Background and Key Requirements of the PWFA
The Pregnant Workers Fairness Act (“PWFA”) took effect on June 27, 2023, and is re-shaping workplace accommodation obligations for employees affected by pregnancy, childbirth, and related medical conditions.
The PWFA is designed to close longstanding gaps in federal law that left many pregnant employees without clear entitlement to workplace accommodations. Prior to its passage, employees often had to rely on patchwork protections under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Pregnancy Discrimination Act (“PDA”), and the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), none of which consistently required employers to provide accommodations for pregnancy itself. The PWFA addresses that gap by creating a freestanding, affirmative right to reasonable accommodation for known pregnancy-related limitations.
At its core, the PWFA requires covered employers—those with at least fifteen employees—to provide reasonable accommodations to qualified employees or applicants with known limitations related to pregnancy-related conditions, unless doing so would impose an undue hardship on the employer. The statute defines “limitations” broadly to include physical or mental conditions, even where those conditions are temporary or modest.
The PWFA is modeled in significant part on the ADA and incorporates a similar expectation that employers and employees will engage in an interactive process to identify appropriate accommodations, which can include relatively routine adjustments such as modified work schedules, additional or more frequent breaks, temporary job restructuring, light duty, or leave where necessary. At the same time, the statute prohibits employers from forcing employees to take leave when another reasonable accommodation would allow them to continue working and from retaliating against employees for requesting or using an accommodation, and the temporary elimination of “essential functions” is not considered an unreasonable accommodation. Importantly, PWFA does not replace other federal or state protections; rather, it expands the availability of accommodation rights specifically tied to pregnancy-related conditions – e.g., removing the requirement of “substantial limitation” found in the ADA.
Although the statute is still relatively new, early decisions from courts within the Eleventh Circuit provide meaningful insight into how employers should approach compliance and where litigation risks are most likely to arise. For in-house counsel, understanding these developments is essential to navigating the intersection of the PWFA with existing legal frameworks.
Early Eleventh Circuit Guidance
Courts are likely to treat denials of pregnancy-related accommodations as discrete employment actions, which can independently give rise to liability. In Lightfoot v. Wellstar Health System, Inc., No. 1:24-CV-01837-JPB-RDC, 2024 WL 6081827 (N.D. Ga. Dec. 6, 2024), the court considered an employee’s repeated requests for accommodations following a traumatic childbirth, including remote work, reassignment, and a phased return-to-work plan.. The employer denied these requests on multiple occasions, some before and some after the statute’s effective date. The court held that each denial—particularly those occurring after June 27, 2023—constituted a separate and actionable employment decision under the PWFA, rather than merely a reconsideration of an earlier denial. This distinction is particularly important for employers, as it underscores that repeated or ongoing accommodation discussions can create multiple potential points of liability rather than a single claim.
The Lightfoot court also addressed exhaustion of administrative remedies. Although the plaintiff’s EEOC charge focused on her disability rather than pregnancy, the court concluded that the PWFA claim could proceed because the underlying facts would have led a reasonable EEOC investigation to uncover the pregnancy-related issues. This reflects the Eleventh Circuit’s traditionally broad approach to exhaustion, under which courts look primarily to the facts alleged rather than the precise legal theory identified. For in-house counsel, this means that even seemingly narrow EEOC charges may encompass broader theories of liability, increasing the importance of evaluating claims holistically at the administrative stage.
At the same time, courts have made clear that not every workplace request connected to pregnancy or parenting will fall within the scope of the PWFA. More recently, in Coleman v. Father Flanagan’s Boys’ Home, No. 4:25-CV-49-AW-MAF, 2025 WL 4235381 (N.D. Fla. Apr. 25, 2025), the court dismissed a PWFA claim where the employee sought a remote work arrangement to accommodate childcare responsibilities after childbirth. The court emphasized that the statute applies to limitations arising from pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions—not to general parenting obligations or childcare needs. This distinction is significant, particularly as employers continue to navigate flexible work arrangements following the COVID-19 pandemic. While employers may choose to offer broader flexibility, the PWFA itself does not require accommodation of childcare concerns.
Another emerging theme is whether a delayed accommodation response can give rise to liability. In Gelinás v. Southern Dentistry, P.C., No. 1:25-CV-4-TFM-N, 2026 WL 738154 (S.D. Ala. Mar. 16, 2026), the court addressed a situation in which an employer eventually granted the employee’s requested accommodation—avoiding exposure to nitrous oxide during pregnancy—but did so only after some delay.. The court concluded that the failure-to-accommodate claim could not proceed because the employer ultimately provided the accommodation. However, the court also suggested that delay could be relevant; the timing and manner of the employer’s response may impact claims, depending on the circumstances. This reinforces the importance of responding promptly to accommodation requests and engaging in a documented, good-faith interactive process.
Similarly, the Gelinás decision is instructive in highlighting how PWFA claims often overlap with traditional Title VII theories. Although the failure-to-accommodate claim was dismissed, the court allowed claims for pregnancy discrimination and retaliation to proceed based on allegations that the plaintiff experienced reduced hours, diminished work opportunities, and unfavorable treatment after returning from maternity leave. This reflects a broader litigation trend: even where a standalone PWFA claim may be weak or unsuccessful, related claims under Title VII may still pose significant risk. As a result, employers must consider not only how they handle accommodation requests, but also how they treat employees before, during, and after pregnancy-related leave.
Practical Takeaways for Employers
Taken together, these early cases suggest that courts in the Eleventh Circuit are applying the PWFA in a manner consistent with other employment statutes, while also giving effect to its specific purpose of expanding accommodations for pregnancy-related conditions. Employers should expect courts to scrutinize whether accommodation requests were meaningfully considered, whether each request was treated independently, and whether any adverse treatment followed protected activity such as requesting an accommodation.
For in-house counsel, several practical considerations emerge. Employers should:
- Ensure that managers and HR professionals are trained to recognize and appropriately respond to accommodation requests, even when those requests are made informally.
- Formalize and document the interactive process, including the evaluation of potential accommodations and reasons for any decisions.
- Distinguish clearly between requests that implicate pregnancy-related medical limitations and those that do not, while still considering whether other policies or laws may apply; because the PWFA inquiry is different, employers should have different forms for PWFA v. ADA requests.
- Pay careful attention to post-leave employment actions, as many disputes arise from alleged changes to compensation, scheduling, or job duties after an employee returns from maternity leave.
Although the PWFA is still in its early stages of interpretation, the direction of the case law is clear: courts are willing to enforce its accommodation requirements, but they are also careful to define the statute’s limits. By proactively aligning policies, practices, and training with these evolving standards, employers can reduce exposure while supporting employees through pregnancy and related medical conditions in a legally compliant and practical manner.