Trump Administration’s Proposal on Workplace Pregnancy Rules and Miscarriage Accommodations

The Trump administration is considering altering federal rules on workplace pregnancy, potentially affecting how miscarriage accommodations are handled. The existing Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) guidelines mandate workplace adjustments for those affected by miscarriage. Research indicates pregnancy accommodations may reduce the risk of miscarriage.

Currently, the administration has not disclosed whether future proposals will maintain miscarriage protections within the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act (PWFA). The EEOC plans to propose regulatory changes involving the definition of ‘pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions’ in November, but details remain unpublished.

The PWFA, effective since June 2023, obliges employers to accommodate workers experiencing conditions related to pregnancy or childbirth unless it causes undue hardship. It explicitly covers employees who require time off due to a miscarriage. Miscarriages are treated as pregnancy-related medical conditions under current regulations.

Megan Thomas, a legal expert in employment law, emphasizes the necessity for flexible work arrangements to support those recovering from a miscarriage. She suggests flexible schedules, the potential for remote work, and light duty as viable accommodations.

The uncertainty around the new proposal leaves open questions about whether miscarriage will remain included within the act’s protection scope. The current regulation acknowledges miscarriage as a part of pregnancy-related conditions, but the proposed revision does not clarify this inclusion yet.

Brianna Williams, a managing attorney, notes that a revision might lead to employers denying accommodations for miscarriages at their discretion, affecting workers negatively.

Changes to agency regulations won’t alter the statutes set by Congress; workers can argue that the PWFA still protects them. However, workplace allowances might change, impacting employees’ rights to those accommodations.

If miscarriage-related protections narrow, other laws such as the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) could offer some relief. Nonetheless, these laws don’t provide the same rights as the PWFA.

Alison Breiter, an employment department lead, highlighted the limitations of ADA and FMLA compared to the specific rights enshrined in the PWFA, warning that narrowing the act’s scope could limit available options for some employees.

Research underscores the potential impact of workplace accommodations on reducing miscarriage rates. A University of Wisconsin-Madison study suggests a 9.6% reduction in miscarriages in states with pregnancy accommodation protections. Yet, the data do not directly link accommodations to individual miscarriage prevention.

Workers in physically demanding roles may suffer if accommodations become restrictive, as they lack alternatives like remote work or flexible hours that higher-wage positions offer.

Williams highlighted the issues that might arise if regulatory changes lead to stricter workplace attendance policies, which could penalize workers during medical recovery.

The next step involves the anticipated EEOC regulation proposal. Whether ‘miscarriage’ remains in the definition of covered medical conditions will be a key indicator of the administration’s stance.

Experts advise focusing on details of the proposed regulation, including timing and scope of protection. Terms like ‘miscarriage’ and the treatment of pregnancy’s end period will be examined closely.

Breiter insists on evaluating whether the changes affect an employee’s access to accommodations more than the presence of specific words in the text.

The broader implications extend beyond the political debate over abortion, focusing on employer obligations to adjust working conditions due to pregnancy impacts.