Search form

Massachusetts Strengthens Protections for Pregnant Workers

By Samia M. Kirmani and Brian E. Lewis
  • July 31, 2017

An amendment to the Massachusetts Fair Employment Practices Act, G.L. c. 151B, expressly includes pregnancy as a protected characteristic and expands accommodation requirements for pregnant employees. The amended law goes into effect April 1, 2018.

Requirements

The amended law expressly establishes pregnancy “or any condition related to the employee’s pregnancy, including, but not limited to, lactation or the need to express breast milk for a nursing child,” as a protected characteristic and requires that employers not discriminate against employees on the basis of pregnancy or conditions related to pregnancy (such as expressing breast milk). It further prohibits employers from retaliating against pregnant employees who request reasonable accommodation. Like other discrimination statutes, the new law makes it unlawful for employers to take adverse actions or deny employment because of an employee’s pregnancy or because she may require a reasonable accommodation. Employers also may not require pregnant employees to accept accommodations that are not necessary for them to perform their job or require them to take a leave of absence if alternative accommodations may suffice to meet their needs.

Reasonable Accommodations

The amended law affirmatively requires that employers provide reasonable accommodations to pregnant employees. The law provides several examples of reasonable accommodations, such as:

  • more frequent or longer breaks;
  • time off;
  • acquisition or modification of equipment or seating;
  • temporary transfers;
  • job restructuring;
  • light duty;
  • private non-bathroom space for expressing breast milk;
  • assistance with manual labor; or
  • a modified work schedule.

The law makes clear that employers are not required to discharge or transfer an employee with more seniority or promote an employee who is not able to perform the job with or without a reasonable accommodation.

The reasonable accommodation requirements under the amended law go further than those currently provided under current federal and state law. Under the Americans with Disabilities Act, for example, expectant mothers typically receive reasonable accommodations if they suffer from temporary medical conditions exacerbated by pregnancy, such as gestational diabetes. Under the amended Massachusetts law, pregnant employees may seek reasonable accommodations on the basis of pregnancy or childbirth, with or without the existence of related medical complications.

Under the new law, employers must engage in the interactive process to determine what reasonable accommodation may be required. Employers may seek and require documentation for certain, but not all, accommodations requested by the employee. The law specifically provides that employers may not seek or require documentation for the requested accommodation if the accommodation sought is more frequent breaks, seating changes, limitations on lifting more than 20 pounds, or a private space for expressing breast milk.

The new law also makes clear that employers are not required to provide an accommodation if doing so would result in an undue hardship on the employer. While the burden lies with the employer to prove undue hardship, the law enumerates the following four factors that should be considered in determining whether an undue hardship exists:

  1. the nature and cost of the accommodation;
  2. the financial resources of the employer;
  3. the size of the employer; and
  4. the effect and impact of the accommodation on the employer’s business.

Notice

The new law also provides explicit, written notice requirements. Specifically, employers must provide written notice — in an employee handbook or elsewhere — of employee rights under the new law. Such notice also must be provided:

  1. to new employees on or prior to their first day; and
  2. to an employee who notifies the employer of a pregnancy or of a condition related to pregnancy (e.g., lactation or need to express breast milk) within 10 days after such notification.

In addition, the law calls for the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination to provide “courses of instruction” and “conduct public education” on the law, provided that the legislature appropriates money for it to do so.

Next Steps

Employers should review their policies, practices, and communications as they relate to hiring, discrimination, accommodation, leave, and lactation so that appropriate notices are provided at hire and upon learning of an employee’s pregnancy or need for accommodation. As is the case with other compliance and employee-relations matters, employers should consider training Human Resource professionals and managers on their responsibilities under the new law.

If you have questions or concerns about the new Massachusetts law, do not hesitate to contact your Jackson Lewis attorney.

(We thank Summer Associate Matthew Chambers for assisting with this legal update.)

©2017 Jackson Lewis P.C. This Update is provided for informational purposes only. It is not intended as legal advice nor does it create an attorney/client relationship between Jackson Lewis and any readers or recipients. Readers should consult counsel of their own choosing to discuss how these matters relate to their individual circumstances. Reproduction in whole or in part is prohibited without the express written consent of Jackson Lewis.

This Update may be considered attorney advertising in some states. Furthermore, prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.

Jackson Lewis P.C. represents management exclusively in workplace law and related litigation. Our attorneys are available to assist employers in their compliance efforts and to represent employers in matters before state and federal courts and administrative agencies. For more information, please contact the attorney(s) listed or the Jackson Lewis attorney with whom you regularly work.

See AllRelated Articles You May Like

September 6, 2018

Refusing to Hire Medical Marijuana User Violates State Law, Connecticut Court Holds

September 6, 2018

Refusing to hire a medical marijuana user because she tested positive on a pre-employment drug test violates Connecticut’s medical marijuana law, a federal court in Connecticut has held, granting summary judgment to the job applicant on her employment discrimination claim. Noffsinger v. SSC Niantic Operating Co., LLC, d/b/a Bride Brook... Read More

August 8, 2018

New York Steps Closer to Legalizing Recreational Marijuana Use with Creation of Drafting Workgroup

August 8, 2018

New York Governor Andrew Cuomo is setting the stage to begin debate over the legalization of marijuana for recreational use during the 2019 Legislative Session. The current marijuana program, restricted to medical marijuana usage, was signed into law in 2014. On August 2, 2018, Governor Cuomo announced the creation of a workgroup to... Read More

July 23, 2018

South Carolina Issues New Pregnancy Accommodations FAQs and Anti-Discrimination Poster

July 23, 2018

The South Carolina Human Affairs Commission (SCHAC) has published Frequently Asked Questions on the new state Pregnancy Accommodations Act. It also has published a new anti-discrimination poster that includes provisions required under the Act. The Act amends the South Carolina Human Affairs Law to require employers with at least 15... Read More