From Texas to New York: Understanding Pregnancy Discrimination Protections at Work

The federal Pregnant Workers Fairness Act has been effective since June 27, 2023 and requires reasonable accommodations and prohibits the denial of job opportunities incident to pregnancy from both public and private employers based on the need for such an accomodation. To illustrate, the law provides pregnant employees the right to obtain reasonable accommodations to go to medical appointments and to limit their job function incident to restrictions on movement, except if such function is an essential job function. Under the law, victims can file a charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), within 180 or 300 days (based on whether the applicable state has a Fair Employment Practices Agency), and then, after receiving a right to sue letter from the EEOC, they can sue their employers, in court, for back pay, front pay, emotional distress damages, punitive damages, and attorneys' fees. 

However, after the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act passed, the US District Court for the Northern District of Texas temporarily blocked its enforcement against the State of Texas, as an employer, based on arguments that it was passed unconstitutional by proxy voting in violation of the Constitution's Quorum Clause. Now, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals brought it back to life as against the State of Texas.

While this is great for pregnant Texas employees, pregnant employees throughout the United States should not just stop at leveraging this federal law when exercising their rights because this law is just a floor of rights under which other federal, state, and local laws may not fall.

For example, a pregnant worker in New York is also protected by the State's Human Rights Law, which has been protecting victims from pregnancy discrimination since 1974. In fact, the New York State Division of Human Rights has published a comprehensive Guidance on Pregnancy Discrimination and Reasonable Accommodations of Pregnancy-Related Conditions for Employers in New York State. The guidance explains that in 2015, the Human Rights Law was amended to expressly address the rights of those with a "pregnancy-related condition," rather than just affording those rights to the extent that pregnancy caused a disability, which was separately protected under the Human Rights Law. Under either route under the Human Rights Law, a pregnant worker can bring a case in state court or before an administrative tribunal at the Division of Human Rights while seeking compensation for the emotional distress, lost wages, and attorneys' fees incident to their employer's failure to accommodate their reasonable needs or if such employee experiences an adverse employment action due to their pregnancy status.

Even further, as of 2025, New York because the first state in the nation to offer Paid Prenatal Leave for prenatal care or any medical care related to pregnancy in an amendment to Labor Law 196-b. Now, privately-employed pregnant workers are able to receive an additional 20 hours of paid sick leave for prenatal care in addition to their existing sick leave, which includes physical examinations, medical procedures, monitoring and testing, and discussions with a health care provider related to the pregnancy. Interestingly, under this Paid Prenatal Leave law, employers cannot even ask pregnancy employees to disclosure confidential information about their health as a condition of use, which when exercised is to be paid at normal hourly rates and enforced by the Department of Labor. 

Additionally, and regardless of the state that the victim is located, other federal laws also protect pregnant workers from discrimination, including Title VII, which was amended by the Pregnancy Discrimination Act of 1978, and which prohibits discrimination based on pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions with respect to adverse employment actions. This law requires employers to treat pregnancy workers the same as other temporarily disabled employees and to provide health benefits to pregnant workers to the extent otherwise provided to other workers. Additionally, the federal Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) separately protects pregnant workers' pregnancy related conditions that qualify as a disability from discrimination. Both Title VII and the ADA are enforceable to the same extent as the federal Pregnant Workers Fairness Act, by filing a charge with EEOC and suing thereafter in federal court. 

Finally, pregnant workers should also pay attention to the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA), that provides unpaid job-protection for certain family and medical leave reasons, and the Providing Urgent Maternal Protections for Nursing Mothers Act (PUMP Act), which amends the Fair Labor Standards Act to give rights to nursing mothers at work, which is enforceable by private lawsuit, but with a 10 day notice for compliance provision. 

In all, pregnant workers enjoy a lot of job related protections and while the federal Pregnant Workers Fairness Act now being applicable to Texas state workers is important, employers and employees alike need to take a deep dive into understanding all of the applicable pregnancy employment rights before a misstep causes a very expensive lawsuit.

If you believe your employer has denied you pregnancy-related accommodations or treated you unfairly because of your pregnancy, you don’t have to navigate it alone. Lieb at Law, P.C. represents employees in New York, New Jersey, Connecticut, and Colorado in pregnancy discrimination and accommodation cases. Contact us today to protect your rights and explore your legal options.

EEOC Provides Clarifications on Religious Exemptions to COVID-19 Vaccine Mandates

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") recently released new guidance on religious exemptions to COVID-19 vaccine mandates. The new guidance provides clarifications regarding employers' and employees' obligations, including the following:

• In requesting a religious accommodation, an employee must specify that there is a conflict between the vaccine requirement and their sincerely held religious beliefs.
• If an employer has an objective basis to question either the "religious nature or the sincerity of a particular belief," the employer can seek additional supporting information from the employee regarding their religious beliefs.
• Objections to COVID-19 vaccinations based on social, political or personal preferences do not qualify as sincerely held religious beliefs.
• In assessing whether it can deny an accommodation request based on an undue hardship, an employer should consider factors such as whether the employee: works outdoors or indoors, works in a group setting, has close contact with other individuals, as well as the number of employees seeking a similar accommodation. 
• The employer can choose its preferred accommodation that would resolve the employee's conflict even if it is not the accommodation requested by the employee. 

Since every request requires an individual assessment of the employee's religious beliefs and potential burden to the employer, employers should seek the advice of legal counsel prior to making a determination.

New Tenant Disclosure Form on Reasonable Modification and Accommodation Required

Effective today, all owners, lessees, sub-lessees, or managing agent of housing accommodations are required to provide a reasonable modification and accommodation disclosure form to tenants pursuant to recent amendments to the New York State Human Rights Law.

Specifically, the new law requires the reasonable modification and accommodation disclosure form prescribed by the New York State Division of Human Rights (NYSDHR) be provided within 30 days of the beginning of a tenant’s lease or within 30 days of March 2, 2021 for all current tenants. The disclosure form must also be conspicuously posted on every vacant housing accommodation that is available for rent.

Seems simple enough, right? Apparently not. As of today, the disclosure form has not been published by NYSDHR and so, compliance by real estate professionals is currently impossible. Until NYSDHR prescribes a form, to reduce exposure, all leases should include language notifying tenants and prospective tenants of their right to request reasonable modifications and accommodations if they have a disability under the New York State Human Rights Law.

Victim of Domestic Violence experiencing PTSD deemed Disabled and entitled to Reasonable Accommodation under ADA

In a recent New York City Civil Court decision, the Court held that disability due to domestic violence can entitle a tenant to a reasonable accommodation under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).

Specifically, in Schuhab HDFC v. Delacruz (Case Number: 64402/17), the court held that the tenant’s post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) from domestic violence should entitle her to a probationary order as reasonable accommodation. Under the Fair Housing Act, a landlord is required to provide a handicapped tenant with a reasonable accommodation for the tenant to keep the apartment (42 U.S.C.3605(f(3)(B)). In this case, such reasonable accommodation was in the form of a probationary stay – instead of the tenant getting evicted right away, she was allowed to stay subject to several conditions to prevent any adverse effect to other tenants and guests.

As background, the case was commenced as a holdover landlord-tenant eviction proceeding by Schuab HDFC against the tenant on the grounds that the tenant used or permitted the premises to be used for the distribution and/or sale of controlled substances. The tenant’s defense was that she neither knew of or acquiesced to the illegal activity. She also requested the court grant her a reasonable accommodation in the form of a probationary stay in the premises as a result of her disability from being a victim of domestic violence.

The Court’s decision narrates and incudes the instances of domestic violence that the tenant suffered from her former partner, the resulting PTSD, and the circumstances which led to her partner’s use of the premises for drug activity as testified by the tenant. While considering the tenant’s testimony and her psychiatrist’s input, the Court agreed in finding that the tenant suffers from PTSD and such disability should entitle her to a probationary stay under the Fair Housing Act.

Consequently, the Court granted the landlord a final judgment of possession against the tenant and other occupants, but also granted the probationary stay in the tenant’s favor as a reasonable accommodation under the FHA. The tenant is required to exclude her former partner from the premises, avoid and preclude others from participating in drug-related activity in the premises for a period of two (2) years. In the event of a breach, Petitioner may move for the issuance of a judgment of possession and warrant of eviction.

Real estate professionals should be aware of this decision in order to ensure compliance with the Fair Housing Act and limit exposure to claims of discrimination for refusing to provide reasonable accommodations.

Bans Against Smoking May Discriminate Against the Elderly and Disabled

The Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) is proposing a ban on smoking in public housing units nationwide to protect residents from the dangers of secondhand smoke. Citing to the higher risks of cancer and other diseases associated with secondhand smoking, HUD Secretary Julian Castro stated that this policy would protect millions of Americans from preventable diseases every year. Additionally, it would save public housing agencies millions of dollars in repairs from fire and smoke damage caused by lit tobacco products.

The “castle doctrine” is a long-standing legal doctrine allowing individuals certain protections in his or own home. However, if HUD’s proposed ban is enacted, public housing will no longer be a castle for those residents who want to smoke in the privacy of their own homes. By conducting public health studies and hearing public comments, HUD is within its rights to create such a ban.

Many public housing agencies across the country have already implemented anti-smoking policies due to the HUD’s vigorous campaign to adopt such policies since 2009. However, this proposed ban would require all public housing agencies to conform to a non-smoking policy in not only the residences but also the indoor common areas, administrative offices, and within 25 feet outdoors of these units.

It is unclear how the rule will be enforced and what kinds of accommodations will be offered to smokers who already reside in these public housing units. Though the act of smoking lit tobacco products does not fall under a protected class, this policy may have a disparate impact on elderly and disabled smokers who cannot easily leave their homes every time they want a cigarette. If the elderly and disabled are unable to conform to the rule, they be forced out of their residences without any other place to go.

Secondhand smoke is a public health issue, but HUD must tread lightly to offer reasonable accommodations to those who already reside in public housing and who may not be able to abide by the new rule.  Otherwise, HUD may face a flood of discrimination lawsuits.