 42 U.S.C. 2000gg-3(a) provides that “[n]ot later than 1 year after [the date of enactment of the Act], the Commission shall issue regulations in an accessible format in accordance with subchapter II of chapter 5 of title 5 [of the United States Code] to carry out this chapter. Such regulations shall provide examples of reasonable accommodations addressing known limitations related to pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions.”

Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 2000gg-3(a), the EEOC is issuing this rule following the procedures codified at 5 U.S.C. 553(b).

Baseline

The PWFA is a new law that requires covered entities to provide reasonable accommodations to the known limitations related to, affected by, or arising out of pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions of qualified employees. As set out in the NPRM, the PWFA seeks to fill gaps in the Federal and State legal landscape regarding protections for employees affected by pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions.

Employees affected by pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions have certain rights under existing civil rights laws, such as Title VII, the ADA, the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993, 29 U.S.C. 2601 et seq. (FMLA), the Providing Urgent Maternal Protections for Nursing Mothers Act (PUMP Act), and various State and local laws.

Under Title VII, an employee affected by pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions may be able to obtain a workplace modification to allow them to continue to work. Typically courts have only found in favor of such claims if the employee can identify another individual similar in their ability or inability to work who received such an accommodation, or if there is some direct evidence of disparate treatment (such as a biased comment or a policy that, on its face, excludes pregnant employees). However, there may not always be similarly situated employees. For this reason, some pregnant employees have not received simple, common-sense accommodations, such as a stool for a cashier or bathroom breaks for a preschool teacher. And even when the pregnant employee can identify other employees who are similar in their ability or inability to work, some courts still have not found a Title VII violation.

Under the ADA, certain employees affected by pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions may have the right to accommodations if they have an “actual” or “record of” ADA disability; this standard does not include pregnancy itself but includes a pregnancy-related disability.

Under the FMLA, covered employees can receive up to 12 weeks of job-protected unpaid leave for, among other things, a serious health condition, the birth of a child, and bonding with a newborn within 1 year of birth. However, employees must work for an employer with 50 or more employees within 75 miles of their worksite and meet certain tenure requirements in order to be entitled to FMLA leave. Survey data from 2018 show that only 56 percent of employees are eligible for FMLA leave. Further, the FMLA only provides unpaid leave—it does not require reasonable accommodations that would allow employees to stay on the job and continue to be paid.

The PUMP Act requires employers who are covered by the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. 201 et seq. (FLSA), to provide reasonable break time for an employee to express breast milk for their nursing child each time such employee has need to express milk for 1 year after the child's birth. The PUMP Act also requires employers to provide a place to pump at work, other than a bathroom, that is shielded from view and free from intrusion from coworkers and the public.

As set out in Table 1, 30 States currently have laws similar to the PWFA that provide for accommodations for pregnant employees. In most States, again as set out in Table 1, the State laws cover the same employers that are covered by the PWFA. Employees in the remaining States and Federal Government employees have the rights set out in the Federal laws described above and, until the passage of the PWFA, did not have the protections of a law like the PWFA.

In addition to the protections provided by the above laws, the Federal Government provides 12 weeks of paid parental leave to eligible Federal employees upon the birth of a new child.

Nonquantifiable Benefits

The final rule and the underlying statute create many important benefits that stem from “values that are difficult or impossible to quantify,” including “equity, human dignity, [and] fairness.” These benefits are the marginal increase in those values beyond the protections provided in the laws outlined above. The Commission has identified five primary benefits of the rule and underlying statute. The Commission did not quantify each of the following benefits that are expected to result from the PWFA and its implementing regulation, however, because it did not identify sufficient data to quantify these benefits.

Improvements in Health for Pregnant Employees and Their Babies

Congress enacted the PWFA in large part to improve maternal and infant health outcomes. The legislative history emphasizes that the new law was needed because “[n]o worker should have to choose between their health, the health of their pregnancy, and the ability to earn a living.” Congress further concluded that “providing reasonable accommodations to pregnant workers is critical to the health of women and their children.” The need to improve health outcomes surrounding pregnancy is critical—as a recent report noted, “women in our country are dying at a higher rate from pregnancy-related causes than in any other developed nation.” Additionally, “Black women are more than three times as likely as White women to die from pregnancy-related causes, while American Indian/Alaska Native [women] are more than twice as likely,” and a recent study shows that negative health outcomes during pregnancy disproportionately affect Black women compared to White women regardless of wealth.

Some studies have shown increased risk of miscarriage, preterm birth, low birth weight, urinary tract infections, fainting, and other health problems for pregnant employees because of workplace conditions. Research also shows that certain workplace conditions, such as lengthy periods of standing or walking, or high risk of chemical exposure or noise, can result in complications for a pregnant employee and their baby; thus accommodations to alleviate those conditions improve health outcomes for pregnant employees and their children.

Additionally, the provision of accommodations may improve pregnant employees' mental health, as even perceived pregnancy discrimination at work has been linked to increased stress and symptoms of postpartum depression. Stress resulting from workplace discrimination and workplace conditions can increase risk of preterm birth or low birth weight, potentially resulting in serious health problems at birth that may cause long-term health and developmental consequences in children. Such health challenges may result in additional health care costs; accordingly, reducing stress during pregnancy also may reduce health care costs.

Moreover, employees who do not receive needed accommodations, and who quit their jobs as a result in order to maintain a healthy pregnancy, often lose employer-sponsored health insurance in addition to losing their incomes. In a letter to Congress, a group of leading health care practitioner organizations explained that when a pregnant employee loses health insurance, “the impact on both mother and baby may be long-lasting and severe. One of the main predictors of a healthy pregnancy is early and consistent prenatal care. Loss of employment and health benefits impact family resources, threatening the ability to access vital health care when a woman needs it the most.”

Finally, by helping pregnant employees avoid health risks to themselves and their pregnancies, the PWFA will help contribute to improved maternal and child health and lower health care costs nationally.

Improvements in Pregnant Employees' Economic Security

Access to reasonable accommodations at work will help employees with limitations related to pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions to stay in the workforce, maintain their income, and provide for themselves and their families. Based on anecdotal evidence, unavailability of accommodations often forces employees to take unpaid leave, quit their jobs, or seek jobs that are potentially less lucrative, threatening their economic security. The lack of an accommodation may also have far-reaching economic effects. As the House Committee on Education and Labor Report for the PWFA stated, “Pregnant workers who are pushed out of the workplace might feel the effects for decades, losing out on everything from 401(k) or other retirement contributions to short-term disability benefits, seniority, pensions, social security contributions, life insurance, and more.” Provision of reasonable accommodations may also have economic benefits to society as a whole by keeping people attached to the labor force and lowering the likelihood of some employees being compelled to seek public assistance after they are forced to quit their jobs.

Providing needed workplace accommodations to qualified applicants and employees with limitations related to, affected by, or arising out of pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions is another step toward ensuring women's continued and increased participation in the labor force. Among other things, women's participation in the labor force is heavily impacted by pregnancy and the demands associated with raising young children. The passage of the PDA in 1978, which prohibits employment discrimination based on pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions and requires that women affected by pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions be treated the same as other individuals similar in their ability or inability to work, increased the participation rate of pregnant women in the labor market. As of 2021, over 66 percent of women in the United States who gave birth in the prior year were in the labor force, up from about 57 percent in 2006. Moreover, an increasing number of pregnant employees are working later into their pregnancies—over 65 percent of first-time mothers who worked during their pregnancy worked into the last month before their child's birth. By requiring reasonable accommodations for employees with limitations related to, affected by, or arising out of pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions, the PWFA and this rule will further support and enhance women's labor force participation, and, in turn, grow the U.S. economy.

Non-Discrimination and Other Intrinsic Benefits

Providing accommodations to employees with limitations related to, affected by, or arising out of pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions also has important implications for equity, human dignity, and fairness.

First, by allowing pregnant employees to care for their health and the health of their pregnancies, the PWFA enhances human dignity. Employees will be able to prioritize their health and the health of their future children, giving their children the best possible start in life while also protecting their economic security. As one comment explained, the PWFA gives pregnant employees a strong sense of dignity and belonging in the workforce, and “the reasonable accommodation framework relieves individual employees of the burden of proving animus: of showing that an employer's inflexible imposition of workplace standards reflects sex stereotyping that flows from the invidious assumption that pregnant workers are not competent or committed workers.”

Second, the PWFA will diminish the incidence of sex discrimination against qualified employees, enable them to reach their full potential, reduce exclusion, and promote self-respect. The statute and the rule provide for reasonable accommodations to employees who would otherwise not receive them and thus could be forced to leave their jobs or the workforce because of their pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions. Also, the statute and the rule require a covered entity to engage an employee in an interactive process, rather than simply assigning the employee an accommodation, which combats stereotypes about the capabilities of employees affected by pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions. Finally, the statute and the rule protect employees against retaliation and coercion for using the protections of the statute. These protections against discrimination promote human dignity and equity by enabling qualified employees to participate or continue to participate in the workforce.

Third, because the PWFA applies to so many covered entities, it will improve equity in the workforce. Currently, employees affected by pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions in higher paying jobs and non-physical jobs are much more likely to be able to control their schedules, take bathroom breaks, or eat, drink water, or telework when necessary. These employees may not have to request accommodations from their employers to meet many of their pregnancy-related needs. Employees in low-wage jobs, however, are much less likely to be able to organize their schedules to allow them to take breaks that may be necessary due to pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions. Nearly one-third of Black and Latina workers are in low-wage jobs, the types of jobs that are less likely to currently provide accommodations. Therefore, the PWFA and this rule will improve equity in the workforce by ensuring that low-paid employees, including Black and Latina employees who may have a more difficult time securing voluntary accommodations, will have a right to them.

Fourth, providing reasonable accommodations to employees who would otherwise have been denied them yields third-party benefits that include diminishing stereotypes regarding employees who are experiencing pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions; promoting design, availability, and awareness of accommodations that can have benefits for the general public, including non-pregnant employees, and attitudinal benefits; increasing understanding and fairness in the workplace; and creating less discriminatory work environments that benefit employees, employers, and society.

Clarity in Enforcement and Efficiencies in Litigation

Congress, in describing the goals of the PWFA, also focused on the clarity that the PWFA would bring to the question of when employers must provide accommodations for limitations related to pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions: “The PWFA eliminates a lack of clarity in the current legal framework that has frustrated pregnant workers' legal rights to reasonable accommodations while providing clear guidance to both workers and employers.” By creating a national standard, the PWFA also may increase compliance with State laws requiring accommodations for pregnant employees, as coming into compliance with the PWFA may increase employers' knowledge about these laws in general. In the short time that the PWFA has been in effect, one comment noted that dozens of employees had informed them of the “transformative effect” of the law, with employees who had previously been denied reasonable accommodations having them provided. For example, an electrician's assistant reported that, following her request for a pregnancy-related accommodation, her employer attempted to place her on leave; but after advocating for herself under the PWFA, her employer exhibited increased flexibility and willingness to accommodate her. An employee in telecommunications stated that, after her employer took months to respond to her request for a postpartum accommodation, she informed her employer of her rights under the PWFA, and her employer granted the accommodation request. A tax specialist reported that she requested a pregnancy-related accommodation that her employer denied without explanation; after she educated her employer about the PWFA, her employer granted her request for an accommodation.

By clarifying the rules regarding accommodations for pregnant employees, the PWFA and the rule will decrease the need for litigation regarding accommodations under the PWFA. To the extent that litigation remains unavoidable in certain circumstances, the PWFA and the rule are expected to eliminate the need to litigate whether the condition in question is a “disability” under the ADA, and to limit discovery and litigation costs that arise under Title VII regarding determining if there are valid comparators, thus streamlining the issues requiring judicial attention.

Benefits for Covered Entities

Providing accommodations needed due to pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions is also likely to provide benefits to covered entities. By providing accommodations to employees affected by pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions and retaining them as employees, employers will save money by not having to obtain and train new employees. The Commission is not aware of any data regarding the need to obtain and train employees arising specifically from provision of reasonable accommodations for pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions. Studies examining the relationship between employee retention and provision of reasonable accommodations for disabilities generally suggest that the benefits to covered entities may be significant. According to one study, 85 percent of employers that provided accommodations to individuals with disabilities reported that doing so enabled them to retain a valued employee; 53 percent reported an increase in that employee's productivity; 46 percent reported elimination of costs associated with training a new employee; 48 percent reported an increase in that employee's attendance; 33 percent noted that providing the accommodation increased diversity in the company; and 23 percent reported a decrease in workers' compensation or other costs. Employers also noted several indirect benefits: 30 percent noted an increase in company morale, and 21 percent noted an increase in overall company productivity.

Costs

Covered Entities and the Existing Legal Landscape

Entities covered by the PWFA and the regulation include all employers covered by Title VII and the Government Employee Rights Act of 1991, 42 U.S.C. 2000e-16a-16c (GERA), including private and public sector employers with 15 or more employees, Federal agencies, employment agencies, and labor organizations.

In addition to the legal protections described earlier in the preamble pertaining to Title VII, the ADA, and the FMLA, there are three other important legal considerations that impact the costs of accommodations under the PWFA and this regulation.

First, 30 States and 5 localities have laws substantially similar to the PWFA, requiring covered employers to provide reasonable accommodations to pregnant employees. As a result, this rule will impose minimal, if any, additional costs on the covered entities in these States and localities.

Second, when it enacted the PWFA, Congress also enacted the PUMP Act, which requires employers who are covered by the FLSA to provide reasonable break time for an employee to pump breast milk each time such employee has the need to express milk for up to 1 year after the child's birth. The PUMP Act also requires employers to provide a place to pump at work, other than a bathroom, that is shielded from view and free from intrusion from coworkers and the public. As a result, the Commission anticipates that most employees will not need to seek reasonable accommodations regarding a time and place to pump at work under the PWFA because they will already be entitled to these under the PUMP Act.

Third, the Federal Government provides 12 weeks of paid parental leave to eligible Federal employees upon the birth of a new child. As a result, these Federal employees may make fewer requests for leave as a reasonable accommodation under the PWFA as they are already guaranteed a certain amount of paid leave.

Estimate of the Number of Reasonable Accommodations That Will Be Provided as a Result of the Rule and Underlying Statute

As set out in Tables 1 and 2 and explained in detail below, the rule and underlying statute cover approximately 116.7 million employees of private establishments with 15 or more employees, 18.8 million State and local government employees, and 2.3 million Federal employees. Only a small percentage of these employees are expected to seek and be entitled to accommodations as a result of the rule and underlying statute.

Approximately 52 percent of private sector enterprises with 15 or more employees in the United States (1.4 million establishments), employing about 61.2 million employees (accounting for 52 percent of employment in those States), are currently subject to State or local laws that are substantially similar to the PWFA. The enactment of the PWFA and promulgation of the rule, therefore, should not result in additional accommodation-related costs for these employers. Subtracting 61.2 million employees from the total number of covered employees employed by private sector enterprises (116.7 million) yields a total of approximately 55.5 million employees of private sector establishments who will be covered by the rule and underlying statute, and who are not also covered by State or local laws that are substantially similar to the PWFA. Tables 1 and 2 display

each State's share of the total national number of private sector establishments that have 15 or more employees and thus will be subject to the PWFA, and the percentage of employees in the State employed by such establishments. States with laws substantially similar to the PWFA are in Table 1; States without such a law are in Table 2.

Similarly, approximately 11.5 million State and local government employees are covered by laws that are substantially similar to the PWFA. Subtracting this number from the total number of covered State and local government employees (18.8 million) yields a total of 7.3 million State and local government employees who will be covered by the rule and underlying statute and who are not already covered by State or local laws substantially similar to the PWFA.

Finally, there are 2.3 million Federal employees. The Federal Government does not currently require accommodations for pregnant employees; thus, the PWFA provides a new right for these employees.

Again, however, not all employees who are now covered by the PWFA will seek and be entitled to accommodations as a result of the rule and underlying statute; only a small percentage will become pregnant and need accommodations in a given year.

To estimate the number of individuals who will be entitled to a pregnancy-related accommodation, and who will receive one as a result of the PWFA and its implementing regulations, the Commission first estimates the proportion of newly covered employees who are capable of becoming pregnant. In 2021, women of reproductive age (aged 16-50 years) comprised approximately 33 percent of U.S. employees. On the basis of this finding, the Commission adopts 33 percent as its estimate of the percentage of employees who are capable of becoming pregnant.

The Commission next estimates the proportion of individuals capable of becoming pregnant who will actually become pregnant in a given year. Research shows that approximately 4.7 percent of individuals who are capable of becoming pregnant gave birth to at least one child during the previous year. This figure must be adjusted upward to account for the fact that not all individuals who become pregnant give birth—some pregnant individuals have miscarriages, stillbirths, or abortions. Research shows that, between 2015 and 2019, live births in the United States accounted for 67 percent of all pregnancies among women aged 15-44 years on average. Assuming that the ratio of live births to total pregnancies among women of reproductive age in the labor force is the same as among all 15-44 years old women, the Commission estimates that the percentage of individuals capable of becoming pregnant who will actually become pregnant in given year is 0.047 ÷ 0.67 = 0.071 (rounded up), or 7.1 percent. The Commission thus adopts 7.1 percent as its estimate of the percentage of individuals capable of becoming pregnant within a population who will actually become pregnant in a given year.

Applying these percentages to the numbers above yields totals (rounded to the nearest 1,000) of, in a given year, 1.3 million private sector employees (55,500,000 × 0.33 × 0.071), 171,000 State and local government employees (7,300,000 × 0.33 × 0.071), and 54,000 Federal employees (2,300,000 × 0.33 × 0.071) who are both newly eligible for reasonable accommodations under the rule and underlying statute, and who may be expected to become pregnant in a given year. Tables 3, 4, and 5 display these calculations.

The sum of the expected number of pregnant women eligible for PWFA accommodations in the private sector (1.3 million), State and local government (171,000), and Federal Government (54,000) is 1.525 million.

The Commission next estimates the proportion of pregnant individuals in the workplace who may need a pregnancy-related reasonable accommodation and who will receive such accommodation as a result of the rule and the underlying statute. Data regarding the number of pregnant employees needing some type of accommodation are limited. One survey indicated that 71 percent of pregnant employees experience a pregnancy-related limitation that requires extra breaks, such as bathroom breaks; 61 percent experience a limitation that requires a change in schedule or more time off, for example, to see prenatal care providers; 53 percent experience a limitation that requires a change in duties, such as less lifting or more sitting; and 40 percent experience a limitation that requires some other type of workplace adjustment.

The research establishes that 71 percent of pregnant individuals surveyed needed the most common type of pregnancy-related reasonable accommodation: additional breaks. The Commission assumes for purposes of the final economic impact analysis that the pregnant individuals in the study who needed one of the more unusual accommodations are a subset of the 71 percent who need additional breaks. The Commission thus adopts 71 percent as its upper bound estimate of the percentage of pregnant employees who will need a pregnancy-related accommodation under the rule. Applying the 71 percent estimate yields upper bound estimates (rounded to the nearest 1,000) of 923,000 private sector employees (71 percent of 1,300,000), 121,000 State and local government employees (71 percent of 171,000), and 38,000 Federal sector employees (71 percent of 54,000), for a total 1,082,000 employees, who will need a reasonable accommodation and who will receive one as a result of the PWFA and the rule in a given year.

In setting its lower bound estimate, the Commission observes that not every individual who is newly entitled to a pregnancy-related accommodation under the PWFA and the rule, and who receives such an accommodation, will receive it as a result of the rule. Some of these individuals will already be entitled to receive pregnancy-related accommodations under other authorities, independently of the PWFA and its implementing regulations—some will already be entitled to them under the ADA, others will be entitled to them under Title VII, and yet others will be entitled to them under formal or informal employer policies. Therefore, costs arising from pregnancy-related accommodations cannot always be attributed to the rule and the underlying statute, even where the employee in question was not previously covered under a State law analogous to the PWFA.

To generate its lower bound estimate, the Commission reduces its upper bound estimate of 71 percent to reflect the fact that some of those individuals would receive their requested accommodation independently of the rule. According to the study cited above, 42 percent of the individuals who needed additional breaks due to a pregnancy-related limitation did not receive them because they were never requested, and 3 percent did not receive them because the employer denied their request. Thus, 0.71 × 0.45 = 0.32, or 32 percent, of pregnant individuals surveyed needed, but did not receive the requested accommodation. On the basis of this research, the Commission adopts 32 percent as its lower bound estimate of the percentage of pregnant employees who will need a reasonable accommodation under the PWFA and its implementing regulations. Applying this percentage yields lower bound estimates (rounded to the nearest 1,000) of approximately 416,000 private sector employees (32 percent of 1,300,000); 55,000 State and local government employees (32 percent of 171,000); and 17,000 Federal sector employees (32 percent of 54,000), for a total of 488,000 employees who will need, and be newly entitled to, reasonable accommodations under the rule and underlying statute in a given year.

Cost of Accommodation

Accommodations that allow pregnant employees to continue to perform their job duties, thereby allowing them to receive continued pay and benefits, include additional rest or bathroom breaks, use of a stool or chair, a change in duties to avoid strenuous physical activities, and schedule changes to attend prenatal appointments. Some of these accommodations, especially additional rest or bathroom breaks and provision of a stool or chair, are expected to impose minimal or no additional costs on the employer. Certain other types of accommodations, such as allowing the employee to avoid heavy lifting or exposure to certain types of chemicals, may be easy to provide in some jobs but more difficult to provide in others, necessitating temporary restructuring of responsibilities or transferring to a different position.

The Commission was unable to find any data on the average cost of reasonable accommodations related specifically to pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions. The Commission has therefore relied on the available data on the cost of accommodations for individuals with disabilities for purposes of this analysis.

A survey conducted by the Job Accommodation Network (JAN) indicates that most workplace accommodations for individuals with disabilities are low-cost. Of the employers participating in this survey between 2019 and 2022, 49.4 percent reported that they provided an accommodation needed because of a disability that did not cost anything to implement. The Commission believes that the percentage of no-cost accommodations is likely to be higher for accommodations related specifically to pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions, because many will be simple and no-cost like access to water, stools, or more frequent bathroom breaks, and because the vast majority will be temporary. Nevertheless, because the Commission is unable to locate any data on the percentage of accommodations needed because of pregnancy-related conditions that have no cost, the Commission conservatively assumes for purposes of this analysis that the percentages are the same.

The same research showed that the median one-time cost of providing a non-zero-cost accommodation was $300. Only 7.2 percent of employers reported that they provided an accommodation that resulted in ongoing annual costs. Because pregnancy is a temporary condition, the ongoing costs incurred by 7.2 percent of employers are unlikely to be applicable to pregnancy-related accommodations, and the Commission adopts $300 as the median one-time cost for employers that incurred a cost (50.6 percent of employers). Again, although the Commission believes that the average cost is likely lower for accommodations needed specifically for pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions, it will use the data for the purposes of this analysis.

Because non-zero-cost accommodations generally involve durable goods such as additional stools, infrastructure for telework, and machines to help with lifting, and because these goods generally have a useful life of 5 years, the Commission will assume that the annual cost of providing these accommodations is approximately $60 per year per accommodation.

Using these cost estimates, and applying them to the upper and lower bound estimates for the number of additional accommodations that will likely be required by the rule and underlying statute, the estimated annual costs (rounded to the nearest 1,000) for private employers is between $12.60 million and $28.02 million; the estimated annual costs for State and local governments is between $1.68 million and $3.66 million, and the estimated annual costs for the Federal Government is between $540,000 and $1.14 million. See Tables 6, 7, and 8.

Thus, the overall economic cost on the U.S. economy of providing reasonable accommodations pursuant to the rule and underlying statute is estimated to be between $14.82 million and $32.82 million annually.

The costs in Tables 6, 7, and 8 likely overestimate the costs to covered entities in at least six respects:

• The estimated one-time cost of $300 per non-zero-cost accommodation is based on costs of accommodations for individuals with disabilities generally, not only those related to pregnancy, among the JAN survey respondents. The Commission believes that the average cost of accommodations related to pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions is less than the average cost of disability-related accommodations because many of the reasonable accommodations requested under the PWFA will be simple and inexpensive to provide, and the vast majority will be temporary.

• The sample obtained in the JAN study may not be representative of all employers, because employers who consult with JAN are likely to be facing more difficult and costly accommodation issues than employers overall.

• The estimate does not account for the fact that some employees who will be entitled to reasonable accommodations under the PWFA and the rule are independently entitled to accommodations under the ADA or Title VII, to break time and a private place to pump at work under the PUMP Act, and, in some cases, leave under the FMLA or the Federal Employees Paid Leave Act.

• The estimate does not account for the fact that some employers voluntarily provide accommodations to employees affected by pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions and may not incur new costs.
• This analysis does not account for the fact that not all employees who seek accommodations will meet the definition of “qualified,” and an employer may decline to provide a reasonable accommodation if doing so creates an undue hardship.

The Commission did not include costs related to processing requests for accommodation in its estimate because it expects these costs to be extremely low. Employers that are covered by State or local laws substantially similar to the PWFA already have these procedures in place. The Commission assumes that employers not covered by such State or local laws, and the Federal Government, will adapt existing procedures for providing accommodations under Title VII and the ADA and for providing leave under the FMLA.

One-Time Administrative Costs for Covered Entities

Administrative costs, which include rule familiarization, posting new EEO posters, and updating EEO policies and handbooks, represent additional, one-time direct costs to covered entities.

It is estimated that in States that do not already have laws substantially similar to the PWFA, compliance activities for a covered entity would take an average of 135 minutes, or 2.25 hours, by an Equal Opportunity Officer who is paid a fully-loaded wage of $113.51 per hour ($76.03 for a State or local government employee). In States with already existing laws similar to the PWFA, an Equal Opportunity Officer will take an average of 45 minutes for compliance activities. For the Federal Government, which does not have an existing PWFA, it is estimated that compliance activities would take an average of 135 minutes by an Equal Opportunity Officer at a GS 14-5 salary. These calculations are displayed in Table 9.

Totals and Discount Rates

Total costs for providing reasonable accommodations in each year are estimated by multiplying the number of non-zero accommodations in Tables 6-8 above by the upfront cost of $300. Because these are assumed to be durable accommodations, we assume that an employer that acquires an accommodation in a given year will reuse the accommodation throughout its useful life. Throughout the document, we assume a useful life of 5 years, which amounts to an average annual cost of $60. To more accurately reflect the present value of these upfront expenses, EEOC annualizes the total costs.

Adding the annualized cost of providing reasonable accommodations, assuming a useful life of 5 years (between $14.82 million and $32.82 million), to the estimated administrative costs in year 1 ($451.89 million) yields estimated total costs of between $466.71 million and $484.71 million in the first year, and between $14.82 million and $32.82 million annually thereafter.

Table 10 provides the analysis of discount rates at 3% and 7%, as required by OMB Circular A-4, for the lower and upper bound costs of providing accommodations. Table 11 provides that information for the one-time administrative costs.

Time Horizon of Analysis

Neither the PWFA nor the rule contains a sunset provision.

The cost analysis assumes a one-time administrative cost for employers, and the amount of time varies depending on whether the employer is in a State with or without its own version of the PWFA.

The cost and benefit analysis calculates the annual cost of accommodations per pregnant employee who may need them. Because different employees enter the labor market every year and may become pregnant, or an employee who was pregnant may become pregnant again, the Commission does not believe that the need for accommodations or the costs or benefits will substantially change over time.

Range of Regulatory Alternatives

The range of alternatives available to the Commission consistent with the Executive Order is narrow:

• Because 42 U.S.C. 2000gg-3(a) requires the Commission to issue regulations, the Commission could not consider non-regulatory alternatives.
• Because 42 U.S.C. 2000gg determines coverage, the Commission could not consider exemptions based on firm size or geography.
• Because 42 U.S.C. 2000gg-2 provides how the statute will be enforced, the Commission could not consider alternative methods of enforcement, such as market-oriented approaches, performance standards, default rules, monitoring by other agencies, or reporting.

• Because section 109 of the PWFA states when the law will go into effect, the Commission could not consider alternative compliance dates.

Further, because the PWFA is a Federal law that intentionally sets a national standard, the Commission could not consider deferring to State or local regulations. The one exception to this is that 42 U.S.C 2000gg-5(a)(1) provides that nothing in the PWFA invalidates or limits rights under Federal, State, or local laws that provide equal or greater protection for individuals affected by pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions. The rule includes this language. Thus, the rule does not preempt State or local regulations that provide equal or greater protection relative to the PWFA.

The Commission considered two regulatory alternatives, discussed below. The Commission does not believe that either alternative would decrease the costs for covered entities.

Definition of “In the Near Future”

The statute at 42 U.S.C. 2000gg(6) defines a “qualified” employee to include employees whose inability to perform one or more essential functions of the job is temporary, who will be able to perform the essential functions “in the near future,” and whose inability to perform essential function(s) can be reasonably accommodated without undue hardship.

The final rule defines “in the near future” to mean “generally within 40 weeks” for pregnancy only. The Commission considered, but rejected, shorter periods such as 6 months or less for several reasons. First, pregnancy generally lasts 40 weeks; a rule that an employee is only “qualified” if they are able to perform all the essential functions of the job within 6 months of the function(s) being temporarily suspended could classify many employees who need a temporary suspension of an essential function(s) for a longer period as “unqualified” and therefore ineligible for reasonable accommodations. The Commission believes that this outcome would frustrate the purpose of the statute, which is to enable employees who need temporary accommodations related to pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions to continue working.

Second, defining “in the near future” to mean “generally 40 weeks” for pregnancy does not mean that the employer will be required to actually provide a reasonable accommodation for that length of time. The definition of “in the near future” is one step in the definition of “qualified”; even if an employee can meet this part of the definition, an employer still may refuse to provide an accommodation if the employer cannot reasonably accommodate the temporary suspension of the essential function or if doing so would impose “undue hardship” (defined as significant difficulty or expense, relative to the employer's overall resources). Additionally, not all employees who need an essential function(s) suspended will need it suspended for 40 weeks. It is the Commission's hope that setting a single standard for the meaning of “in the near future” for pregnancy will benefit both employers and employees by reducing litigation over the meaning of the term and placing the focus on the central issue of whether the accommodation would impose an undue hardship.

If the definition of “qualified” is “generally 40 weeks” rather than “less than 6 months,” more pregnant employees will be able to meet the definition of qualified. It is not possible to estimate how many. The Commission anticipates that there will be little or no additional cost to covered entities because it is the act of providing an accommodation—not classifying an individual as meeting part of the definition of qualified—that imposes actual costs on the employer. A covered entity can still argue that the accommodation would impose an undue hardship. Further, even if it provides the accommodation, the covered entity is likely to experience cost savings from not having to recruit, hire, or train a new employee.

The Commission also considered not defining the term “in the near future,” but determined that doing so would harm employers by increasing uncertainty and harm employees by failing to ensure equal treatment.

Predictable Assessments

In the section defining “undue hardship,” the rule lists four job modifications often sought by pregnant employees that, in virtually all cases, will be found to be reasonable accommodations that do not impose undue hardship: (1) carrying or keeping water near and drinking, as needed; (2) allowing additional restroom breaks, as needed; (3) allowing sitting for those whose work requires standing and standing for those whose work requires sitting, as needed; and (4) allowing breaks to eat and drink, as needed.

As explained in the NPRM, these accommodations are repeatedly discussed in the PWFA's legislative history as common sense, low-cost accommodations that most pregnant employees will need. To increase efficiency and to decrease the time that it takes for employees to receive these accommodations, the Commission has determined that these modifications will in virtually all cases be determined to be reasonable accommodations that do not impose an undue hardship.

As an alternative to providing that these simple, common-sense modifications will virtually always be determined to be reasonable accommodations that do not impose undue hardship, the Commission considered taking the position that such modifications would always be reasonable accommodations and never impose undue hardship. The Commission decided against this approach because some employers may encounter circumstances that would lead to a determination that these modifications are not reasonable accommodations and/or would impose an undue hardship.

The Commission also considered the option of not including information regarding “predictable assessments” in the rule. The Commission determined that providing this information will be helpful to the public because doing so explains to covered entities and employees how the Commission intends to enforce the PWFA, potentially increases voluntary compliance, and increases certainty for covered entities, which will decrease costs.

The Commission does not anticipate that the rule's “predictable assessments” section would increase costs for covered entities. The examples given are low- to no-cost accommodations, and under the rule, the employer may still claim that these modifications would impose an undue hardship.

Uncertainty in Benefits, Costs, and Net Benefits

The Commission has based its estimates of the costs and benefits of the rule on the best data available to it at the current time. Nevertheless, the Commission recognizes these estimates are somewhat uncertain in several respects.

The data used to estimate the cost of providing accommodations as required by the PWFA come entirely from research on the cost of accommodations for individuals with disabilities; the Commission is not aware of any data concerning the cost of accommodations that relate specifically to pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions. The reliance on ADA data has likely resulted in an inflated cost estimate. As discussed above, the Commission believes that the percentage of accommodations that do not cost anything to implement is likely to be higher for accommodations related specifically to pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions than for accommodations needed because of a disability. Additionally, in some cases, an individual who is entitled to an accommodation under the PWFA may be entitled to it under another law or policy. For example, although leave often may be needed for recovery from childbirth, Bureau of Labor Statistics data show that 88 percent of employees already have access to some unpaid family leave independent of the PWFA, either through the FMLA or otherwise. Therefore, with respect to these individuals, any costs attributable to or benefits accruing from the PWFA for leave related to childbirth would be limited to the short period of time during which such leave is required due to childbirth but unavailable from those other sources.

Conclusion

As detailed above, the estimated annual cost of providing accommodations required by the rule and underlying statute—but not independently required by a State or local law substantially similar to the PWFA—is estimated to be up to $28.02 million for private employers, up to $3.66 million for State and local governments, and up to $1.14 million for the Federal Government. In addition, employers are expected to face one-time costs associated with complying with the rule and underlying statute. These are estimated to be $451.22 million for private employers ($119.19 million for private employers in States with existing PWFA-type laws + $332.03 million for private employers in States without existing PWFA-type laws), $619,000 for State and local governments ($186,000 for public employers in States with existing PWFA-type laws + $433,000 for public employers in States without existing PWFA-type laws), and $49,000 for the Federal Government.

These figures are almost certainly overestimates of the costs imposed by the rule, in part because some of the accommodations required by the rule and underlying statute are already required under the ADA and Title VII and some employers voluntarily provide accommodations. Due to a lack of data, however, the Commission was unable to account for this overlap in the above analysis.

The Commission has nevertheless determined that the benefits of the rule and underlying statute justify its costs. The annual costs associated with the main requirement of the rule—to give reasonable accommodations to individuals who need them because of pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions—are not significant under section 3(f)(1) of E.O. 12866. And although the aggregate one-time compliance costs are in excess of $200 million, and therefore significant, the estimated cost on a per-establishment basis is low—between $57.02 and $255.40, depending on whether or not the State in which the entity is located has a law substantially similar to the PWFA and on the type of employer.

The benefits of the rule and underlying statute to employees affected by pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions, however, are significant, including improved health, improved economic security, and increased equity, human dignity, and fairness. The number of individuals who may experience such benefits is relatively large—the number of employees who will be newly entitled to reasonable accommodations for pregnancy and may need them is estimated to be between approximately 488,000 and 1.082 million per year. This number does not include the children, family members, and members of society at large who also will potentially enjoy some of the benefits listed above.

The Commission further concludes that the rule is tailored to impose the least burden on society consistent with achieving the regulatory objectives, and that the agency has selected the approach that maximizes net benefits. The range of alternatives available to the Commission was extremely limited. The alternatives that were consistent with the PWFA's statutory language would not, in the Commission's opinion, reduce costs to employers.

Regulatory Flexibility Act and Executive Order 13272 (Proper Consideration of Small Entities in Agency Rulemaking)

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601-612, requires the Commission to evaluate the economic impact of this rule on small entities. The RFA defines small entities to include small businesses, small organizations, including not-for-profit organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions. The Commission must determine whether the rule would impose a significant economic impact on a substantial number of such small entities.

When an agency issues a rulemaking proposal, the RFA requires the agency to “prepare and make available for public comment an initial regulatory flexibility analysis” which will “describe the impact of the rule on small entities.” Section 605 of the RFA allows an agency to certify a rule, in lieu of preparing an analysis, if the rulemaking is not expected to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. For the reasons outlined below, the Chair of the Commission hereby certifies that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

Small businesses range in size, based on the industry, between 1 to 1,500 employees; the PWFA and the rule apply to all employers in the United States with 15 or more employees. Thus, for purposes of the RFA, the Commission has determined that the regulation will have an economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

However, the Commission has determined that the economic impact on entities affected by the PWFA and the rule will not be “significant.”

As detailed in the FRIA above, the impact on small entities in States and localities that have laws substantially similar to the PWFA will be limited to a one-time administrative cost of approximately $85.13 in the first year for small private employers (0.75 hours × $113.51 hourly wage), and $57.02 for small State or local government employers (0.75 hours × $76.03 hourly wage). Since these entities are already required to provide accommodations consistent with the PWFA, they will face no additional costs for accommodations.

Small entities that are not already subject to State or local laws substantially similar to the PWFA will face a one-time administrative cost of approximately $255.40 for private employers (2.25 hours × $113.51 hourly wage) and $171.07 for State or local government employers (2.25 hours × $76.03 hourly wage), plus annual costs associated with providing reasonable accommodations consistent with the rule and underlying statute. To calculate the cost of providing such accommodations, the Commission has constructed cost estimates for a range of small business sizes.

Using the amounts for a small entity with 500 employees as an example, the calculation was conducted as follows:

• Based on data outlined in the FRIA above, the Commission estimates that approximately 33 percent, or 165, of these employees are women of reproductive age (aged 16-50 years), and that approximately 7.1 percent of these, or 11.715 employees, will give birth to at least one child during a given year.

• The Commission again adopts 71 percent as its upper bound estimate and 32 percent as its lower bound estimate of the percentage of pregnant employees who will need a reasonable accommodation related to pregnancy.
• Thus, the Commission estimates that between 3.749 (32 percent of 11.715) and 8.318 (71 percent of 11.715) employees of a small entity with 500 employees will require annually a reasonable accommodation under the PWFA.
• The Commission further assumes, based on data regarding the average cost of reasonable accommodations for individuals with disabilities presented in the FRIA above, that 50.6 percent of the required accommodations will have a non-zero cost.

• This yields lower and upper bound estimates of the number of non-zero-cost accommodations of 1.9 (50.6 percent of 3.749) and 4.21 (50.6 percent of 8.318), respectively. Rounding up these numbers, the Commission estimates that a small entity with 500 employees will be required to provide between 2 and 5 additional non-zero-cost accommodations per year as a result of the rule and underlying statute. Multiplying by an average cost of $60 per year for each accommodation, the estimated total cost for accommodations required under the PWFA per small entity with 500 employees is between $120 and $300.

Thus, the annual cost of providing reasonable accommodations for entities not already subject to State or local laws substantially similar to the PWFA is estimated to be between $60 (lower bound estimate, for entities with 15 employees) and $780 (upper bound estimate, for entities with 1,500 employees).

The costs detailed above are not likely to constitute a “significant” economic impact for many small entities, if any. Further, the Commission notes that all businesses in the United States with 15 or more employees already must comply with Title VII and the ADA, both of which could, in certain circumstances, require accommodations for employees affected by pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions. Further, Title VII, the ADA, and State laws requiring accommodations for pregnancy apply to all industries; given that, the Commission does not believe that the PWFA will have a greater effect in any industry.

Accordingly, the Chair of the Commission hereby certifies that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

Paperwork Reduction Act

The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. (PRA), requires the EEOC to consider the impact of information collection burdens imposed on the public. The PRA typically requires an agency to provide notice and seek public comments on any “collection of information” contained in a rule.

The Commission has determined that there is no new requirement for information collection associated with this rule.

Consequently, this rule does not require review by the Office of Management and Budget under the authority of the PRA.

Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)

The Commission has reviewed this rule in accordance with Executive Order 13132 regarding federalism and has determined that it does not have “federalism implications.” The statute at 42 U.S.C. 2000gg(2) provides that the PWFA applies to employers as that term is defined in Title VII. States and local governments are subject to Title VII, including its prohibition on sex discrimination, which includes discrimination based on pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions. The statute at 42 U.S.C. 2000gg-4 provides that a State will not be immune under the 11th Amendment to actions brought under the PWFA in a court of competent jurisdiction and that in any action against a State for a violation of the PWFA, remedies, including remedies both at law and in equity, are available for such violation to the same extent that they are available against any other public or private entity. The rule does not limit or expand these statutory definitions. Additionally, the regulation will not have substantial direct effects “on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.”

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

Section 202(a) of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) requires that the Commission determine whether a regulation proposes a Federal mandate that may result in the expenditure by State, local, or tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more in a single year (adjusted annually for inflation). However, 2 U.S.C. 1503 excludes from UMRA's ambit any provision in a final regulation that, among other things, enforces constitutional rights of individuals or establishes or enforces any statutory rights that prohibit discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, national origin, age, handicap, or disability; thus, UMRA does not apply to the PWFA.

Plain Language

The Commission has attempted to draft this final rule in plain language.

Assessment of Federal Regulations and Policies on Families

The undersigned hereby certifies that the rule will not adversely affect the well-being of families, as discussed under section 654 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act of 1999. To the contrary, by providing reasonable accommodation to employees with known limitations related to, affected by, or arising out of pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions, absent undue hardship, the rule will have a positive effect on the economic well-being and security of families.

Executive Order 13175 (Indian Tribal Governments)

This rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175 that require a tribal summary impact statement. The rule will not have substantial direct effects on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. The definition of “covered entity” in the PWFA follows that of Title VII; Title VII exempts “a corporation wholly owned by an Indian tribe.”

Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice Reform)

This rule was drafted and reviewed in accordance with Executive Order 12988 and will not unduly burden the Federal court system. The rule was: (1) reviewed to eliminate drafting errors and ambiguities; (2) written to minimize litigation; and (3) written to provide a clear legal standard for affected conduct and to promote burden reduction.

List of Subjects in 29 CFR Part 1636

• Administrative practice and procedure
• Equal employment opportunity
• Reasonable accommodation
• Pregnancy

For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the EEOC amends 29 CFR chapter XIV by adding part 1636 to read as follows:

PART 1636—PREGNANT WORKERS FAIRNESS ACT

Appendix A to Part 1636—Interpretive Guidance on the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 2000gg et seq.