Pregnancy discrimination: a real-world challenge
When Claire Danes became pregnant at the height of "Homeland's" success, did she lose her job? Of course not. The show made accommodations. Not all pregnant women are so lucky.
Pregnancy discrimination: a real-world challenge
When Claire Danes, star of the critically acclaimed Homeland, became pregnant at the height of the show’s success, did she lose her job? The pregnancy certainly did not fit into the plot of this action-packed thriller and could easily been seen as a serious impediment to character Carrie Mathison's ability to pursue and take down terrorists. But Danes continued in her role thanks to a clever wardrobe, strategic camera shots, and many other accommodations that the producers and directors made to work around her growing belly.
Not all pregnant women are so lucky.
Under current law, U.S. employers are not required to make even minimal accommodations for pregnant women, leaving many with no choice but to leave a job that they truly want or need.
How did we get here?
When Congress passed the Pregnancy Discrimination Act of 1978, women won the right not to be treated adversely because of pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions, and the right to be treated at least as well as other employees. Before that, women could (and were) fired simply for being pregnant.
While the law was hailed as a giant step forward for working pregnant women, it has become clear during the intervening years that it failed to adequately protect women from unreasonable treatment in the workplace. As a result of a loophole, pregnant women are protected from being treated differently than other workers but employers are not compelled to make reasonable accommodations for the pregnant women.
A lot of women - and a lot of employees - are affected by these issues: 65 percent of pregnant women and new mothers in Pennsylvania and New Jersey (70 percent in Delaware) were in the labor force in 2010, according to U.S. Census data cited by by the National Partnership for Women and Families. The National Women’s Law Center has documented cases of discrimination nationwide, ranging from one in which a woman lost her job because her employer refused to allow her to carry a water bottle at work, to others where workers were refused requests to be put on “light duty” (like not having to lift over 20 lbs.).
Other organizations that provide services for women have plenty of examples of their own. In our work at the Maternity Care Coalition, women have told us about supervisors who were unwilling to allow them to sit periodically (the American Medical Association recommends a break from standing every four hours) or to approve flex time so that they could attend appointments for prenatal care.
For low-wage workers, "the risks are greater and the stakes higher," says Charmaine Smith Wright, an internist and pediatrician at the Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania (and a member of our organization's board). Accommodations may not be made, and pregnant women may not ask for fear of being fired. "During pregnancy, all mothers are at greater risk for infections, anemia, blood clots, passing out, arrhythmia, depression, and domestic violence than any other time in their life. Simple modifications can decrease these risks, and fear of losing a job should not prevent modifications from happening,” says Smith Wright.
In September, Sen. Bob Casey (D., Pa.) and Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D., N.Y.) introduced the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act in their respective chambers of Congress. The bills (S. 3565, H.R. 5647) were intended to close the loophole and strengthen the 1978 law. “Pregnant workers face discrimination in the workplace every day, which is an inexcusable detriment to women and working families in Pennsylvania and across the country,” Casey said when the legislation was introduced. “My bill will finally extend fairness to pregnant women so that they can continue to contribute to a productive economy while progressing through pregnancy in good health.”
Like so many bills of the 112th Congress, the act never made it out of committee. This is bad news for Pennsylvania, which ranks among the top 10 states for pregnancy discrimination claims to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, and for Philadelphia, which struggles with high rates of chronic illness, maternal mortality and morbidity, and infant mortality and low birth weight.
We need to ensure that our pregnant citizens have the protections in the workplace that they need to support their – and their babies' – optimal health and well-being. The Pregnant Workers Fairness Act should immediately be reintroduced in the 113th Congress, sworn in last week, and quickly approved.
- Bette Begleiter and JoAnne Fischer
JoAnne Fischer is executive director, and Bette Begleiter deputy executive director, of the Maternity Care Coalition, a Philadelphia nonprofit that works to improve maternal and child health and well-being.
Read more about The Public's Health.
Here we go again. Look I believe that pregnant woman should get some special treatment. But you can't have it both ways. The woman's movement went too far and this is what you are stuck with. you can't stand there and say "we are no different that a man" which I don't believe either. There are reasons woman have babies and men don't. We are different. But like almost everything in the woman's movement they want it both ways. We want special treatment when it is to our benefit. I believe in respecting woman different starting with my mother. I have actually been yelled at for holding a door for a woman. "I can do that for myself" I believe that if a woman can do the same job as a man she should be paid the same. But if not then no. I mean the same job, not almost the same. Not comparing office skills to say mechanics skills.
— puddydawg- The republicans will never go for a law protecting pregnant women in the workplace. They figure they should be at home, not at work.— Bartleby
- In most cases, pregnancy is a choice. If that pregnancy impedes in your ability to do a job, guess what- you can't do that job. There's absolutely no reason for the world to stop spinning because someone decided their need for procreation trumped the needs of their coworkers. The world 'aint fair. Pull your weight or stay at home and be a mommy.— Santa Satan
- Really, your an idiot! — BristolTwp
- bristol-you don't know your contractions which makes you not so smart. Correction-"you're an idiot". — jophine
- Simple solution. As someone who manages a small business I will only hire women past child bearing age. Why should my business be expected to provide costly accommodations. Also, anyone with trendy, but worthless academic pursuits on their resume, such as "Women's Studies", African American Studies, GLBT studies are automatically viewed as disqualified and will not be considered under any circumstances. Why place the business in jeopardy by increasing the likelihood of costly litigation because someone I hired chose to be formally trained at having their offend-o-meter set on hair trigger alert.— jgalt52
- Depending on the size of your business, you are violating Title VII of the Civil Rights Act (42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2. (http://finduslaw.com/civil-rights-act-1964-cra-title-vii-equal-employment-opportunities-42-us-code-chapter-21#3). That being said, I hope someone files a complaint with the EEOC against you because that behavior is atrocious. — kp783
- Here we go with the 'it's not fair' again!.......you want 'fairness'?? Go to Utopia's like Cuba and Venezuela where everyone except politicians are treated 'fairly'. Let us know how it works out. Otherwise stop complaining!— keapitreal
- Like usual it sounds like only men are responding to this article and of course they respond negatively! TYPICAL!! you try having a baby grow in your stomach for 9 months and see what happens! I'll bet you would not make it the 9 months! SHame on you all for blaming women for getting pregnant! zNone of you would be here if women did not get pregnant!— avmjr
- avmjr, you just proved my point. There is a difference. You can't have it both ways. As far as the brilliant "if it wasn't for women none of you would be here" statement.. Uh it goes both ways Duh. People like you think you have acquired some special skill, giving birth. I hate to break it to you, while it is a beautiful. miracle of life, it is not some skill you acquired because of your great intelligence. It was given to you by God. You should be grateful for the gift.
— puddydawg - But the fact of the matter is, guys don't give birth, only females do. So in essense, it is a special skill. A little accomendation for preg women should be given. Of course assuming that the cost is minimal and the woman can still do her job compentently. After all, we are leader of the free world no? — penncrow19
- I hate to reak it to you men, but you just agreed you shouldn't be able to have light duty because you came back to work from a vasectomy, hernia, broken leg, broken arm, etc? LOL @ you! You also can't have it both ways!— BristolTwp
- Men have the luxury of being able to procreate whenever they want without having to miss a day of work. Good for you! It's a fabulous and wonderful luxury and I hope you really appreciate it. You get to have your careers and your families at the same time, and nobody implies that that's somehow an irresponsible decision on your part. Puddydawg and Satan Santa appear to be suggesting that women - because we bear the uterus in the family - should be forced to choose between having a family and a career, because requesting the ability to sit down every four hours for few months at the end of pregnancy would be overly burdensome for our employers. In 40% of American families, women are the primary wage earners; In 100% of American families, we are the primary child bearers. All we want is the ability to maintain both roles, in order to contribute to our families and society/the economy to the full extent of our abilities (i.e. even while carrying a near-term fetus, we will continue to perform just as well as our male counterparts at work; but only if you let us sit down every four hours).— Izzy812
- Wow, lot of women hating comments here. I would use the word misogynist but fear it would trip you up. Don't you guys have working wives? Didn't your mothers co-support your family when you were children? This is not the '50s. Women need to work today. The real choice is they can work and be treated fairly with a just few adjustments or (gasp) they can quit having babies.— iodine
- The FMLA entitles eligible employees of covered employers to take unpaid, job-protected leave for specified family and medical reasons with continuation of group health insurance coverage under the same terms and conditions as if the employee had not taken leave. Eligible employees are entitled to twelve workweeks of leave in a 12-month period for:
the birth of a child and to care for the newborn child within one year of birth. Adoption is also included.— tooly
