More and more states require employers to provide workplace accommodations for pregnant workers, but the Roberts Court is poised to screw that all up.
Look closely at the footnotes, and you’ll see that new EEOC guidelines related to workplace pregnancy discrimination say employers who fail to cover birth control could be guilty of employment discrimination.
The Roberts Court is poised to clarify what employers must do to accommodate pregnant workers on the job. This could be terrible news.
A 6-1 ruling gives pregnant workers in Florida more legal protections from on-the-job discrimination.
Michigan lawmakers push through an anti-democratic new abortion restriction, while the Senate actually gets some work done.
The lawsuit is the latest in a string of actions across the country to try and address the systemic problem of on-the-job pregnancy discrimination.
When you’re pregnant, the last two things you want to have to worry about when you’re expecting a baby are your health and your income. The Pregnant Workers Fairness Act would help ensure that pregnant women are able to follow their doctor’s recommendations without worrying their bosses are going to squeeze them out of a job.
The legislation would address longstanding gaps of the Pregnancy Discrimination Act, which was enacted 35 years ago this month.
Even with a packed docket, the Roberts Court could find room to take up important cases on pregnant workers’ rights as well as a direct challenge to Roe v. Wade.
In addition to cases on abortion clinic buffer zones and legislative prayer, the Roberts Court may take up the question of whether, and when, employers must make temporary employment accommodations for pregnant workers.